2015 Legislative Session: Fourth Session, 40th Parliament
HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Wednesday, May 27, 2015

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 27, Number 5

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

WEDNESDAY, MAY 27, 2015

The House met at 1:34 p.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

[1335]

Introductions by Members

J. Horgan: It’s not always with absolute confidence that we can stand and say there’s someone in the precinct that will actually be watching what we’re doing, but I have absolute certainty that this will be happening today when I bid farewell to John Thorp, who has been working at Hansard Services since 2001.

Tomorrow is his last day. He’ll be retiring, and I rather doubt he’ll be watching the proceedings very often after that point. But over the past 14 years John has been rising through the ranks of Hansard. He started as an operations technologist to become the supervisor of the whole darn thing.

His precision and accuracy, I believe…. I’m a bit biased, because I want to make sure that what comes out of my mouth is accurately reflected when it makes it to people’s homes. John and the people at Hansard Services do a spectacular job. I know all members of the House will agree with that.

Over the next little while John is going to continue his quest to find the best microbrewed ales in British Columbia and perhaps further afield.

Would the House please, for perhaps the last time…. Certainly, as I say, I rather doubt that John will be tuning in, in the fall to watch proceedings. But will everyone please put their hands together for John Thorp. Thanks for everything. See you later.

J. Yap: Madame Speaker, I have two sets of introductions. First of all, on your behalf, to introduce your guests for lunch today. From Richmond, from the International Association of Fire Fighters, local 1286, here today in the gallery, please welcome Cory Parker and Jeremy Duncan.

My second set of introductions. I have two good friends and constituents who are here in the gallery: Peter Boddy and Hagan Dietz-Rosales. Would the House please give them a warm welcome.

M. Karagianis: I see a lot of friends in the gallery today, but I’ve got two particular guests here that I’m really happy to see.

My first guest here is my constituency assistant who is currently on maternity leave. Jayne Ducker is here. Now, her little boy Logan, who is four months old, is currently just near my office with my legislative assistant, who happens to be the father. I was really tempted to go pinch the baby awake so that I would have an excuse to say he woke up and I had to pick him up. But I thought I’d have to bring him in here, and he might be a bit noisy.

Jayne is here, and she is joined today by her father, John Ducker, who, of course, has a long and esteemed career as a police officer here in Victoria. They are wonderful guests, and I would like us to give them a really warm welcome to be here today.

Hon. C. Oakes: It truly is my honour today to introduce a remarkable individual who is visiting us here today. Ursula Cowland — or Saint Ursula, as both sides of the House would like to acknowledge — has such a significant impact in communities across British Columbia through community gaming grants. She has worked with the B.C. Public Service for 35 years. I know that constituencies across the province recognize her contributions and say thank you, thank you, thank you. She is joined today by her husband, Dave.

Would the House please join me in welcoming them here today.

H. Bains: In the vicinity — I’m not sure whether they’ve made it to the gallery yet — there are 36 grade 11 students from North Surrey Learning Centre, along with Mr. Lindsay May and, I think, three other parents. If they’re not up there, please join with me and extend a warm welcome to them.

Hon. P. Fassbender: I also would like to welcome a special guest to the House here today. He is well known on both sides of the House as well as those in the press gallery. Scott Sutherland spent 28 years as a journalist. I understand he was thrilled when they brought in spell-check. For 14 of those years he worked in the halls of this assembly. I know that the staff in the gallery used to have to ask him to not lean over the ledge too much because he might have fallen over.

[1340]

I know that he worked on behalf of Canadian Press and Broadcast News. He served as president of the press gallery for eight years. Seven years ago he joined the province’s communications team, where he dedicated his considerable talents, experience and service to the Ministers of Education and Advanced Education.

As many of you may know, Scott is going to be retiring in a few weeks. I understand that he plans to spend more time with his three, soon to be four, grandchildren, his wife Marcia and his other love, which I understand is his boat: Scotia Blue. Would the House please join me in wishing Scott well in his future career and his time with his wife, his boat and his grandchildren.

C. James: I have a constituent visiting me today who
[ Page 8798 ]
has also joined our team here in the buildings as a new communications officer. She brings a wealth of experience, including her most recent work at the Greater Victoria Chamber of Commerce doing outreach and communications. Would the House please give a very warm welcome to Marielle Tounsi.

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: I’d like to welcome to the House today Abby Cronk, who is someone who played an integral role in the single-parent employment initiative that we announced in March. I’d like to thank Abby for her participation and support in that announcement.

She can certainly attest to the benefits of the new single-parent employment initiative as a tool to help single parents on income and disability assistance to ensure that they are securing meaningful employment to build a stronger foundation for themselves and their families.

Joining her today is also Maryann Anderson, Grant Kerr, Kelsey Singbeil and Daisy Brooke. Would the House please make them feel welcome.

N. Simons: I’d like the House to help me welcome Fred Storey and his wife Linda to the Legislature. Fred is a former senior public servant with the Ministry of Children and Families. Since his retirement he’s devoted himself to many pursuits, chief among them researching and writing the history of the rights and liberties of Anglo-Saxon England, which in turn formed the basis of the Magna Carta.

The Legend of Stor is timely, as the Magna Carta is going to be 800 years old this June 15. The Legend of Stor is published by Friesen Press. Would the House please welcome Fred and his wife back to the Legislature.

S. Sullivan: It is my pleasure to introduce a bright young woman from my riding named Olga Orda. She’s here to promote changes in legislation in memory of her much-loved pet, Leo.

First of all, Minister Amrik Virk led us, many MLAs, on a tour to see technology companies recently. Her company is Infinium Systems. Please welcome Olga Orda.

A. Weaver: I have a number of guests here today in the House who are going to witness the presentation of a petition of almost 109,000 signatures. They are Alexandra Morton, who many of you will know from the documentary Salmon Confidential. Later today, in the mail, I invite you to check for a copy of where you can now read about it. I’ll be delivering a copy of that to every MLA.

There’s Stan Porboszcz from Watershed Watch; Karen Wristen, ED, Living Oceans Society; Sabra Woodworth from Salmon Are Sacred; Eddie Gardner from the Skwah First Nation; Jeffery Young from the David Suzuki Foundation; Torrance Coste from Wilderness Committee; Dr. Jeff Matthews, president of Sea Shepherd Canada; Bonny Glambeck from Clayoquot Action; Joseph Martin, councillor from the Tla-o-qui-aht; and Dawn Morrison from the Indigenous Food System Network. Would the House please make all of them welcome here today.

Hon. A. Virk: Somewhere in the precinct today are 40 grade 10 students from the Surrey Learning Centre, some of them from all over Surrey, including my own riding. Their teachers, Deb Swain, Val Sanny, James Johnson and Mark Miratech, have brought them here to learn about parliament. Would the House please make them feel welcome.

[1345]

D. Routley: Joining us today from overseas on Gabriola Island is Michael Brown. Michael Brown is the owner of Village Liquor Store on Gabriola. He’s a fine constituent of mine. He grew up in Vancouver and spent many years in England as a pub manager. In fact, he was a relief pub manager, so I think he’s managed somewhere in the order of 25 English pubs, which gives him an amazing experience and expertise.

He’s a board member of the Harbour City Football Club, a soccer organization in Nanaimo. He was PAC president of Gabriola Elementary and involved in the Woodlands Elementary PAC.

He’s currently organizing the voices of independent liquor store owners like himself, who are very concerned over the issue of wholesale pricing and the impact it’s having on responsible employers, like Michael Brown, who provide important cogs to our local economies. We’re all hoping that the minister and the government will hear the voices that he’s organizing.

P. Pimm: I’d like to introduce a class of grade 11 students from North Peace Secondary in Fort St. John who joined me earlier today in the precinct. They travelled with their teacher Nathan Biller and are visiting some colleges and universities on their trip as well. Please help me welcome them to the precinct.

C. Trevena: I’d like to join the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head to welcome Alexandra Morton to the gallery, a constituent of mine, a very highly respected activist and biologist who has been fighting for many years to protect wild salmon. She’s obviously here to continue that fight. I hope the House will make her as welcome as the people on Malcolm Island and in North Island do.

G. Kyllo: What does the phrase “sugar and spice and everything nice” bring to mind? Well, little girls, of course, which leads me to two introductions I’d like to make today. First, I’d like to introduce to the House Miss Nova May Georgina Benty, my third granddaughter, born a little over a week ago on Sunday, May 17, to my daughter Brittany and her husband, Allan Benty, of
[ Page 8799 ]
Sicamous. My lovely wife, Georgina, and I couldn’t be more proud, as are Allan’s parents, Leonard and Brenda Benty, of Sicamous. Would the House please give a very warm welcome — my newest granddaughter.

My second introduction is yet another special little girl, my grandniece McKinley Marie Lamouroux, born on Monday, May 25, to my nephew Travis Lamouroux and his wife beautiful wife, Ashley, of Red Deer, Alberta. Would the House please extend a warm warning to my grandniece McKinley Lamouroux.

S. Fraser: I’d like to join my colleague from Oak Bay–Gordon Head in welcoming two constituents. Bonny Glambeck is a friend of mine and has helped to educate me on everything environmental and dealing with sustainability. Joe Martin, a councillor for the Tla-o-qui-aht First Nation, has been the most stellar ambassador for the west coast, helping to educate so many people about Nuu-chah-nulth wisdom and traditional ecological knowledge. I want this House to please join me in helping both of them to feel very, very welcome here.

L. Throness: I’d like to welcome Chris Gadsden, from my riding, today. Chris is very active in the Chilliwack Vedder River Cleanup coalition. It regularly mobilizes hundreds of volunteers to remove tonnes of trash from the Chilliwack River Valley. The coalition has hosted, up until now, about 43 cleanup events in the last decade. Could the House please welcome Chris Gadsden and thank him for his outstanding community service.

Tributes

TED McWHINNEY

S. Chandra Herbert: I rise to inform the House of the passing of Edward — well known as Ted — McWhinney, a longtime — well, two-term — MP, constitutional expert, a constituent of mine and a true gentleman. I first met Ted when I was, well, let’s say younger than I am today, back in 1993 when he was first seeking office. Later, when I became an MLA, he provided me much good advice on what to do as an elected official. He’ll be well missed in our community, the West End, which he called home.

I hope the Speaker and this House will join me in acknowledging his service to our country, and pass on our best wishes to his family.

Introductions by Members

L. Reimer: In the precinct today we have a group of grade 11 students, 42 of them, with their teacher, Mr. Troy Cunningham, as well as five parents. Would the House please make them very welcome.

[1350]

M. Dalton: In the gallery we have a couple of very distinguished guests from India joining us, Anand Kumar and his brother Pranav.

They have a mathematics school in the slums of the state of Bihar that prepares impoverished teenagers for India’s best universities. They charge virtually nothing and accept no government finances, because they want to show that even the poorest of the poor can be successful. The results have been incredible, providing hope and a future for hundreds of students.

One of their programs is called Super 30. Thirty students are chosen and all of their living expenses covered. The Discovery Channel, the Globe and Mail, the New York Times and Time magazine have all reported on them.

Anand has three bodyguards in India with machine guns because there have been two attempts on his life. He has been seen by some as charging too little for the education that he offers.

With them is Dr. Biju Matthew from Pitt Meadows, who is the president of the South Asian Cultural Society, and president-elect of the B.C. Psychiatric Association. Also, writer Robert Prince from Maple Ridge. Robert and Biju are writing a biography on Anand Kumar and his school, to be published by Penguin Books. All of the proceeds will go to the school to support more students.

Would the members please make these guests feel welcome.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: I hope the House will join me in welcoming Jeremy Ojay and Emily Irwin. They are from the senior executive team of a company called D2L, which provides many of our higher education institutions in this province with learning technology, and they maintain their office in Richmond, B.C.

Madame Speaker: Minister of Energy.

Hon. B. Bennett: My understanding was that I would deliver this statement after QP.

Madame Speaker: It’s absolutely your call. Thank you.

Introduction and
First Reading of Bills

BILL M224 — AGRICULTURAL LAND
COMMISSION (PROTECTION OF
AGRICULTURAL LANDS) AMENDMENT
ACT, 2015

L. Popham presented a bill intituled Agricultural Land Commission (Protection of Agricultural Lands) Amendment Act, 2015.

L. Popham: I move that the Protecting Agriculture Lands Act, 2015, of which notice has been given in my name on the order paper be introduced and read for a first time now.
[ Page 8800 ]

Motion approved.

L. Popham: The purpose of the Protecting Agriculture Lands Act is to require owners of ALR lands to seek the permission of the Agricultural Land Commission if they wish to operate an afforestation carbon offset program. This bill also grants the Agricultural Land Commission the authority to decide if applications for carbon offset programs are in the best interest of agriculture.

This bill amends the Agricultural Land Commission Act and the Land Title Act.

This bill is being introduced to address one of the latest challenges facing the ALR — the practice of buying up prime farmland, covering it with trees and turning it into carbon sinks.

Food lands are for food production, and forest lands are for forests. According to the Forest Practices Board, we have somewhere between one and two million hectares on B.C.’s timber harvesting land base that needs to be reforested. Planting trees on farmland for carbon offset programs is a loophole in the ALR that needs to be closed by legislation.

The ALC’s mandate is to oversee and protect the ALR while encouraging food production. Currently thousands of hectares of food lands are being planted with trees, contradicting the ALC’s mandate. This is an urgent issue that requires immediate legislative action. At a time when there are serious droughts in California and Washington, it has never been more important to protect our farmland and to bring it into production.

Over 10,500 hectares of ALR land are being used for carbon offset schemes by one offshore corporation, and they don’t plan on stopping. Farmers are watching land being bought and taken out of production all around them. Farmers in the Cariboo, specifically, have lost B.C. agricultural opportunities to a corporation in the UK.

The Protecting Agriculture Lands Act would empower the Agricultural Land Commission to better monitor, regulate and protect B.C.’s farmland.

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

[1355]

Bill M224, Agricultural Land Commission (Protection of Agricultural Lands) Amendment Act, 2015, 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)

SCHIZOPHRENIA AND PSYCHOSIS
AWARENESS

Moira Stilwell: Last Sunday organizations from across Canada came together to mark Schizophrenia and Psychosis Awareness Day and encourage all Canadians to help eliminate the stigma surrounding these disorders.

One percent of our nation’s population lives with schizophrenia, and many will experience a psychotic episode in their lifetime. Schizophrenia affects a person’s ability to think clearly, manage emotions and interact with each other, confusing the senses so that it’s difficult to tell what is real and what is not. It often presents itself in teenagers and young adults, causing hallucinations, delusions and paranoia.

With proper treatment and support, individuals with schizophrenia can live happy, fulfilling lives. By increasing awareness and encouraging better education on early diagnosis and management, we can make a big difference in the quality of life for schizophrenia sufferers and their friends and family.

Our government has made early diagnosis a priority through the early psychosis intervention program, which provides resources for psychosis sufferers looking for services and support. The program also offers the psychosis toolkit, an interactive tool that helps users understand their condition, manage symptoms and connect with other people suffering from similar conditions.

Schizophrenia does not discriminate. It affects more than 15,000 British Columbians, regardless of ethnicity or economic status. It can be a very scary experience for sufferers and their loved ones. But there is hope. By talking openly and compassionately about these conditions, we can raise awareness, encourage early diagnosis and promote the message that psychosis is a treatable condition and that recovery is possible.

WEST POINT GREY
RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION

D. Eby: We have a large package of public land in my constituency, half-owned by the provincial government, half-owned by the federal government. The Jericho lands have been host to a military base, a community centre, a school and countless dogs, walkers and Frisbee players for many years.

Earlier this year when my Vancouver–Point Grey community office learned that both the federal and provincial portions of the property were up for sale and development, we needed to act quickly to let the community know what was happening. To do so, we only had to knock on the door of our friends at the West Point Grey Residents Association.

Chaired by Phyllis Tyers and run by a 12-person, volunteer-based board of directors, the West Point Grey Residents Association was formed in 2012 after an amalgamation with the North West Point Grey Homeowners Association, which had been in existence for 57 years.

When we called to see if they could help us organize an event, it turned out that the residents association was already busy organizing a meeting to discuss
[ Page 8801 ]
these critical developments and to ask for community consultation and input on any proposed developments. Seemingly overnight this dynamic community group brought together over 400 neighbours in the gymnasium of the West Point Grey Academy to talk about the future of the Jericho lands.

Thanks to their initiative, what started as an event with just one speaker ended up as a panel of diverse speakers, including me, their MLA; as well as the Canada Lands Co., developing the federal half of the lands; and a provincial government representative. And for the first time, there was a presentation from First Nations leaders from the Musqueam, Tsleil-Waututh and Squamish people.

Whether it’s promoting the Point Grey Fiesta, sharing neighbourhood news or coordinating all-candidates meetings for municipal, provincial and federal elections, the work of Chair Phyllis Tyers and the entirely volunteer West Point Grey Residents Association ensures that neighbours are informed, that they have all the information needed to make decisions and that their interests are protected and promoted.

Thank you to Phyllis and all of the members of the West Point Grey Residents Association for your work on behalf of our community.

SKILLS TRAINING PROGRAMS IN
NORTH OKANAGAN–SHUSWAP SCHOOLS

G. Kyllo: The career programs in the North Okanagan–Shuswap school district have earned a reputation for excellence across B.C. and, in fact, nationally. The district was asked to take part in the development of the B.C. skills toolkit for the Ministry of Education. They have been asked to share their expertise at provincial conferences and have presented on the national stage.

They are regularly asked for feedback from the province’s Industry Training Authority on youth programs, and was one of only one of three districts to pilot the ITA’s mentorship project. School district 83 clearly grasps the reality that young people must receive the proper training for many of the jobs that will be in demand for skilled workers in the coming years, and it’s doing just that for students of the Shuswap.

[1400]

Although there are several reasons for the district’s success in career programs, one gentleman stands out at the head of the class. His name is Mark Marino, the longtime career supervisor for school district 83. Mark is reluctant to acknowledge his impact and would be the last person to toot his own horn about his and the school district’s many accomplishments. That’s why I’m doing this here today.

Because of Mark’s guidance, schools in the Shuswap are being approached by employers looking to forge partnerships and to look for students to work for them. Just this month an employer contacted Salmon Arm Secondary School because he had a contract to build over 300 docks. The employer was aware of the school’s welding students and wanted them to apply because he was aware of the school’s outstanding program.

Our time limit prevents me from sharing more examples of the school district’s success in career programs under Mark Marino, but suffice it to say he is exactly the type of person that our province needs for grooming our next generation of workers. I ask this House to join me in recognizing the remarkable achievements of Shuswap’s Mark Marino.

FIJI DAY CELEBRATIONS IN SURREY

S. Hammell: Bula bula. Our local Fijian community will be achieving a great milestone this summer at their seventh annual Fiji Day celebrations. It has been officially announced that the Prime Minister of Fiji, the hon. Mr. Bainimarama, has accepted our invitation to officiate in the Fiji Day celebrations this year in Surrey. The celebrations will take place from August 7th through to the 9th and will be held at the Newton Athletic Park in Surrey.

This is the first time a prime minister of Fiji has visited Canada since the Republic of Fiji gained independence in 1970. The most recent elections were held September 20, 2014.

The celebrations will be taking place very close to my constituency, and I can already sense the excitement. The three-day celebration is full of live music and entertainment from Fijian artists and will even showcase great local talents, including Bollywood and Polynesian performers. The celebrations will also feature an annual soccer tournament, and they will include a Miss Fiji Canada pageant.

I have seen tremendous growth in the local Fijian community, and each year this celebration grows exponentially. Like all festivals in Surrey, the Fiji Day celebrations are welcoming of everyone from all different backgrounds, cultures, religions and nationalities.

I’m very honoured to be part of this celebration, and I want to extend an invitation to everyone in this House today. Surrey is a culturally diverse and welcoming community, and I encourage all of you to enjoy and experience this great celebration.

SUMMER EVENTS IN DAWSON CREEK

M. Bernier: July 12 is going to be a busy day in the city of Dawson Creek. It’s been over 20 years since the sound of live outdoor local music has echoed through the streets of the city. We have incredible local talent, and thanks to local organizer Jeremy Linklater, that talent is going to converge on downtown. He is working with local artists, young and old, to hold Dawson Creek’s Music Festival and to make a fun, free family event.

This music will probably be a little loud for some, but that will help it to be heard over the other event that’s
[ Page 8802 ]
taking place at the same time, where the city of Dawson Creek’s downtown will be closed off for the 21st annual Summer Cruise show and shine. This event has turned into a premiere event, with hundreds and hundreds of gorgeous classic cars from all over, coming to the city to show off their rareness and their beauty. I’m still trying to figure out if my 30-year-old Pontiac Fiero qualifies, but I know I will be inviting up the Minister of Finance to show off his aged-out Mazda Miata.

Thanks to Blaine Massey and the dozens of volunteers, this will once again be a successful event with yet another reason to plan a trip to Dawson Creek for that weekend. It will be a weekend to get out, to walk around and to look at some beautiful cars, all to the backdrop of being entertained by local music. And for those who are asking me: no, I can’t grow my hair, and my band will not be making a reunion tour for this event.

I’d like to thank, again, all of the local volunteers and the organizers. Without them, events like this in our communities could not take place.

[1405]

WOMEN IN SPORT

S. Robinson: I’m proud to stand in this House to talk about 2015 as the Year of Women in Sport. What better way to acknowledge this than to remind everyone that the Women’s World Cup starts in just about ten days in Vancouver. It’s an opportunity for everyone to gather together with family and friends and watch amazing athletes compete at the highest level.

Women from all over the world, countries like Australia, Germany, Cote d’Ivoire, Ecuador, Korea and Thailand, are sending their top athletes to play on behalf of their nations. We’ll see women working together to achieve their goals. We will see cooperation, collaboration and competition. We will see teamwork. We will see hard work. We will see respect — respect for each other and respect for the game.

Local governments from across Canada have stepped out to acknowledge 2015 as the Year of Women in Sport. Here in B.C., Burnaby, Vancouver, the district of North Vancouver, the city of North Vancouver, Richmond, Maple Ridge and Surrey have all proclaimed 2015 as the Year of Women in Sport.

B.C. businesses and non-profits have also acknowledged the year 2015 as the Year of Women in Sport. Businesses like CBI Health Centre in Surrey, Burnaby More Sports, the Vancouver Squash League, the Surrey Women’s Centre, Cythera Transition House, North Shore Aquatic Society, North Vancouver Minor Hockey, Tri-City Transitions Society, Sport B.C., Audacious Living in Surrey, Micro Footie in Vancouver, Key Innovations in Surrey, Hockey Players for Kids in Vancouver and Maximum Impact Training and Development in Surrey have all acknowledged 2015 as the Year of Women in Sport.

These businesses and organizations recognize the power of sport and the importance of supporting and encouraging women to be the best athletes they can be. All this came about because one woman, Linda Diano, with the Power in Sport, made it so. Congratulations to Linda and to all those who recognize the value of women in sport. They all know and we all know that everyone wishes that they could play just like a girl.

Oral Questions

YOUTH DEATH CASE AND
GOVERNMENT SUPPORT FOR YOUTH
IN CARE AND AGING OUT OF CARE

J. Horgan: “This is the story of a real girl, a real person — a person who deserved much better from the society in which she briefly lived…. Paige’s life was a case study in chaos.” Very powerful words from the children’s representative in her report released to this Legislature last week.

About Paige, she said the following: In grade 7 her report card said that she was “a bright student whose life outside school makes it impossible for her to achieve her academic…potential.” By the time she was 16, she had moved no less than 40 times. She was repeatedly sexually abused and cared for by adults in homes that were not capable of giving her the care that every child in British Columbia deserves. “A total of 17 different social workers across B.C. had responsibility for her file before she aged out…, fearful and utterly unprepared for what lay ahead.”

Paige died shortly after she was forced out of the foster home that she had, the only home that she had really known in her 19 years. She didn’t want to go, the foster parents didn’t want her to leave, but government policy required that that be the case.

My question is to the Premier: what steps has she taken since receiving the report from the children’s representative about the tragic, tragic life of Paige to make sure that no other stories like this are duplicated in the days and weeks and years ahead?

Hon. C. Clark: I take the member’s question, the sincerity in his voice…. I certainly share the deep concern he has expressed about Paige’s life and her loss of life. The system should have done better by Paige. The system, where it needs to, needs to do better by all the children that we serve.

I was horrified to learn of the details of Paige’s all-too-short life on this earth. She deserved better. Social services staff and social workers worked hard, were well intentioned and did the best that they could. But the system didn’t work. So the ministry is now working on a rapid response team, in particular, to address issues faced by young women and young people in the Downtown Eastside and make sure that kids get out of those situa-
[ Page 8803 ]
tions as quickly as possible and that those children have a regular continuity of care throughout the system.

[1410]

That’s what we have always been working for, and Paige’s tragic, tragic death reminds us that we haven’t gotten there yet. We have more, much more, to do.

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

J. Horgan: This is, as a parent…. I know the Premier, as a parent, and all British Columbians are just heart-wrenched at stories like this. And I know that it’s very difficult to raise these issues in a political forum. It’s tough. It’s tough for the opposition. It’s tough for the government. It’s tough for the people of British Columbia. But it’s just not good enough to continue to come up with: “We’re going to try harder.”

When the Premier was on this side of the House 20 years ago, she said: “If there is one commitment government should live up to, it’s the one about the safety of children.” That was the Premier over here.

My question today to the Premier is: what tangible steps are you taking to make sure that children that are absolutely unprepared for the harsh world…? Whether it be the Downtown Eastside or Fort St. James or Merritt or Kitimat or any other community in British Columbia, what steps will she take to ensure that kids that are not prepared at 19 are still going to get real supports at 20, 21, 22, 23?

Hon. C. Clark: We are working on…. And before news of Paige’s death became public, we were already working on the solutions to the issues that the member has raised. We’ll certainly have more to say about that in the coming weeks and months. We want to make sure that that is done right.

He is right about this. That is one of the greatest responsibilities of government: to look after the people who are vulnerable in our society. There are few people more vulnerable than children living in poverty, dealing with addiction in their homes and their families in the Downtown Eastside.

We should have done, the government should have done…. And I should note that in Paige’s short life, just to give some context to it, there were six Premiers in the period over which the system failed her. We need to do better. We are working on making sure that we integrate better police, social workers, health authorities.

We are also working on supporting better access to mental health and addictions services, especially focused in the Downtown Eastside with the new and revitalized and relocated St. Paul’s. We think that that will make a difference. The rapid response team will make a difference. But that can’t be the end of it.

The member is right. We have a lot more work to continue to do. These jobs that social workers have are very, very tough indeed. The challenges are tough. They are very complex. But that doesn’t mean that we should turn away for a second from doing everything that we can to address them and protect those kids.

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

J. Horgan: I appreciate the Premier’s comments and her words. But Paige moved 50 times in the last three years of her life, not over the course of 19 years but 50 times over three years. And again, when the Premier was on this side of the House she said: “The allocation of resources is always, at the end of the day, a political decision. It is always a political decision.”

Through you, hon. Speaker, to the Premier: it needs political will. It needs more than ensuring that we have the appropriate programs in place. It means that we have resources to ensure that when children, vulnerable children, turn 19 that we don’t just say, “Off you go,” which is exactly what happened to Paige. Absolutely unprepared for the world that she was dumped into. Absolutely unprepared to meet the challenges that many of us see in our communities each and every day.

So if it’s just about political will and it’s just about the allocation of resources, which is what the Premier said over here when we were discussing these issues two decades ago, will she take that political step today and make a commitment in Paige’s memory that children unprepared at 19 for the harsh realities of the cold streets of British Columbia, every corner of British Columbia, will not be forced out of the homes that may well have been the only homes they’ve had, that they can truly call that, in their tragic, tragic lives?

Hon. C. Clark: Madame Speaker, the political will on this side of the House is certainly there with the Minister of Children and Families, the Health Minister, Minister of Social Development — all of us working together to make sure that we do everything that we can to protect vulnerable children.

Paige’s story is especially tragic because it isn’t just a story about what happened at the end of her life or toward the end of her life. It’s a story that began when she was three years old, and I believe I was sitting on that side of the House when this story began — sitting in opposition and questioning the government exactly as the Leader of the Opposition is today.

It’s the story that we saw in the report of a system that failed Paige for over 16 years, and that’s not good enough. We need to do better than that.

[1415]

In answer to the member’s question about children and young people when they age out of the old system, we are working on that. But in answer to the member’s question overall, we need to address the full range of services that
[ Page 8804 ]
were not there or were not appropriately implemented to support Paige over the 19 years of her life.

That’s the reason that we’re beginning with this rapid response team in the Downtown Eastside. That’s the reason we’re moving St. Paul’s and creating more addictions spaces. That’s the reason we’re going to create more addictions spaces all over in other hospitals across the province. That is the reason we’re going to work very hard to try and integrate the service providers, particularly around the Downtown Eastside, to ensure that situations like Paige’s aren’t ones that happen again in a province as wealthy and as blessed as British Columbia is.

D. Donaldson: “The child protection system failed utterly to prepare Paige for adulthood. The transition process was not a process. It was a passing of responsibility and an indifference to her circumstances.” The government “left her abandoned and…with none of the crucial supports she desperately needed.” Those are the words of the children’s representative.

We know there are other children in B.C. just like Paige who need our help now — not in six months, when a rapid response team might be in place. Like Paige, these children aren’t ready to face the world alone without a stable family and without our support. Will the Premier today commit to stop pushing youth out of care at age 19?

Hon. S. Cadieux: As we’ve canvassed before, the transitions for youth who have been in care to adulthood are especially difficult. The transition to adulthood is challenging for any child, but for a child without the support of a family and consistent, solid adult figures in their life, it is that much more challenging. We have acknowledged that.

We’ve been working for the last…. Well, since I’ve become minister, we’ve been working on looking at the system of supports that we have, comparing what other jurisdictions do, what might work better. And in fact, we have been consulting with youth, talking to youth about what it is they think would improve the system.

We’ve gained a lot of knowledge in that time. We have implemented some new programs. We’re going to continue to make changes and continue to improve how we support youth. It is a difficult transition time. We can do better, and that work is underway.

Madame Speaker: The member for Stikine on a supplemental.

D. Donaldson: In the past the Premier stated: “The blame for a lack of resources must always lie at the political level. It takes political courage to fight for resources. It takes guts to stand up in cabinet and say, ‘I want more resources for my ministry.’ And it takes the will to persuade your colleagues to get them.”

Based on what she said, we have to conclude the Premier and her cabinet were not persuaded to provide the necessary resources to prevent the death of a young First Nations girl like Paige. Will the Premier now do the right thing and step in and ensure that not one more child dies in B.C. because they were forced out on their own at 19?

Hon. S. Cadieux: This isn’t about money. This is about a system of supports, a significant number of different types of supports — from housing to income to education to substance abuse counselling to health to post-secondary. It’s about a system that exists and is ready and wanting to support youth but isn’t necessarily connecting with youth in the way that it needs to.

[1420]

That is the work we are doing — to help to make those connections stick earlier, to help wrap around youth from an earlier age to ensure that they are involved in and engaged in and want to receive the services in a way that makes sense for them. They are young adults. They have a say in how they receive services. But we want to make sure that we’re listening to how they need to have those services provided so that we can do a better job of making sure they’re connected to them.

J. Rice: The minister has just said it. The Premier has just said it. The system should have done better. The system failed Paige. The system that this government is responsible for failed in their duty to care for and protect Paige. The system is staffed with people, and people on that side of the House can do better.

Will the Premier ensure that no other youth in this government’s care experiences the kind of trauma and neglect that Paige experienced?

Hon. S. Cadieux: The situation that the member raises, again, is one we’ve canvassed considerably, and rightly so. It is a tragic depiction of a system that failed. We know that. We have acknowledged that. It is a system that for 20 years repeatedly failed to meet the needs of this young girl and her family.

We need to learn from that, and we need to make changes. That is what we are doing, but there’s nothing more I can say.

Madame Speaker: The Member for North Coast on a supplemental.

J. Rice: Nothing more she can say. The independent Representative for Children and Youth noted: “If a parent in B.C. had treated their child the way the system treated Paige, we may be having a debate over criminal responsibility.”

Serious failures demand serious reforms. Will the Premier do the right thing and stop forcing children out of care at age 19?

Hon. S. Cadieux: Again, the system that we have in
[ Page 8805 ]
British Columbia provides for supports for youth leaving care up till their 24th birthday. We already have supports in place that match, equal or exceed the other jurisdictions in Canada. That doesn’t mean we’re not looking at what more we can do. But the system has to work better to ensure that children are accessing, youth are accessing the supports that exist. That is what we’re working to do.

C. James: The system isn’t working. When the minister was asked directly about new resources when the new ages were taken on for children aging out of care, the minister said there were no new resources. There were not new supports. They were going to manage with the existing resources.

Well, that’s exactly the problem. The supports are not in place for children like Paige. The Ministry of Children and Families doesn’t even appear to have a handle on how many other children are in the same circumstance as Paige. But what we do know is that there are too many children suffering in British Columbia.

I’d like to ask the Premier directly: will she act today? Specifically, will she direct the Ministry of Children and Families to examine every case of every child who turns 19 this year and ensure that those children have the supports that they need?

Hon. S. Cadieux: Once again, we are reviewing things we have reviewed here many times before. The reality is that we are dealing with British Columbia’s most vulnerable citizens and their families. That work is difficult work. Our social workers do yeoman’s service to continually reach out, work with these families, provide supports to families to attempt to build their skills around parenting, to try to keep families together.

[1425]

When we have to, we bring children into care for their own protection. When that happens, we do our absolute best to ensure that those children are prepared for the future that lies ahead. We have programs in place to assist them with housing, with education, with counselling, with other supports. We believe we can do better in making sure that youth access those supports, and those are the conversations that we’re having with youth.

Madame Speaker: Victoria–Beacon Hill on a supplemental.

C. James: I would agree with the minister that this is difficult. That’s all the more reason to pay attention to this issue, because it is difficult and these are vulnerable children. The government is responsible for these children.

I can’t tell you how many reports have come forward in the ten years I have been in this Legislature where the minister and the government have stood up and said, “we’re going to act,” and nothing changes for these children. Nothing changes.

These children cannot afford to wait. There are youth who will be aging out this month and next month and the month after that. They don’t have time to wait for help from this government.

Again to the Premier: will she do the right thing and ensure that every one of those children aging out gets the supports that they need now?

Hon. S. Cadieux: We are working with the youth that are in our system. We are talking to them actively. We are working with them on their transition plans.

Much has changed over the past 20 years, over the past 15 even, with a new Child, Family and Community Service Act with much broader powers and much deeper regulation in terms of how and when we intervene with families, and why, and a much more stringent oversight process to ensure that this ministry, which is dealing with British Columbia’s most vulnerable every day, has appropriate and thorough oversight.

There will always be things we can do better. We will continue to work on improving those things.

OPEN-PEN FISH FARMS AND PROTECTION
OF SALMON FROM DISEASE OUTBREAKS

A. Weaver: The Cohen commission recommended that fish farms not be located on sockeye salmon migration routes, yet this week millions of sockeye fry will be migrating past fish farms in the Discovery Passage and Broughton Archipelago.

Scientific research has suggested a link between fish farms, lice outbreaks and the spread of diseases like piscine reovirus, salmonid alphavirus and the infectious salmon anemia virus. The spread, obviously, of such diseases would have grave environmental, cultural and economic consequences for the province of British Columbia, let alone Canada.

Finally, a first in North America, the ’Namgis Nation on northern Vancouver Island is farming Atlantic salmon at a land-based facility without posing any disease or sea lice threat to wild salmon.

To the Minister of Agriculture: what is the government doing to stop the expansion of open-pen fish farms in the ocean and to promote the creation of more operations like the one the ’Namgis Nation operates?

Hon. N. Letnick: Thank you to the member opposite for the question. Our government is committed to the socially and ecologically responsible management of B.C. fisheries, including an environmentally and economically sustainable aquaculture industry for the benefit of all British Columbians.

We place the health of all wild fisheries, including salmon, as paramount. That’s why the government works with our federal counterparts and aquaculture operators to monitor for diseases and is prepared to implement a
[ Page 8806 ]
prompt, coordinated, science-based response if necessary.

I just want to remind the members opposite that the Supreme Court of Canada has already ruled that the jurisdiction of licensing is that of the federal government and tenures is that of the provincial government.

The approval for licensing on the federal government side is quite high. They look for applications that can be rejected for anything to do with biotoxins, water quality, impacts to the environment, impacts to spawning areas, cumulative impact to fisheries and impact to navigable waters.

It’s also very high on the province’s role. We accept Land Act applications for new salmon aquaculture sites from companies that demonstrate world-class standards for resource sustainability.

[1430]

A. Weaver: Thank you to the minister for referring to the Supreme Court ruling, which in fact actually ensures that the province continues to retain jurisdiction over issuing land tenures that designate the area a fish farm will occupy.

Although section 8 of the land use operational policy for aquaculture cites the provincial government’s sustainability principles as informing leasing decisions, current operating practices indicate these values are not being adequately applied.

Earlier this month the federal court ruled against an aquaculture licence condition that allowed diseased fish to be transferred into open-pen fish farms, and DFO — that’s federal, of course — has been given four months to fix this policy. Nevertheless, there remains provincial jurisdiction.

Given that we currently lack the regulations needed to verify the presence and control the spread of pathogens in farmed salmon, will the Minister of Agriculture today commit to stop granting new licences of occupation for this industry on sockeye salmon migration routes?

Hon. N. Letnick: Again, I have to repeat that the government is committed to the socially and ecologically responsible management of B.C. fisheries. That’s why we employ two of the outstanding experts in fish biology right here in British Columbia. That’s why we have the great lab in Abbotsford — to make sure we continue testing for fish diseases.

The federal government is conducting a surveillance program on ISA, as the member has said, and the status of three viruses on the west coast — ISA, IHN and PRV. So far all results were negative, no virus.

When we look at IHN, they tested a total of 1,300 B.C. wild salmon and trout for IHN in 2012-2013. Again, all were negative, no virus.

Sea lice are native to B.C. waters, like many other wild animals which have a population cycle trend. What they find is the more that come during one season, the more potential for sea lice in the following season.

Once again, we take very seriously our role in the provision of licensing and also in tenuring. We will continue to hold those values very high to make sure that our wild salmon are protected in British Columbia.

CORONER'S INQUESTS INTO
MILL EXPLOSIONS AND
CALL FOR PUBLIC INQUIRY

S. Simpson: The Lakeland inquest has now concluded. The families, we know, wanted an independent inquiry to determine responsibility and look critically at the role of WorkSafe B.C. in this tragedy that led to two deaths and over 20 injuries. The Premier and the minister rejected that request and endorsed sending the matter to the coroner’s inquest.

The families then asked for legal counsel to ensure their questions were asked. That was denied by government as well.

The inquest jury has now concluded and presented non-binding recommendations, primarily on operational matters. But we know they were forbidden from addressing or answering the family’s questions because of the coroner’s process. The families and workers are frustrated by a process that was destined not to provide the answers to their questions.

What does the Premier say to those families and workers who believe this process has failed them?

Hon. S. Bond: I know that we’ve discussed this topic a number of times, not only in this House but during the estimates process. All of us certainly…. Our hearts are very saddened by what happened at both Babine and Lakeland.

We have made ongoing commitments to work to improve safety in mills across British Columbia. That started with a significant report by Gord Macatee, who provided 43 recommendations. We’re very pleased that he retains the position of oversight — looking at the report, looking at the recommendations.

The moment that we received the recommendations from the inquest, the Premier made it very clear that our job was to take every single recommendation seriously. We already have a template where we are looking at each recommendation. Our ministry will be looking at the overall government response in each ministry where there is a recommendation.

[1435]

We know this — that there is nothing that we can do that will replace the lives that have been lost and the pain that those families have suffered. What we can do is be vigilant about the recommendations that have been provided both by Mr. Macatee and by the inquest jury.

Madame Speaker: Vancouver-Hastings on a supplemental.
[ Page 8807 ]

S. Simpson: While we know that the recommendations of the jury will provide for operational improvements, we also know that the families, the victims and the workers need closure. They are not getting closure from this process.

The Babine inquest will be held in July in Burns Lake. The families there are bracing for the same disappointment. This community there feels abandoned, to the point where Maureen Luggi, the widow of one of the victims, has started fundraising so that they can hire legal counsel. Ultimately, the families at Babine believe — like the families at Lakeland now know — that they will not get the resolution they’re seeking without an independent inquiry.

The Premier has an opportunity today to acknowledge the inadequacy of this process to answer these questions. If she’s not prepared to put an independent inquiry in place, will the Premier at least pay for legal counsel for the families in Burns Lake so that they can have a voice?

Hon. S. Bond: As difficult as it is…. The member opposite has been very sincere in his conversations with the families. I’ve certainly met with them as well very recently, with victims whose lives have been changed forever. But I can tell the member opposite that I think there are very few things that will ever bring closure to families, to communities, to all of us.

We have said clearly that not only will we continue to be vigilant with changes at WorkSafe — and I can tell you that Mr. Macatee regularly reviews and updates publicly the progress that’s been made at WorkSafe — but we also intend to take every single recommendation seriously, to move forward. As I said to the member opposite earlier, we have already started a cross-government approach to the recommendations that have been provided.

We can simply say today that we will continue to work to improve worker safety in British Columbia. We recognize that it has been unbelievably difficult and traumatic for those families, and we are committed to improving workplace safety in British Columbia.

[End of question period.]

Ministerial Statements

SITE C POWER PROJECT

Hon. B. Bennett: Today I rise to provide an update on the most important public infrastructure project in a generation. This summer construction will begin on the Site C clean energy project. It will take eight years to build and, once complete, will provide low-cost, reliable and clean power for over 100 years.

A few weeks ago B.C. Hydro selected the preferred proponent to build the worker accommodation for Site C. The camp will house approximately 1,600 workers. It will be self-sufficient, with high-quality facilities to attract and retain highly skilled workers from British Columbia and the rest of Canada.

B.C. Hydro also recently awarded a contract for site clearing that will create 40 local jobs to a Chetwynd company that employs many members of the Saulteau First Nations. These two contract announcements represent just a small fraction of the opportunities that are being generated by the Site C project.

In the months and years ahead B.C. Hydro will award contracts for the site preparation for the main civil works — the turbines and generators, the generation station and spillways, and the substation and transmission lines. There will also be contracts for local transportation improvements and housing investments. Together, these contracts will provide thousands of jobs for British Columbians.

Today B.C. Hydro announced an agreement with the B.C. Building Trades that will ensure that all British Columbians will build this historic project together.

[1440]

The people of B.C. deserve to know where we, as members of this House, stand on this important project. That’s why today I will be tabling a motion in support of the construction of the Site C project. A majority of British Columbians are saying yes to this project. I hope that all members will join me today in saying yes to this motion and to the construction of this unique and historic project that will secure a century of affordable, reliable and clean power.

A. Dix: We’re seeing in action Liberal energy policy which, as the old quotation says, repeats itself first as tragedy, then as farce. W.A.C. Bennett and Bill Bennett and Dave Barrett and Bill Vander Zalm and Mike Harcourt and Glen Clark and, yes, Gordon Campbell agreed on one thing. The way you build these projects to benefit British Columbia, on time and on budget, is that project labour agreement.

Why do you have project labour agreements on these projects? They ensure local hires. They ensure First Nations hires. They’re best for productivity. They’re the best for safety. They’re the best for qualifications. They’re the best for apprenticeships. They’re the best for on time and on budget.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members. Members.

A. Dix: That’s why you have project labour agreements on these projects. This government has recklessly abandoned that principle. Of course, the building trades unions are doing the best to represent their workers under those circumstances. But these projects should be built as those projects were built — with project labour agreements.
[ Page 8808 ]

We have seen what would happen under this government. I am surprised that the author of the 50-30 formula on capital projects at B.C. Hydro, the Minister of Energy, who described Liberal decision-making this way…. He says: “Typically what we do is come out with a number, and they’ll say it could be 50 percent higher or 30 percent lower.” It’s the minister’s 50-30 formula. That’s how he describes their planning in this matter.

With respect….

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members. The Chair will hear the response.

A. Dix: This is the way the minister plans projects. If you apply his principle, his planning approach to Site C, it could be somewhere between $6 billion and $14 billion. That’s the Minister of Energy’s formula.

When they decided to exempt the northwest transmission line from BCUC approval, people in B.C. paid the price for their incompetence. When they decided to exempt their so-called clean energy plan from BCUC approval, people of B.C. paid for their incompetence to the tune of $1.4 billion. When it comes to smart meters, the people of B.C. have paid for their incompetence to the tune of $900 million.

In the last few days we have seen people put the minister’s numbers to the test, and they’ve come up with a failing grade. If they believe in their numbers, they should follow the law and refer the project to the BCUC for approval. They don’t want to hear from anybody else. The people of B.C. know….

Interjections.

A. Dix: There they go again. This is their approach to energy policy — to make the most massive mistakes in history and then try and shout down people who are opposed to what they do.

The fact of the matter is our position is as clear as it could be. We believe in project labour agreements, and we believe the Site C project should be referred to the BCUC so that their analysis is tested, as it should be under the law.

[1445]

A. Weaver: Hon. Speaker, is this a motion that we are to debate on the floor as of now?

I’d like to quickly respond to the motion before I introduce the petition.

Interjections.

A. Weaver: No room? To the statements.

Interjections.

A. Weaver: No?

Madame Speaker: Please present your petition.

Petitions

A. Weaver: Okay. I will present a petition.

I would like to present a petition on probably the most irresponsible fiscal decision the government has ever made in the B.C. Legislature. This is a petition by 108,848 people who are asking the government to please not issue licences of occupation to salmon farms trying to expand in British Columbia. The rationale for that I outlined in question period.

This petition very clearly identifies the wishes of British Columbians. This petition, I hope, is listened to by the government of British Columbia.

Madame Speaker: Is that a second petition, Member?

A. Weaver: It is.

Madame Speaker: Please proceed.

A. Weaver: I have a second petition.

Now, this is a petition of over 100 business organizations across the province who are essentially supporting the 109,000 individuals who signed this. These business organizations are small businesses, umbrella organizations, environmental organizations, fly fishing organizations, river societies, sailing societies — numerous societies across British Columbia.

They are asking the following: “We, the undersigned, are convinced by the published scientific evidence that open-net salmon farms are a threat to B.C. wild Pacific salmon….”

Hon. C. Oakes: I seek leave to table three reports.

Madame Speaker: Please proceed.

Tabling Documents

Hon. C. Oakes: I have the honour to present the 2013-2014 annual report on the Islands Trust, the Property Assessment Appeal Board’s report and the B.C. Assessment Authority’s annual service plan.
[ Page 8809 ]

Motions Without Notice

APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE TO
REVIEW THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION
AND PROTECTION OF PRIVACY ACT

Hon. M. de Jong: By leave, I move two motions, which I think have been circulated, relating to the special committee to be appointed to review the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. As I say, I believe the motions setting out the terms of reference have been circulated to the official opposition and the independent members of the Legislature.

[That a Special Committee be appointed to review the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (RSBC 1996 c. 165) pursuant to section 80 of that Act, and that the Special Committee so appointed shall have the powers of a Select Standing Committee and is also empowered:

(a) to appoint of their number one or more subcommittees and to refer to such subcommittees any of the matters referred to the Committee;

(b) to sit during a period in which the House is adjourned, during the recess after prorogation until the next following Session and during any sitting of the House;

(c) to adjourn from place to place as may be convenient;

(d) to conduct public consultations by any means the Committee considers appropriate, including but not limited to public meetings and electronic means; and

(e) to retain personnel as required to assist the Committee;

and shall submit a report, including any recommendations respecting the results of the review, to the Legislative Assembly within one year of this resolution being adopted by the House; and shall deposit the original of its reports with the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly during a period of adjournment and upon resumption of the sittings of the House, the Chair shall present all reports to the Legislative Assembly.

That the said Special Committee is to be composed of Don McRae (Convenor), Eric Foster, Sam Sullivan, Jackie Tegart, John Yap, Kathy Corrigan, David Eby, and Doug Routley.]

Leave granted.

Motion approved.

APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE TO
APPOINT A MERIT COMMISSIONER

Hon. M. de Jong: Secondly, with leave, I move the appointment of a special committee to select and unanimously recommend to the assembly the appointment of an individual to hold office as the Merit Commissioner. Again, I believe the motion has been circulated to members of the House or their representatives.

[That a Special Committee be appointed to select and unanimously recommend to the Legislative Assembly the appointment of an individual to hold office as the Merit Commissioner for the Province of British Columbia, pursuant to section 5.01 of the Public Service Act (RSBC 1996, c. 385);

The said Special Committee shall have the powers of a Select Standing Committee and in addition is empowered:

(a) to appoint of their number one or more subcommittees and to refer to such subcommittees any of the matters referred to the Committee;

(b) to sit during a period in which the House is adjourned, during the recess after prorogation until the next following Session and during any sitting of the House;

(c) to adjourn from place to place as may be convenient; and

(d) to retain personnel as required to assist the Committee;

and shall report to the House as soon as possible, or following any adjournment, or at the next following Session, as the case may be; to deposit the original of its reports with the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly during a period of adjournment and upon resumption of the sittings of the House, the Chair shall present all reports to the Legislative Assembly.

That the said Special Committee is to be composed of Marvin Hunt (Convenor), Doug Bing, Laurie Throness, Harry Bains, and Claire Trevena.]

Leave granted.

Motion approved.

[1450-1455]

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: In this chamber, Committee of Supply — for the information of members, estimates of the Office of the Premier.

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: OFFICE OF THE PREMIER

The House in Committee of Supply (Section B); R. Chouhan in the chair.

The committee met at 2:57 p.m.

On Vote 10: Office of the Premier, $9,028,000.

J. Horgan: I thank the Premier and her staff assembled here today for the next number of hours as we explore not just, of course, the budget allocation in the blue books but also to look broadly, I believe, at government policy — as the head of the executive council.

Most particularly, the issue I want to begin with, having with us today the head of the public service, the Deputy Minister to the Premier, on hand…. It’s useful, I believe, to British Columbians to have discussions like this. Quite often — as you know, hon. Chair, and members on both sides will know — the public’s exposure to discussions and debates around the objectives, goals and aspirations of government tends to come in the six o’clock news in packages of adversarial discussions around the issues that are topical for the day in question period.

It’s good to be in the main chamber. It’s been a few years, I think, since we’ve had Premier’s estimates in the main chamber. I recall last year being on the third floor, wishing that there was air conditioning in 1895 when
[ Page 8810 ]
they built this building. And now here we are in this resplendent hall to have a discussion about the Premier’s estimates, about the Premier’s objectives, what the government’s policy thrust will be in the coming year.

I believe to do that there needs to be a bit of a retrospective. I think we need to look back on the past year and the year forward to ensure that we have a clear understanding of what the Premier’s objectives are.

I know that people who observe politics, people who observe government, oftentimes hear their political leaders making promises about this, making promises about that. What I hope to do today is to explore some of the promises that the Premier has made on behalf of her government and have a bit of a report card on just how well that’s going.

[1500]

The first one that springs to mind was the result of a public policy decision, a government decision that would have been, certainly, part and parcel of the job description of the head of the public service in 2012, when seven public officials and an eighth, a contractor, were fired by government. There was a leak to the media about actions of individuals. There was discussion of an RCMP investigation.

Now, one can well imagine…. I think regular folks at home can understand that if they’re at work one day and the next day they’re told they’ve been summarily fired and, more importantly than that, that they are now under RCMP investigation, that’s going to cause, certainly, some distress in those families. Regrettably and tragically, with respect to this particular file, one individual, Rod MacIsaac, took his life.

Along with Rod were Dave Scott, Ramsay Hamdi, Bob Hart, Malcolm Maclure, Ron Mattson, Rebecca Warburton and Bill Warburton. With respect to Mr. MacIsaac, not only was he terminated from his position, he was paid $482.53 for outstanding work remaining in his contract.

The insult, of course, of that led to his sister, Linda Kayfish, and her spouse, Doug, coming to Victoria and to this chamber and holding a conference that raised public awareness of the issue and led to the Premier appointing an investigator, one local lawyer who was referred to in the House today, Marcia McNeil.

Ms. McNeil conducted her review with limited terms of reference. I wrote to the Premier at that time and urged her to give Ms. McNeil powers of subpoena, powers to compel testimony. Regrettably, that was ignored.

The promise from the Premier, hon. Chair, if I could read it to you, was: “It’s important that this review be thorough. It’s important that we get to the bottom of it. That is what, by the end of October” — it turned out to be the end of December — “we hope to be able to do.” That was the promise.

What was the reality? Well, at the end of 2014, Ms. McNeil tabled her report and said the following:

“Two of the most difficult questions I considered during my review were who effectively made the dismissal decisions, and what factors were considered. These questions remain unanswered. Although the deputy minister signed the letters of dismissal” — and that’s referring, of course, to the Deputy Minister of Health, which was the former position held by the current head of the public service —”for each of the employees, no one has taken responsibility for making the effective recommendation to dismiss the employees.” Instead, they most likely had effective recommendations all pointed to someone else.

I’m going to be spending some time on this, so I hope that the Premier is well prepared and her staff are ready to answer these questions.

The Premier said that she was going to get to the bottom of this. Ms. Kayfish came here with two simple questions: “Who fired my brother and why?” We spent a sum of money to retain counsel, to retain a reviewer. That reviewer was unable to get anyone to take accountability.

A promise that says “get to the bottom of it,” in my world, and I think in the world of most British Columbians, suggests accountability. Why is it that the Premier allowed this report to be tabled without any accountability?

Hon. C. Clark: Well, I’d like to take the opportunity again to thank Ms. McNeil for her report. In her report she certainly found that there was a lack of due process. I agree with that. I recognize that. As a result, we are acting on her report to make sure that the due process that wasn’t observed in the government, in this case, is addressed. That should not have happened, and it should certainly never happen again, and that is our goal.

J. Horgan: I think that although that was a very brief response from the Premier, falling back on the talking points from last December — “We appointed someone, they came back and told us something, and we’re going to accept it” — what the report said was: “No one would take responsibility. I was unable to compel people to talk. There was no paper trail of any consequence.”

In fact, one section of the report was completely redacted. That’s now referred to as appendix D. In appendix D we now learn — all of this, of course, kept from the public at the time — that on September 5, counsel, that being the Attorney General, sent e-mails to the Public Service Agency confirming that no advice had been sought regarding whether there was just cause for dismissal.

Now, I’ve worked in government at senior levels of government. I understand that you don’t make decisions without a paper trail. You certainly don’t fire people without seeking legal advice.

[1505]

You’ve got a building full of lawyers that are just waiting to have questions asked of them — and a very simple one in this instance, when you have besmirched the repu-
[ Page 8811 ]
tation of seven individuals, you have alleged an RCMP investigation is underway. Certainly, you would have received or sought legal advice.

As the Premier has at her disposal the head of the public service, can I ask her why it was that when we’re tarnishing the reputations and affecting the lives of seven individuals — regrettably, Rod MacIsaac, in a moment of despair, took his own life — why wouldn’t the government of British Columbia seek legal advice on whether or not these were wrongful dismissals?

We know that they were not. Most of the individuals in question — Mr. Hart, Mr. Maclure — have been returned to their positions. Mr. Mattson has been given an apology. He decided: “I don’t want anything to do with you people. I’m going to retire.” Two cases remain before the courts, and two individuals have had apologies but have not been reinstated to their positions.

I think the issue here is: why would the people of British Columbia have any comfort at all that senior officials in government…? These are powerful people — deputy ministers, Premiers, cabinet ministers. Why in the world would they take action without seeking even limited legal advice on whether or not they were on the right track?

Hon. C. Clark: Well, of course, I want to again…. Ms. McNeil’s report was a very thoughtful and incisive report. It was very helpful, and of course, it was very balanced. We intend…. We have been implementing or acting based on the recommendations she offered in that report.

The member points out that processes were not properly followed. He’s quite right about that. Ms. McNeil said that in her report. I accept her comments about that, and we’re acting to make sure that we address the issues that she raised with respect to process.

J. Horgan: Again, I hope that the Premier will listen carefully to the questions that I’m asking of her. I appreciate that she has talking points. She has a binder full of quotations that she’s able to stand up and read back.

This is the beauty of this process. And for those watching in the gallery and those watching at home, this is an opportunity to demonstrate that you have a genuine understanding of the files that are before the people of British Columbia, that you have a genuine understanding of how to respond to issues that are absolutely grotesque.

In this instance we had government officials, particularly in the public affairs bureau or the government communications branches, issuing a press release after leaking information to one news source — putting in a press release that an RCMP investigation was underway. We now know, based on the non-redacted appendix D to Ms. McNeil’s report, that counsel, the Attorney General, recommended against making any reference whatsoever to the RCMP because in fact there was no RCMP investigation underway.

Why would it be that now, months after receiving this report, there has been no acknowledgment that a clutch of people in the Premier’s office made a decision to fire seven individuals, to besmirch them, to wreck their lives, when they had advice that said, “Do not talk about the RCMP,” but they did it anyway?

Hon. C. Clark: Well, the truth is that Ms. McNeil found that there were serious breaches of policy — that the public service did not respond appropriately to the allegations of misconduct and that we need to be able to make sure that we do it better was the recommendation that she made.

The decision-making process didn’t follow the model that public service has for investigations into allegations of serious misconduct and didn’t follow best practices for those investigations — things that the member has pointed out. I agree with that. That’s why we’ve taken her report and intend to make sure that we will learn from it, that we will change the way that the public service works. We thank her very much for that report.

J. Horgan: Can the Premier confirm that public affairs officials, one of whom was working in her office at the time, issued a press statement saying that there was an RCMP investigation underway, even though the Attorney General’s ministry advised against it?

Hon. C. Clark: I can confirm that the press release the member refers to was issued, although I don’t believe it was issued from my office.

[1510]

J. Horgan: Again, the Premier is the head of the executive council. Ministers report to her. Deputy ministers report to the person sitting on her immediate right, who also happens to be the head of the public service.

We had a public shaming of seven public officials. It is inconceivable to me, based on my personal experience. inconceivable, I believe, to most British Columbians that such an activity could take place without senior officials putting their hands it.

With respect to the specific question I asked, does the Premier understand that her public servants allowed a press release to be issued contrary to the wishes of the Attorney General’s ministry because it referred to an RCMP investigation that was not underway?

Hon. C. Clark: Well, if advice was provided, I certainly can’t share that with the House today, but I will say this. Certainly, the member is correct that the press release did go out. Again, I want to reiterate the fact that on the government side of the House, I personally have apologized, as has the Minister of Health. We very much regret what happened and are taking every step we can to make sure that we address it.

That’s why we asked Ms. McNeil to look into the issues at hand and come back with a report. She pointed out some very serious issues with respect to due process. We’re grateful for the work that she did because it allows us to be able to take steps forward and try and address the problems that she pointed out so that it does not happen again.

J. Horgan: I’m going to get back on this line of questioning, but I will seize upon a comment the Premier made. She said that she apologized. Did she contact Linda Kayfish and speak to her directly? Did she contact the individuals in question — Dave Scott, Ramsay Hamdi, Bob Hart, Malcolm McClure, Ron Mattson and Rebecca Warburton? Or did she stand up and say, “Hey, I’m sorry,” and then sit back down again?

Hon. C. Clark: I think the member knows the context of my apology. It was issued on behalf of the government in this chamber. I know the Minister of Health contacted some of the individuals affected directly as well.

J. Horgan: Again, I’d like to go back to the Premier on the context. Perhaps she can refresh my memory. What was the context of that apology? Did it include the individuals that I just named?

Hon. C. Clark: If the member can’t recall, I’m not going to add to it.

J. Horgan: Well, fine with me. If the Premier can’t remember who she was apologizing to when she made the apology, that’s her business.

Let’s go to the RCMP investigation. We’ve been canvassing this issue for some time. It’s a critically serious point, in my view, of how government asserts its power as employer.

In many instances there are people in British Columbia who don’t like governments. They’re fearful of large entities that are unaccountable. This whole sordid affair reinforces that lack of accountability.

When a government — senior individuals in a government — can destroy lives on a whim and then not be accountable for it, it’s little wonder that the public has a lack of confidence in our public institutions.

I’d like to go back to the RCMP investigation. The Premier, although this is not apparent to those watching at home, is surrounded by officials that were working in her office at the time who were absolutely critically aware, based on freedom-of-information requests that we have tabled, that meetings have taken place with senior officials on this subject.

Could the Premier tell the people of British Columbia today why it is that she allowed a press release to be issued, with the full support of the people that are surrounding her right now, that besmirched and smeared public servants who were just doing their job trying to make people’s lives better?

Pure, raw health research — not spin, not press releases, not self-promotion, but actually trying to help people by making sure that appropriate drugs were tested, that appropriate drugs were approved and that public health was satisfied.

That’s a simple question. Why did you smear them? Why did you not recant when you made this apology that you now don’t want to talk about?

Hon. C. Clark: I have spoken about the apology quite a few times on behalf of the government. I will say this is a very serious issue. The member is right about that.

What Ms. McNeil reported for us told us exactly how serious it was and offered us a path to make sure that we could try and address the process issues that she identified. We intend to do that.

But as the member talks about lives that have been destroyed and how important it is for government to stand up for people, he should think about the lives that were destroyed while he was advising a government that had record unemployment, lowest private sector investment in the country, that sent our province into a debt spiral that took us years and years to get out of.

[1515]

Those people who had to leave our province because they couldn’t find work, whose lives and livelihoods were destroyed by New Democrat decisions — those people had their lives destroyed.

So the member should get up and perhaps think about what he says, because those policies, perhaps some of them the direct result of his advice and his actions, affected thousands and thousands of British Columbians. Hopefully, most of them have found a way to come back. But when you talk about destroying lives, there was a decade in British Columbia when so many thousands of people found their lives irreparably damaged by work that he did.

J. Horgan: I appreciate the Premier is wanting to blame everyone else for something that happened in a land far, far away. What we are doing today, I’m sure you’ll be reminding us as the afternoon progresses, is dealing with the decisions of the government of British Columbia today — the decisions and the policy thrust of the government of British Columbia today, not some magical time in the past that the Premier has conjured up as a defence. It’s quite startling that it only took 15 minutes before she got to hyperbolic stage 3.

I’d like to come back, if I could, to the question at hand. Advice was given by the Attorney General’s ministry — as I’ve said, a building full of lawyers, capable people all. That advice was do not — do not — make reference to an RCMP investigation that is not going on. And it happened anyway.

My question back to the Premier on the question that’s before us in the Legislature today — not 20, 30, 40, 60 years ago: why is it that the government did what the Attorney General told them not to do?

Hon. C. Clark: Well, I’ve already responded to that question.

With respect to the land, land far away, I notice that the member wants to run far, far away from the land far, far away. Not that far in the past for many British Columbians to forget.

He’s right. It is interesting that it took me 15 minutes to get on to talking about the economy. I’m not surprised that the member hasn’t talked about the economy yet. He hasn’t shown much appetite for it in the entire time since he’s taken over on that side of the House as leader.

I am quite happy to talk about the economy and to talk about those issues relating to jobs, putting people to work, family-supporting jobs. I look forward to the member finding the time at some point, because he doesn’t do it in question period, to start addressing the issues that are so critical to British Columbians in terms of jobs, the economy, their futures and their children’s futures.

J. Horgan: Mr. Graham Whitmarsh was the Deputy Minister of Health at the time of the wrongful terminations of seven individuals. Mr. Whitmarsh met with John Dyble, the head of the public service, to discuss these issues. Mr. Dyble had, in fact, been the Deputy Minister of Health at the time the allegations originally surfaced about the individuals in question and the privacy information that was the root of the challenge.

Mr. Whitmarsh says that advice was sought and the advice was: “Do not proceed.” Mr. Whitmarsh said that the Premier’s office was intimately involved and that the deputy of corporate initiatives at the time, Ms. Mentzelopoulos, overrode those decisions coming from the Attorney General’s ministry and issued the release anyway. Someone is not telling the truth. Perhaps the Premier could enlighten us on just who that is.

Hon. C. Clark: I just want to be clear about what Ms. McNeil said in her report as we continue on this topic: “Mr. Dyble received a general briefing regarding the investigation, and it was well in advance of the decision to fire the Ministry of Health employees. And he” — Mr. Dyble — “had no role in the decision.”

J. Horgan: I think the Premier may not have the appropriate documents in front of her. The quote that she just read is from the Deputy Attorney General, Mr. Fyfe, not from Ms. McNeil. It references Ms. McNeil, but it’s not from Ms. McNeil, so perhaps we can get the people over there to scurry through those documents and get the right piece of paper for the Premier.

But, again, someone is not telling the truth. Someone is not telling the truth, and I want to know if the Premier has an opinion on just who that might be.

[1520]

Hon. C. Clark: The member is quite right in correcting me.

J. Horgan: Mr. Whitmarsh says the following: “I can see you are in a difficult….” This is in a letter to Ms. McNeil in the process of her investigation. Pardon me, it’s to Lynda Tarras, who was at that time the head of the public service — the Public Service Agency, as opposed to the head of the public service — and who Ms. McNeil reported to.

“I can see you are in a difficult position, having been directed to undertake the review. Your immediate supervisor, John Dyble, is also seriously conflicted in this matter. You and I, both individually and together, briefed John on many occasions during the course of the investigation.

“While his involvement was much less than your own” — making reference to Ms. Tarras — “he was involved in some of the key decisions and the timing of some of the key events. In addition, he was the Deputy Minister of Health at the time many of the actions that were the subject of the investigation happened. The original investigation never looked in depth above the executive director level.”

In other words, they were scapegoating at the time. That’s the subtext here. That’s Mr. Whitmarsh.

Mr. Fyfe, on behalf of Mr. Dyble, says the following: “I have been advised” — he’s a lawyer, mind, so he has been advised; he’s not asserting; he’s saying he was advised — “that while Mr. Dyble received a general briefing regarding the investigation, it was well in advance of the decision to fire the Ministry of Health employees, and he had no role in that decision.”

Mr. Fyfe is, in writing to Ms. McNeil, saying that he does not know as fact but that he has been advised of one thing. Mr. Whitmarsh asserts something quite different. I’m not bringing Mr. Fyfe into this. This comes down to the deputy to the Premier and the former Deputy Minister of Health. Someone is not telling the truth. Perhaps the Premier can advise us on just who that is.

Hon. C. Clark: Well, why not bring Mr. Fyfe into it? The member is quite happy to drag professional public servants’ names through the mud whenever it’s politically convenient for him to do so.

The individuals he has spoken of today are people who have met the highest standard of public service in our government for many years. Many of them have served under NDP governments, as well as B.C. Liberal governments. They are non-partisan people working very hard on behalf of the public of British Columbia. They deserve better, I think, than the character assassination the member loves to engage in for political gain.

J. Horgan: Rod MacIsaac is no longer with us. Dave Scott and Ramsay Hamdi were punched out of the of-
[ Page 8814 ]
fice. Their pictures, as recently as this week, were at the Ministry of Health head office here on Blanshard Street as undesirables, not allowed into the building — as recently as this week. Bob Hart, Malcolm Maclure, Ron Mattson, Rebecca Warburton, Bill Warburton. That’s character assassination. Firing people, putting out a press release saying they’re under investigation by the Mounties — that’s character assassination.

What I’m asking for is accountability. Power has to be accountable. That’s why we have a Legislature. That’s why we’re having this discussion. When I raise these issues in question period, when my colleagues raise these issues in question period, we get back hyperbolic level No. 7. This is an opportunity for the Premier to set the record straight.

She promised to get to the bottom of it. That’s what she said. She said in this Legislature, “I’m going to get to the bottom of this. I have appointed someone who’s going to report” to someone who was intimately involved in the issue. She was going to make a determination on accountability, and it didn’t happen.

Why no accountability from power in British Columbia? That’s what citizens absolutely need to know. There is an imbalance here between the eight individuals that I’m talking about and the senior officials that are pointing at everyone else.

Hon. C. Clark: Well, I mean, I don’t want to speak specifically to this case, as parts of it are before the court. But I will say that deputy ministers are generally responsible — and the member knows this; I hope he’s read the act — for personnel decisions in their ministry, including decisions of discipline or termination.

As I’ve said a number of times, Ms. McNeil’s report did clearly identify that there were serious shortcomings in the process, and she has offered advice to address that. We are taking that advice so that we can ensure this does not happen again.

J. Horgan: The Deputy Minister, Mr. Whitmarsh, said that the deputy to the Premier was intimately involved in the discussions and deliberations and decisions around the firings. The deputy to the Premier says he was not. Someone is clearly not on the same page.

I know how the cabinet works. I know how deputy ministers work. I know that there is a hierarchy. One of them is no longer here, and one of them still is. Again, someone is telling a different story than the reality would suggest. I just wonder if the Premier could give me her sense of just what went on here.

Hon. C. Clark: I’ve answered that question a number of times, Mr. Chair.

[1525]

J. Horgan: According to appendix D that I referred to, that’s now…. Of course, this was redacted. I think that’s important. “Redacted,” for those who don’t know, means it was whited out.

The report that was going to get to the bottom of this, the report that the Premier said she commissioned because she was so concerned about accountability, the entire section, the entire appendix — two pages of a chronology of who I talked to and what they said — was all whited out.

We now have it. It’s now a public document. It was made available to us in the opposition. According to appendix D, on September 5 and 6, 2012, there were four e-mail exchanges between the Ministry of Justice and the GCPE regarding government’s September 6 press release announcing the firings and the appropriateness of referencing an RCMP investigation. The Premier will recall that the final press release said that the RCMP had been contacted regarding these issues.

Can the Premier explain why her former deputy minister responsible for government communications, Ms. Mentzelopoulos, ignored that advice and issued the release anyway? Can she explain why that happened?

Hon. C. Clark: With respect to the redactions, civil litigation, as the member knows, is ongoing with respect to some of the Ministry of Health firings, so great care has been taken to make sure that there was no waiver of privilege through the McNeil review. That’s something that we’re required to do, and that’s something that we did.

J. Horgan: I appreciate that there is litigation still underway. But this is an issue that happened according to the chronology that was in the report that got to the bottom of it. The deputy minister that reported to the Premier on communications disregarded advice with respect to naming the RCMP in a press release.

Does the Premier have any concerns about staff that reported directly to her ignoring legal advice that led to besmirching the reputations and lives of individuals, and in one instance led to their tragic death? Does that not concern her at all?

Hon. C. Clark: The member is happy to call others on besmirching reputations and then is quite happy to do it himself, as he regularly does for his own political advantage and gain.

Ms. McNeil said in her report that there were serious procedural process issues that needed to be addressed. We have taken the results from that report. We are addressing her concerns, because our hope is exactly the same — that this kind of thing, which was wrong and done badly and harmed people, should never happen again.

J. Horgan: I agree with the Premier. If we want this to not happen again, there has to be some level of accountability. If you can do what was done in this instance, if a
[ Page 8815 ]
senior political appointment can disregard legal advice because they want to get a bigger splash in the morning news, that’s a problem.

It’s a problem for the people of British Columbia, and it should be a problem for every member of this Legislature. Power is a problem. Power needs accountability. That’s why in our adversarial system we have a government and an opposition. My job, the job of my colleagues, is to hold the government accountable, and the government includes every component part.

In this instance, the deputy minister reporting to the Premier who was responsible for communications disregarded advice from the Attorney General. She said in a press release — and sent it around the world…. It’s on the interweb. You can go and find the series of tubes, and it will come right back to the RCMP, even though the recommendation was: “Do not do that.”

Again, if we’re seeking to get to the bottom of this, as the Premier earnestly said in her promise, the first of many promises I hope to explore today…. In her promise she said she was going to get to the bottom of it. That means accountability. There is none. Miss McNeil said: “I cannot find anyone accountable because I can’t compel testimony.”

The deputy responsible for communications, reporting directly to the Premier, disregarded legal advice and besmirched eight individuals. Can the Premier explain how that could possibly happen on her watch?

Hon. C. Clark: Ms. McNeil did point out that there were very serious flaws in the way this was managed. She was correct about that. We are addressing the concerns that she has raised in the way that she suggested we address them so that we can ensure that it doesn’t happen again.

J. Horgan: Does the Premier believe that accountability is critical to citizens having respect for their public institutions?

[1530]

Hon. C. Clark: I think that citizens need to know that their government is standing up for them and fighting for their interests, making sure — this is my view of it; I know that the member differs — that we are turning our minds to making sure we grow the economy.

I know that the member differs with this too, that we are turning our minds to making sure we support an environmentally sound resource industry across the province. We turn our minds to making sure that British Columbians have the training that they need to be first in line for the jobs that are coming in our province. We turn our minds to keeping taxes low, to looking after our finances and taking as little away from British Columbians as we can afford to and still be able to share the wealth of this great province with people who are more vulnerable.

Those are commitments that I take very seriously. Those are things that people expect from their government.

Governments are held accountable for their decisions every four years — in my case, after two years. We presented a plan to the people of British Columbia, an economic plan, one that we already had done almost two years of full work on and begun to really deliver on. British Columbians held us accountable for the work that we’ve done. They re-elected the government and confirmed that they felt we were going in the right direction.

Although there are many different ways to demonstrate accountability, ultimately, every four years the biggest shareholder meeting in the province is the best way to confirm and ensure that government remains accountable. We’re doing that.

J. Horgan: In this instance, on the subject which we are canvassing right now, the Premier said: “I’m going to get to the bottom of this.” There is no accountability. Again, on this issue, with respect to the public officials that were besmirched and smeared and those that made the decisions to allow that to happen, why is it there’s been no accountability?

Hon. C. Clark: Well, the member, of course, isn’t shy about besmirching hard-working public servants. He continues to do that at the same time that he decries the behaviour in others.

As I said, I deeply regret what happened in this case. That’s why we went to ask Ms. McNeil to have a look at it, come back with recommendations, determine what went wrong. She’s done that. We take those very seriously, and we’re working to make sure that we fix that.

There were serious flaws in the process. We certainly acknowledge that. It’s up to government. The accountability of government is to make sure we accept the recommendations, act on them and do everything that we can to make sure that it doesn’t happen again.

J. Horgan: Could the Premier advise the committee who is accountable for those flawed processes?

Hon. C. Clark: Well, ultimately, we need to act on Ms. McNeil’s report, which is what we’ve done. She said there were serious flaws. In acting on that, government is demonstrating that we are being held accountable for it. We asked her to do this report. We knew that it wouldn’t come out…. We knew it was unlikely to reveal that government had done everything perfectly, but we asked for it nonetheless because the issues that she was addressing are crucially important for our public service.

Public servants deserve due process. They work hard. They serve the people of British Columbia well. We want to ensure that their confidence in the process, which they work within every day, remains.

J. Horgan: Again, the processes were flawed. Someone had to be responsible for those processes. Decisions were made within that context, and no accountability.

The Premier continues to say that Ms. McNeil identified shortcomings. Absolutely, she unearthed shortcomings, but I don’t see the accountability that the Premier just referred to. Individuals make up systems. Systems fail largely because of individuals and process in tandem. Can the Premier demonstrate and show to me in the McNeil report where there is any accountability at all for the individuals that worked within the processes that she claimed were flawed?

Hon. C. Clark: Well, we took accountability in initiating the report, accepting the recommendations and acting on it.

J. Horgan: Can the Premier tell me how she’s acting on those recommendations?

[1535]

Hon. C. Clark: Well, the head of the civil service has been working very hard with the head of the Public Service Agency, ensuring that every member, every deputy minister across government understands the process for firings and termination, which is something for which they are responsible — they’re named in the act as people being responsible for that — and ensuring that deputy ministers understand how this works, that they live up to those obligations and that the processes are not just followed but tightly followed across the civil service.

J. Horgan: Ms. Tarras did a review when the former chief of staff to the Premier was allegedly involved in inappropriate behaviour with staff. There was a review of his behaviour. He left government, and when we asked for the documents, no documents existed. That strikes me as a fairly flawed process.

We were told at that time that a review had been done. When we asked for the substance of the review, nothing was forthcoming.

The track record after that exposure to the Public Service Agency’s detailed review of flawed process was that we had a second incident, this one that is before the House today, before this committee, whereby individuals that make up the process — the deputy to the Public Service Agency;, the deputy responsible for the public service; and in the case of the Ministry of Health officials that were besmirched and smeared, the Deputy Minister of Health….

The Deputy Minister of Health at the time says that there were intimate discussions with the Premier’s office about the allegations, about how to proceed, and the deputy to the Premier says: “Hey, I don’t know what you’re talking about.” Somewhere between those two poles is likely the truth. Someone is misleading Ms. McNeil and, therefore, making it even more difficult to get to the bottom of it to establish accountability.

Again, I pose the question to the Premier: who’s telling the truth?

Hon. C. Clark: I believe I’ve already answered that question a number of times.

J. Horgan: If the Premier did answer it, I must have missed it, and I will have to wait till tomorrow for the Blues. But perhaps she could just answer it again. Someone’s not telling the truth. Who is it?

Hon. C. Clark: As I said, and as I’ve said a number of times, we initiated the report, took accountability for the issues that happened, the things that happened, the very regrettable actions at the Ministry of Health, and have taken the recommendations in that report very seriously. We’re acting on them across government.

J. Horgan: Again, for regular people who might be tuning into this, I’ve asked a simple question. Two people have different stories. I’m asking the Premier what her opinion is on which one of them is telling the truth. I’ll ask her again. The deputy of Health says that the Premier’s office is intimately involved. The deputy to the Premier says: “I wasn’t.” One of them is not telling the truth. Can the Premier advise this committee who she thinks is telling the truth?

Hon. C. Clark: Well, I’m not going to offer opinions to this House. What I will do instead is offer the facts, which I have done a number of times. I think that if people have tuned in based on the member’s questions, I’m sure many of them have tuned out.

I do hope that sometime in the estimates, as long as we’re talking about opinion, the member and the leader opposite can give us his opinion on the motion that was moved today in the House. Maybe he can tell us in the course of these estimates whether or not he supports the government moving ahead with Site C.

J. Horgan: The Premier just made reference to facts, and the facts, according to Ms. McNeil are: “Two of the most difficult questions I considered during my review were who effectively made the decision to dismiss the individuals and what factors were considered.”

These questions remain unanswered. That’s the fact. They remain unanswered. That’s not me. That’s the person that was appointed by Ms. Tarras, who was involved in the firings in the first place. That was the content of the report. The questions remain unanswered. So it is opinion, in fact, by Ms. McNeil, with respect to accountability.

If the public of British Columbia is going to have confidence in their public institutions, they have to know that there is accountability when processes fail. What
[ Page 8817 ]
happened in this instance was that the Premier said she was going to get to the bottom of it. A report was issued that said: “I can’t get to the bottom of it.” And that’s good enough for the Premier.

[1540]

My question to the Premier is quite simple. Will you reopen this issue so that the public can have some confidence that when power is abused in British Columbia, as it was in this case…?

In the lives of eight individuals, power was abused. Those with it went at those who did not have it. They disregarded legal advice. They made up a story about an RCMP investigation that so traumatized one individual that he took his life, and the Premier is okay with that by reading boxed answers.

Accountability. To the Premier: will you reopen this issue, allow Ms. McNeil or any other prominent person to compel testimony, so we can find out if Mr. Whitmarsh is telling the truth or Mr. Dyble is telling the truth?

Hon. C. Clark: As I’ve said a number of times — actually, quite a number of times — we have accepted Ms. McNeil’s report. We are learning from it. We have improved our processes as a result, and we are working to ensure that we respond better to any other future instances that might occur, although we certainly hope that they will not.

J. Horgan: Again, I’ll just try this one more time. The Premier is a parent. I’m a parent. Many of the people in this room are parents. Children understand accountability. Since I was this big my mom told me to be responsible for your actions, take accountability. The world will be a lot better off if you just fess up.

The issue involved here is eight individuals that were just doing their jobs. They were working to find out if antipsychotic drugs were being appropriately tested, to protect young people and to protect seniors. That is a function of government that I think all British Columbians would want to see more of — protect citizens.

Those individuals were tarnished because government abused power. Does the Premier — last question on this file, so she can load up on the rhetoric — really believe that she got to the bottom of this by being able to stand up and say that no one is accountable?

Hon. C. Clark: I just want to reiterate, based on the member’s comments, which are really just unbelievably inappropriate, that the head of our civil service does not deserve to be called a liar in this House. He does not deserve that after 32 years in the public service and having served under Social Credit, NDP and B.C. Liberal governments. Having worked for ministers at the same time that he did, he deserves better than that in this chamber.

The government has responded with great regret and a direct apology, an acknowledgement that what happened to those individuals was wrong and an effort to make sure that we got all the information that we could to ensure that it didn’t happen again and correct those processes.

We are doing all of that. In the meantime, it is not acceptable for this member for his own personal political gain to stand up and drag the reputations of hard-working public servants through the mud — people who have served our province with a spotless record for over three decades.

That is not acceptable, and the member should stand up and do what the government did for the health employees and apologize.

J. Horgan: Rod MacIsaac, Dave Scott, Ramsay Hamdi, Bob Hart, Malcolm Maclure, Ron Mattson, Rebecca Warburton, Bill Warburton — they’re the ones that deserve the apology in this case. Whenever there’s an abuse of power, whoever does it — New Democrat, Liberal, green spaceman — there needs to be accountability, and you’re skirting it, and that’s offensive to me.

We’re going to move on. We’re going to talk about another promise that the Premier made. She said to me and to the people of British Columbia that there would be a GP for Me program — that by 2015 every British Columbian would have access to a family doctor. How are we doing on that?

We just learned last week in debates with the Minister of Health that the promise that the Premier made, a B.C. Liberal campaign promise, that every single British Columbian would have access to a GP — we’re falling a bit short of that.

Instead of having 176,000 people without a family doctor, as we did in 2010, the five-year record of the GP for Me program has us now at 209,000 British Columbians without a family doctor. The promise from the Premier was that by this year everyone was going to have a family doctor. It turns out that’s not the case. Does the Premier have answers for the 209,000 British Columbians who don’t have access to a family doctor?

[1545]

Hon. C. Clark: Well, I know that the member will be excited to get on to talking about the economy and jobs and training at some point in this discussion. In the meantime, I’m very happy to talk about the issues that he’s already covered, that members have already covered with other ministers in their estimates.

I’m sure he would have received similar information already. The GP for Me program is more than simply connecting a doctor with a patient. It is about ensuring that all of a patient’s health needs are met, about creating better access to primary health care providers, increasing the long-term quality of care to patients.

We are making real progress on that. About 54,600 vulnerable patients are now matched with a primary care
[ Page 8818 ]
provider. That is thanks to the hard work of physicians in this province and the other partners who are working with us on the GP for Me program. There is certainly still a lot of work to do.

It’s a problem that faces provinces across Canada and jurisdictions all over the world, as the population ages. The number of doctors available to treat those patients is tough to keep up with. But we are working at it. Some aspects of the GP for Me program have been enormously successful in making sure that our health outcomes are the second-least-expensive health care in Canada per capita. We remain in the best health outcomes in Canada.

J. Horgan: We’ve been introduced to a term called “aspirational promises” over the past number of years. I’m going to be talking about a number of promises that the Premier has made that were, one would have thought, binding agreements with the people of British Columbia, the shareholders she made reference to earlier on. But over time, as we fall short on meeting those promises, they’re now described as aspirational promises.

I want to know if the Premier was making a real commitment to British Columbians when we had 179,000 British Columbians without a family doctor and now we have 209,000 British Columbians without a family doctor — whether her GP for Me, everyone in B.C. by 2015, promise was a real promise, a promise that we could, as they say, take to the bank. Or was it an aspirational promise and that the voters should have been aware of that when they made their commitment to vote at the last election?

Hon. C. Clark: Well, coming from a man who advised a government that didn’t build a single hospital in the 1990s in the midst of one of the biggest economic expansions in North America, closed 3,000 hospital beds, eliminated nearly 1,600 full-time nursing positions and failed to create a single new medical space…. Under the NDP about 128 doctors were trained. No new spaces were added. Now today 288 doctors graduate annually. We want to continue to grow that.

It’s not just, of course, in Vancouver where it matters. We need to be training doctors outside the Lower Mainland. We know that when doctors are trained in the north, they are much more likely to stay in the north. That is certainly part of the solution of a many-faceted problem to make sure that we’re addressing people’s access to doctors, in particular in rural communities.

J. Horgan: So 176,000 British Columbians without a general practitioner when the Premier made her commitment; 209,000 today. Can the Premier tell us if that’s success in her world?

Hon. C. Clark: I’ve already spoken about the successes of the GP for Me program, including that 54,600 vulnerable patients are newly matched with a primary care provider. That’s thanks to the work of many hard-working physicians and their partners all across the province. We continue to work on that and make sure that we are addressing what is a very, very difficult problem all around the world, making sure that British Columbians, wherever they live, get the care they need.

J. Horgan: Could the Premier advise this committee why she set a goal that she clearly isn’t able to achieve?

The Chair: Premier, before you answer the question, I just want to caution you. The use of the word “lying” is not permitted in the House, so please refrain from using that kind of language.

Hon. C. Clark: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Well, as I said, we have worked very, very hard to make sure we continue to improve our health care system, our best health outcomes in the country, second-least-expensive per capita in the country. We’re certainly doing a lot of things right. We have a lot more to do though. It’s a very complex problem as the population ages and as we need to make sure that there are care providers available for people in the diverse locations all across our province. We’re continuing to work on that.

[1550]

It’s not going to get easier in the coming years. It’s actually going to get harder, particularly as we continue to grow our economy, put people to work, bring more people to British Columbia. The needs are only going to grow. But it’s a challenge that we intend to do our very, very best to meet so that British Columbians can continue to have the best health outcomes in Canada.

J. Horgan: A specific question: 176,000 people without a family doctor in 2013 — the minister at that time, Margaret MacDiarmid, who I believe reported to the now president of the executive council, the Premier of British Columbia — and now 209,000 British Columbians without a family doctor.

Is that success or failure?

Hon. C. Clark: We are certainly working towards success here. I mean, the NDP’s failure to create a single medical space to add doctors in the 1990s has had far-reaching impacts. It has meant that it’s taken governments that’ve taken over from those disastrous years a long time to try and catch up, because it takes years to train doctors.

At the time, I remember the New Democrats quoting people saying we needed less doctors if we wanted to have less costly health care. Well, of course, the exact opposite happened. They should have listened to their critics at the time.

We have responded as a government over the years by making sure we are training more doctors, making sure
[ Page 8819 ]
that we’re supporting more doctors to go into rural communities. We spent over $100 million last year on successful programs to encourage B.C. doctors to move and stay in rural communities. We have some of the most comprehensive funding and incentive programs to make sure that we can retain those doctors in those communities.

As a result, we’ve seen an increase of about 7 percent or 110 more doctors going into rural communities. We need to continue to do that.

As I said, this is a complex problem with a changing population. People around the world, including me, recognize — apparently everybody except the member of the opposition — that this problem is not going to get easier to solve. It’s going to get harder.

J. Horgan: Maybe I’ll go back, and the Premier can advise me on what is a promise and what is an aspirational goal, because I think we’re going to be touching on a lot of this over the next number of hours.

Again, the public doesn’t spend a lot of time thinking about what we do here. They have confidence, when they elect the 85 members of this place, that they have thoughtful individuals who come here to represent the interests of the people in communities in every corner of this spectacular province.

When people make commitments…. I know that in business if you make a commitment, you need to follow through on it. I know when you make commitments to your neighbours, you need to follow through on them. I know when you make commitments to your family, you need to follow through on them.

I’ve heard the term “aspirational goal.” We had the Health Minister, Ms. MacDiarmid, reaffirm this commitment in 2013. We had the current Minister of Health reaffirm that commitment in 2014. And here we are in 2015, 200,000 British Columbians shy of the target.

Can the Premier say specifically whether the commitment that her party made to have a GP for every British Columbian was a real promise — something that people could count on — or was it an aspirational goal?

Hon. C. Clark: As I said, the GP for Me program was a complex, multifaceted…. Well, not complex. It was a multifaceted program with physician-practice-level incentive fees. As I said, over $100 million, $119 million, attaching unattached patients with complex health needs; managing the care for ill patients; providing patient care over the telephone for all patients; conducting conferences with other health care providers for all patients; community-patient attachment strategies through the divisions of family practice — that was $40 million well spent; integration and alignment and leveraging of existing health authority; ministry joint-clinical committees; partner initiatives programs and policies; and, of course, patient and engagement education.

All of those were elements of the GP for Me project. They are continuing to bear tremendous fruit. You know, some of the results to date include more than 31,000 patients being matched with primary care providers.

Do we have more to do? Yes, we do. Have we accomplished a lot in the GP for Me program? Absolutely.

J. Horgan: After the tragedies in Burns Lake and Prince George, the explosions at the Babine mill and the Lakeland mill in Prince George, the Premier visited the region. She said that she was going to protect the interests of those individuals. She said she had their back. They asked for a public inquiry. They didn’t get one. They asked for justice. They haven’t received it.

[1555]

I’m wondering if the Premier has reached out to the families of the individuals involved to let them know that she wasn’t able to meet the commitment that she made to them at that time.

Hon. C. Clark: I will answer that question in a moment. I’m happy to do that. But first, I do just want to conclude my remarks about health. We do, in British Columbia — and I think that it bears repeating and putting on the record — have one of the best overall health systems in Canada. We’re rated No. 1 in Canada for health care. That’s according to the OECD.

We’re also the only province to receive an overall A for health status in a report from the Conference Board of Canada. We have the best cancer survival rates anywhere in the country. We have the longest life expectancy in Canada. Part of the credit goes to our health care system, but boy, lots of that credit goes to British Columbians and the way that people here choose to live.

There have been thousands more surgeries done as we’ve increased the number of knee replacements, hip replacements, cataract surgeries and the number of angioplasties. The total number of surgeries received by British Columbians was 541,886.

I think British Columbians would want to know exactly how much of their money gets spent on health care. It’s almost half of the budget that we take out of people’s pockets in the form of taxes every single year. We try and spend all of it as well as we possibly can, and make sure that we’re getting the best bang for the buck.

That is reflected in the statistics — the second-lowest cost per capita. We are spending money very, very efficiently and wisely, but we are not compromising outcomes. We are getting the best health outcomes anywhere in Canada. That’s been confirmed by independent organizations in Canada and around the world.

J. Horgan: That’s not the answer to the question I asked about Babine and Lakeland. Perhaps I’ll phrase it again, so it’s fresh in the Premier’s mind, and she can get the next talking point ready.

To the Premier, you said at the time: “The reason I
[ Page 8820 ]
came was to assure them that we’re going to be here to support this community during the grieving and after it’s over. And it may be a big task, but we’re going to be there. We’re going to step up.” That was the Premier in 2012 following the Babine explosion.

My question…. Again, we’ve just wrapped up the coroner’s inquest, absolutely short of what was asked for by the community. We had a botched investigation. We had the Premier rejecting calls for a public inquiry, and we had the families denied access to legal representation at the inquest.

The Premier said that they were going to step up. I’m wondering if she’s contacted the widows of the four individuals that lost their lives or any of the survivors, since then, to advise them on the progress of that goal and that promise to step up.

Hon. C. Clark: Our government has worked very hard to support the people of the community, and that included making sure that the mill could stay up and running, by working on the issues around its fibre supply so that after the mill was destroyed, or largely destroyed, investment could continue, and they could continue to make sure that those jobs were there. That was critically important to the community. They didn’t want to see the life of the mill also ended, and we averted that possibility.

[D. Horne in the chair.]

Government was there to support the community in the immediate aftermath as well — all hands on the ground in supporting people there. The member is right. The process within government with respect to the charge process was not done in a way that anybody was satisfied with. The coroner’s inquest, however, has worked hard, I think — worked very hard to get to the bottom of the issues.

I know it will not replace the loss of those individuals to those families. Nothing ever could, and nothing will heal their pain, ultimately, after such a tragic loss. But the coroner’s inquest is there to make sure that we understand why it happened.

J. Horgan: Well, again it’s about accountability, as with the Health firings. We had a WorkSafe process that didn’t work. We had no accountability from management. We had no accountability from the mill owners. Glenn Roche, Al Little — no longer with us, their spouses still wanting justice. The Lakeland component is completed. It was absolutely clear during that process to anyone who was paying attention — and I’m hopeful that the government was paying attention — that the victims of that tragedy did not have adequate representation at the inquest.

[1600]

Now we have the spectre of the Luggi family and the Charlie family in Burns Lake, crowdsourcing, trying to raise money from the community and from the broader province and perhaps around the world so that their rights and their position can be respected at the Burns Lake component.

To the Premier, will she reverse the government’s decision to ignore the victims’ request for legal assistance to make sure that they have counsel representing their interests — not WorkSafe’s, not the ministry’s, not the government’s and not the owners of the mill, but their interests? Will the Premier reverse that decision?

Hon. C. Clark: As the member knows, the inquest is not a trial process and not an adversarial process. It is an independent process of government. And I respect….

The member may question whether or not the coroner is independent. He might like to allege that she’s biased and drag her reputation through the mud too. I am not prepared to do that. I believe that she is independent and that she is able to make sure we understand exactly what happened in this case.

I should also note, too, that as a result of the charge process and the issues that were identified around that, we did do a WorkSafe B.C. review. Thanks to Mr. Macatee, we have our road map to making the changes to ensure that that kind of mistake doesn’t happen again.

We’ve accepted all their 43 recommendations. Excellent progress is being made on all of them as a result of what was learned in this incredibly tragic incident for not just the families involved but for all of the people in Burns Lake.

J. Horgan: The Luggi family and the Charlie family have asked the government for assistance for legal representation at this inquest. I made no reference to the independence of the chair. I made no reference to the process.

I made reference to the families that the Premier made a promise to, to step up and to be there after — not just today, but after. And where better after than at a coroner’s inquest — to allow the people that were most seriously affected by this tragedy to have their rights represented at the inquest. It’s a simple request.

We know that there are legal representatives in the Attorney General’s ministry that are giving advice that’s being ignored. Perhaps we could take those people and put them to work for the Luggi and Charlie families, pro bono, so that they can be assured that their interests are reflected in the cross-examination of witnesses and that their interests are reflected in the review of evidence that’s brought forward.

It’s a pretty simple request. It won’t cost a lot of money. Again, I go back to the promise made by the Premier: “We’re going to be there for you. We’re going to step up.”

This is an opportunity to step up for the Luggi family and the Charlie family, as they did not for Al Little and Glenn Roche.

Hon. C. Clark: We have worked very hard to support the community, recognizing how traumatic this was for everyone who lives in the region, all of whom, in one way or another, depend on the economic health of that mill for their well-being — and of course, most of all, the families who lost loved ones or, in the immediate days afterwards believed they were going to lose loved ones, and people who were harmed.

We were there to support the community in the immediate aftermath, particularly with social supports. We ensured that the mill stayed open by addressing the issues with regard to their fibre supply so that people could continue to work. The inquest has now concluded, and we are studying those recommendations.

You know, that community was traumatized by this. Thank goodness for the first responders in the region and across British Columbia, whether it was the Ministry of Transportation staff, whether it was nurses who were off duty, whether it was doctors — all of whom came to the rescue to assist and make sure that the loss of life and the harm to individuals was at an absolute minimum.

We are now investing in making sure — as we’ve invested in making sure — that that hospital in Burns Lake is a much better facility for the people there. They deserve that.

I am proud that the mill is still operating in that region as a result of the decisions that we’ve made.

I know that the individuals who’ve lost family members will never have their lives truly repaired because a loss of that nature isn’t something that can ever really be addressed. But the inquest has given us important food for thought. We’re studying the recommendations now, and we want to make sure that sawmills and the places where people work all across the province are safe places.

[1605]

Every British Columbian deserves to know when their mom or dad or son or daughter or brother or sister goes to work every day in a sawmill that they’re going to come home at the end of the night.

J. Horgan: The Premier said directly to the victims in Burns Lake that she was going to step up. She was going to be there for those families. And for three years those families have been waiting for the Premier to step up on this one simple question: will they be allowed legal representation at the inquest? That’s so that cross-examination of witnesses can be done, not in the interests of WorkSafe, not in the interests of the government, not in the interests of the mill owners, but in the interests of those families. It’s a simple request. It’s one that has been made in writing. It’s been one that has been made in person.

Will the Premier provide legal representation for the Luggi family and the Charlie family as this inquest continues on in Burns Lake? Simple question.

Hon. C. Clark: Well, in terms of the benefits that we’re…. You know, I want to put it in context in terms of the support that the government has provided for people there, in addition to making sure that the mill is still operating and that the economic heart of that community continues to function, which was crucially important for us in the aftermath. When I went to the community meeting, people were overwhelmed with concern for the people who were missing, or some of them whose lives had been lost. People were also concerned about the future of the mill, the future of their livelihood, the future of their community.

Burns Lake is a community that is dependent on that mill for its economic health, so we acted very quickly to make sure that the mill continued to run and support those people, rather than piling tragedy on top of tragedy. The benefits for workers and claims costs have been almost $28 million for workers at both mills, and we continue to provide support for folks as they need it.

As I said, for those individuals who are grieving the loss of a loved one or whose loved ones have been severely harmed, whose lives are changed forever, it’s difficult to offer a way to repair that. It’s not something that the government or anybody else can repair.

But what we can do, and what we’re doing, is get on with the inquests, one of which has wrapped up, and understand what happened and use the information that we get from those inquests, which are not a trial process, to figure out how we can make sure that all mills in this province are safer.

J. Horgan: Rhonda Roche and Joanna Burrows, the spouses of Al Little and Glenn Roche, did not feel that they had satisfactory representation at the Lakeland component of the inquest. The Luggi family and the Charlie family have asked directly — asked directly…. This is not something that just arrived recently. They’ve been asking for some considerable period of time to make sure that they’re able to represent themselves at the inquiry.

Hampton, the owner of the mill, has lawyers. WorkSafe has lawyers. The government has lawyers. The coroner has lawyers. This is another power imbalance. This is the sort of thing that people can understand. Power is well represented, power being paid for by taxpayers. Did the WorkSafe lawyers get paid by someone else other than taxpayers? No. Do the government lawyers get paid by someone other than taxpayers? No. Does the coroner’s lawyer get paid by someone other than taxpayers? No. The only people footing their own bill are the owners of the mill.

And two families who lost sons and husbands and fathers are asking government for a little bit of assistance. WorkSafe, all good. Government, all good. Coroner, all good. Power imbalance. No accountability for those who have the money and have access to money through government sources. They’re families who don’t have access
[ Page 8822 ]
to resources, don’t have access to supports from govern-ment that were promised by the Premier when the cameras were rolling. Those cameras are gone now.

But they’re on right this minute. You might get a clip if you do the right thing and say that government is going to provide legal funding for the Luggi family and the Charlie family. Will the Premier do that right now?

[1610]

Hon. C. Clark: Well, there really is no limit to the subjects the member will discuss in an effort to advance his own political ambitions. But I will say that in terms of the lawyers that are active at the inquest, the coroner added a second counsel to ensure that families’ interests were specifically represented.

J. Horgan: I’m proud to stand up for those who don’t have power in British Columbia. That’s my job. The Queen pays me every two weeks, and the people on this side of the House, to hold the government accountable and to hold the Premier to the promises that she makes, whether they’re aspirational promises that should be checked against delivery or whether they’re commitments that were made in the heat of an election campaign, not real commitments.

“We’ll have a doctor for everyone” — unless, of course, it doesn’t matter in 2015. “We’ll talk about it again in 2017, when we’re asking people to vote for us again. It doesn’t matter when we’re besmirching health care workers. That’s okay. We can have a power imbalance there.”

It’s because they have all the power. In a democracy, governments are supposed to be accountable. When they say they’re going to do something, they either do it or, I would argue, a mature and responsible government would say: “I can’t do that. I made a commitment that I’m not able to realize.”

The Premier went to the bedside of wounded workers and said to the grieving widows of dead workers that she would be there not just then but for the long term. Two families have asked over and over again to have a little bit of support while they play in a field filled with people who have lots of money, lots of influence and lots of access to power.

This isn’t about me, hon. Chair; it’s about the Premier. I didn’t make a commitment to be there when it mattered; the Premier did. So will she be there when it matters today and support the Luggi family and support the Charlie family — as she did not for Joanna Burrows and for Rhonda Roche?

Hon. C. Clark: Well, the member is right. He gets paid, and then sometimes he gets severance from the Queen as well.

I want to read from the coroner’s letter. This is what the coroner had to say:

“As coroners, we are responsible for representing the interests of the deceased. We are also 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.

“While participants, including families, are sometimes represented by counsel at an inquest, this is by no means necessary, nor is it routine. Traditionally, coroner’s counsel will liaise closely with the family throughout the inquest and will ensure that families have ample opportunity to raise questions and have relevant issues addressed.”

This is an independent process. They have gone and made the effort — I think the right one, made the right decision — to add counsel to further, better support families in the process and make sure that we really understand thoroughly what happened so that we can ensure that sawmills across this province….

By the way, I think the wood industry has a great future in British Columbia. I think there are thousands more men and women who could be employed there in the future. We need to support it, though. We need to make sure that it is safe and that workers and their families are confident, when they send someone that they love off to work, that they will come home safe at the end of the day.

J. Horgan: The coroner didn’t make a promise to the widows; the Premier did. The coroner didn’t make a promise to be there in the long term; the Premier did. Direct appeals from the families in question directly to the Premier have been rebuffed. Again, this is an opportunity not to cite letters from other individuals but to be accountable for a promise that was made by the person standing across from me.

You made a commitment. You’ve reneged on that commitment. Are you going to stand up and apologize to the Luggi family and the Charlie family for not being there in the long term, like you said you were when the cameras were running?

The Chair: Through the Chair, I’ll ask the Leader of the Opposition.

Hon. C. Clark: We have been there to support this community and make sure that the jobs are preserved in the community. I notice that the member opposite has not shown much interest in jobs across the province. He and I very much differ on that. Not much interest in supporting the resource industry — he and I very much differ on that.

I know that when we create jobs in British Columbia, some of them can go to union members and some of them to non-union members. Whichever they go to, I’m delighted that there’s enough economic activity — and it’s growing — to make sure that people are working all across the province. I know that these economic issues rarely seize the Leader of the Opposition, but I believe that they do seize the people of British Columbia.

[1615]

When I was in Burns Lake immediately after the tra-gedy, one of the things that I heard very clearly from people is that they wanted to ensure that their mill stayed open. They recognized the threat that this tragedy posed — not just to the individuals who were directly affected because they were in and around the mill, but individuals across the region, who depend on that economic activity.

In addition to that, we’ve called the inquest. The inquest has gotten underway. They added counsel to support the families at their request as well. Of course, we’ve been there to support individuals through various social service agencies, as government is required and should do.

J. Horgan: I’ve worn a hardhat to protect my head when I’m working, not just to be on television. I know a little bit about the resource industry. I’ve made pulp. I’ve pulled wood on a green chain. I know a little bit about the resource industry. I now that the Premier, although she’s visited mills and looked spectacular in her outfits, should stop taking shots at someone who understands the resource industry far better than her.

I’d like to move on now to talk about the treaty process — something that not that long ago was near and dear to the Premier’s heart. In fact, as recently as November, in the Globe and Mail, she said: “The gold standard for provincial relations with First Nations is treaty. Ideally, I want to get to a place where we can conclude more treaties.” That was in November.

Of course, at that time George Abbott — a former colleague of all of us here, certainly a member of the B.C. Liberal cabinet for many years — had been approached by the minister of aboriginal affairs — I assume, and I think Mr. Abbott assumed, on behalf of the government of British Columbia — and asked if he would sit as treaty commissioner for the treaty process here in British Columbia.

He was approved and ratified by the Assembly of First Nations. He was awaiting approval at the federal level, for the province to pass an order-in-council. As recently as March of this year Mr. Abbott was in transition meetings with the former chair, Chief Sophie Pierre. On the 25th of March the government advised Mr. Abbott that his services would not be required.

Furthermore, the Premier suggested that she was going off in a different direction. I asked her in question period at that time just what that direction was. We’ve had some time now to reflect upon it. Perhaps the Premier can tell us just what that direction was going to be or will be.

Hon. C. Clark: I am always amazed to hear the member get up and claim that he supports the resource sector or he supports job creation when everything that he’s done, every public policy he’s touched has in some way gone to undermine the capacity of our economy to grow and our ability to be able to support jobs across the province.

We are committed to making sure we support job creation. The way to do that is to support a diverse economy, which we’ve done. We have probably the most diverse economy in Canada. We’ve worked very hard to create diverse markets. That has also been a success. That’s meant that we are protected from the worst of the economic downturns.

We are working to attract new investment in the LNG business — which the member voted to delay and ultimately, I believe, would kill if he ever got the chance — something that will create 100,000 jobs over 30 years and $1 trillion in economic investment. The member rubs his hands in delight every time he thinks that the LNG business might stumble and fall.

That member has opposed every economic development activity that this government has actively supported. He doesn’t support the LNG business. He doesn’t support the mining business. He doesn’t support the forestry business. He says he cares about resource development, and then everything he does in terms of the votes that he casts in this chamber and the public comments that he makes to groups of New Democrats tells us a whole different story.

If this member supports jobs and economic development, he should stop dodging the question that was put to him today in a motion. He should stand up and say crystal-clear whether or not he supports Site C. He’s refused to do that again and again and again. It will create thousands of jobs, many of them good union jobs, things he claims to support, but instead he waffles. He refuses to take a position. He refuses to support economic development and projects in this province whenever they come forward to this chamber.

For him to stand up and say that he supports economic development is completely laughable. We would be back, if he was in charge, to where we were in the 1990s, a decade where he says he was proud of what they accomplished. Well, I’m not proud of it, and I don’t think most British Columbians are proud of it.

[1620]

I don’t think most British Columbians are proud of the successive unbalanced budgets. I don’t think British Columbians are proud of the successive credit downgrades. I don’t think British Columbians are proud of the fact that if you lived here then, you had to go somewhere else to find a job. That was the legacy of the New Democrats, the one that he says he’s so proud of.

If he wants to say today, to prove today, that he really does support economic growth, resource development and investment in jobs, all he has to do is to stand up and say he supports Site C. As a group, as a Legislature, I think the workers that are going to be counting on those jobs are counting on us to express, unanimously, our support for that project.

J. Horgan: When I was preparing for estimates, I was jamming a stick into my eye so that I could get used to
[ Page 8824 ]
being just completely uncomfortable with someone who stands up and says something that has no basis in reality, has no basis in the question that was asked.

It was about a colleague of hers, George Abbott, who was appointed by her colleague today, the Minister of Aboriginal Relations, to be the chief treaty commissioner for something that she said not six months ago was the gold standard for First Nations relationships.

I see now that her august deputy is getting the appropriate talking points for her, so perhaps we’ll go from hyperbolic level 25, which is, I think, where we were just at, and get back to the question at hand: why did you not appoint George Abbott to be chief treaty commissioner?

The Chair: Through the Chair, please.

Hon. C. Clark: I’m just trying to give the member opportunities to tell us where he actually stands on any of these economic issues. Every time we get up and we ask him to give us his position on something, he refuses to stand up and say. We saw his chief adviser, the former leader of the New Democrats, stand up and say today in question period: “The NDP position on Site C is absolutely clear.” Wait for it. “We want to refer it. We want to refer it to another authority to see what they have to say about it before we take a position on it.”

There are thousands of working people in this province. There are First Nations employers up in the northeast. There are people in British Columbia who are hoping that in this Legislature we can come to some kind of unanimous agreement about the value of Site C and the value of creating those jobs. I’m clear about that. All the members on the B.C. Liberal side of this House are absolutely crystal-clear about that. We aren’t sitting and saying: “Gee, let’s refer it. Let’s wait. Let’s decide. Let’s tell you later.”

We take a stand. We believe in our values. We live by our principles. One day, one day in this process, in our estimates, I hope that the Leader of the Opposition will finally stand up, be clear and say what his values are, tell us where he stands and whether or not he believes in economic development in British Columbia, rather than constantly dodging the question.

J. Horgan: This is why…. Never mind.

I’ll ask the third time. Why did the Premier not appoint George Abbott to be the chief treaty commissioner?

Hon. C. Clark: I’ll answer that question before I sit down, but first, I just want to walk the chamber through the litany, the garden path of New Democrats on Site C, a project that we agreed with the Building Trades Council today should go ahead because it is going to create so many union and non-union jobs in the province. That’s why we’ve been so clear about taking our position on it. It is so important to create those jobs, but it’s important to make sure that future generations have access to this clean, reliable power for over a century.

The Leader of the Opposition said in April 2013: “I’m often pushed to just say no to Site C, but I don’t believe that’s responsible.” The member for Nanaimo–North Cowichan more recently said the NDP has a long-standing policy opposing Site C. The Leader of the Opposition says: “I don’t want to foreclose on Site C, but clearly, we don’t need it in the foreseeable future.” And then, of course, in the ultimate truth-telling, the Leader of the Opposition said: “I have taken many positions on Site C.” That’s absolutely right, and that is true.

That’s why I hope that in the course of these estimates the leader will stand up and be clear with many of the people who he thinks, who he hopes, will support him in an election. Be honest about whether or not he hopes that we are successful in creating those jobs.

Now, I have to say that I am also impressed that the Leader of the Opposition has finally gotten up. I think we had one question period where the Leader of the Opposition expressed a shred of interest in what was happening with treaties or with First Nations around the province.

[1625]

As many in this chamber will know, we have worked extremely hard and very cooperatively with First Nations across the province. The key to that, in my view, is to make sure that First Nations are full participants and beneficiaries in the resource development that happens. We have done a great job in our province, except during the 1990s, of developing resources. We have not done a good job of sharing the benefit of those resources with First Nations, and we intend to change that.

That’s why we’ve been working with First Nations on benefit agreements when it comes to liquefied natural gas. We’ve been working with them on revenue-sharing in mining and in forestry, really making sure that we are including First Nations in that.

We have heard from First Nations, in particular at the All Chiefs meeting, the first one ever in British Columbia’s history where all chiefs met with all cabinet and all deputy ministers. They didn’t think that the treaty process was working very well: too expensive, taking too long, not enough First Nations even engaged in the process.

I agreed with them about that. We haven’t had the kinds of results that First Nations deserve or that taxpayers have paid for. It’s been an extremely expensive and onerous process, and it hasn’t given us the results that people the province over, First Nation and non–First Nations alike, deserve to get. So we are taking a step back and looking at how the treaty process should work and how it can be redesigned — First Nations can’t wait a century, as they likely would if the current treaty process carried on unchanged and untouched — to make sure that we’re creating a process that really works for them.

Grand Chief Stewart Phillip put it this way in a UBCIC
[ Page 8825 ]
statement. He said: “Now is the time to step back, review and reflect on where we have been and how we are going to move together on a path towards true reconciliation.” He is right about that.

The treaty process is going to continue with the group that they have on the treaties that really are ones that we think are getting closer and are really, truly achievable. In the meantime, we are going to create a new process, one that is more inclusive, that includes more First Nations, one that will work much faster and, we hope, produce better results for First Nations and non–First Nations alike.

We need certainty in British Columbia. We need to include First Nations in economic development. The treaty process can be part of that, but it shouldn’t be and it can’t be the only route to getting there, because it hasn’t worked. It certainly hasn’t worked as well as it should, although it has worked for some First Nations.

I’m delighted that the Leader of the Opposition has a new-found interest in the treaty process and First Nations in British Columbia, and I’m delighted to be able to engage in this discussion about such an important project, such an important issue, for not just the future of our province but the future of our entire country.

J. Horgan: For the fourth time: why did the Premier not appoint George Abbott to be head treaty commissioner?

Hon. C. Clark: I think I just answered that question for the member. I’ve answered it in question period as well. It is because we want to rework the treaty process and make sure that it’s one that’s working for First Nations, as they have requested of us.

There have been important Supreme Court decisions, the William decision in particular, that have come down and really changed the landscape and the discussion — important decisions that are good for British Columbia and good for First Nations.

I note that in 1998 after the Delgamuukw decision came down, the NDP government — and I believe that member would be familiar with this, because I think he was working for the Premier at the time — fired Alec Robertson as head of the Treaty Commission.

The answer to that from the Aboriginal Affairs Minister at the time was:

“What we are attempting to do is work out a process whereby we can streamline that long, difficult and complex circumstance of negotiating modern treaties in this province. If we were to carry on with the approach that has been taken thus far and taken historically, we would probably, at a conservative estimate, still be negotiating a hundred years from now. Also, we would bankrupt the province in the process. Thus the three parties have agreed to try and streamline the process. That arrangement didn’t work, but we’re bound and determined to find a new one expeditiously.”

I’m not going to say that this is a circumstance that mirrors that exactly, but I’m going to say that there are some certainly, in the comments that the then NDP Minister of Aboriginal Affairs made, that are still true, which is that the treaty process has been too slow, cumbersome, expensive. First Nations cannot wait a century for certainty in their own communities, nor can the rest of the country. We need to do this differently.

[1630]

That’s why, in not appointing a chief treaty commissioner, government is trying to make sure that we allow the treaty process to go ahead with some of the claimants with whom they’re working now but at the same time signal that we intend to design a better, more expeditious process, one that we will work with First Nations, hand in hand, in designing, so that we can make sure that First Nations get the certainty that they deserve.

J. Horgan: The treaty process is a tripartite process. It involves partners. It involves the First Nations that are at the table. It involves the federal government. The federal government brings all the money, the province brings the land and the First Nations bring the ability and will to discuss issues around self-government, extinguishment and so on.

When the Premier made these statements, or when Mr. Abbott was advised in the midst of transition discussions with Chief Sophie Pierre, the minister said — this is the member for Nechako Lakes: “While this dialogue continues, we will work with the principals to appoint a chief commissioner and ensure that the work of the Treaty Commission goes on.” That was on March 20 of this year.

What I would like to get from the Premier…. I hope that she’ll try and stick to points. I know that that’s a challenge for her, and it’s late in the day.

The point is that you have a partnership here. We have the federal government, we have the provincial government and we have First Nations — not all First Nations. But those that were prepared and willing to step into the process have done so, over the past 22 years — a process that I was intimately involved in at its creation and have supported steadfastly throughout. This notion that I’ve just woken up to it is, again, another flight of fancy by the Premier, who just makes stuff up as she goes.

My concern is that you have partners that invested time, energy and resources in reaching treaties. You have parties outside of the treaty process — the Tsilhqot’in decision, critical to those First Nations, and they will be following that path.

But you had people at the table, bands in my constituency — the Tsawout First Nation, the Scia’new First Nation and the Pacheedaht First Nation, who were all blindsided when one of the partners to the treaty process….

I guess it doesn’t matter what I say, because the Premier is not going to answer the question anyway. But I’ll get to the point, and that is: when did you talk to your partners about deciding to go in another direction?

Hon. C. Clark: I want to put on the record the progress that the member has been so committed to. The current
[ Page 8826 ]
treaty process has only finalized four modern treaties after 22 years — $600 million spent. That’s the process that the member is suddenly so seized of. It’s not good enough. My view is that we have to do this differently.

I thought that the NDP might agree with changing the treaty process. In their platform they say: “First Nations and aboriginal people, like all British Columbians, are rightly frustrated with the slow pace of change. Too many aboriginal people are unemployed. Far too many live in poverty. Too many children start life without the same opportunities as others to fulfil their potential. The treaty process is long, cumbersome and slow.”

I agree with that. So we are working to reform the treaty process. As I said, the groups that are in the process and have a realistic likelihood of getting to conclusion will continue that work with the group that is there. But I wanted to ensure that we sent a signal and that we got a real chance to change the way the treaty process works and do it hand in hand with First Nations people.

Chiefs around the province are hungry for economic development in their communities. They are hungry for jobs. They are hungry to be part of the resource sector. We are working really hard to make sure that we get them there — 250 agreements with First Nations since I’ve become Premier to try and help ease that process through.

It doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t get to treaties. It doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t get to something that looks like treaties. But First Nations have waited long enough. The process that the member was wedded to for all those years did not work well enough for enough First Nations. We need to do better, and we intend to do that.

J. Horgan: For a second time, when did you consult with the federal government and the First Nations on the treaty process that you decided you didn’t want to play anymore?

Hon. C. Clark: I believe I have spoken to that question already.

J. Horgan: Speaking to it and answering it are clearly different things. I asked directly at what point the Premier contacted the federal government, our statutory partners in the Treaty Commission, and advised them that you were no longer participating.

[1635]

On what day in March, following Mr. Abbott’s ouster, did the Premier contact the federal government and advise our partners — they’re the ones with the $600 million on the table — that you no longer wanted to participate? What day did you do that, and who did you talk to?

The Chair: Well, the Leader of the Opposition may not like the answer that has been given. The answer has been given. I’ll ask him to move on, please.

J. Horgan: Why did the Premier not have confidence in Mr. Abbott to recharge the commission, as she has suggested is her desire?

Hon. C. Clark: I’ve already answered that question as well.

J. Horgan: Does the treaty process as it is constituted within the Treaty Commission, of which we are a partner, still exist in the mind of the Premier or in reality?

Hon. C. Clark: I believe I’ve answered that question a number of times as well.

J. Horgan: Oh, my goodness. I look at the clock, and I dread spending more time with someone who just does not want to have any accountability for the decisions that she makes or the promises that she keeps.

Interjection.

J. Horgan: Thank you for that, member from Point Grey.

I believe that you used to be the member from Point Grey, didn’t you? You did. That’s right.

The Chair: Through the Chair.

J. Horgan: Oh, am I out of order? Please tell me: am I out of order?

The member for Westside-Kelowna, who visits infrequently to the Legislature, has been asked a direct question, and I’m going to state it one more time. When, on what day, and who did the Premier talk to at the federal government to advise our partners obliged by statute passed in this Legislature, passed in the House of Commons and ratified by the Assembly of First Nations, the summit in British Columbia…? What did you say, and who did you say it to?

The Chair: Through the Chair, please.

Hon. C. Clark: I’ve said this before in this House. George Abbott served with fine distinction as an MLA and as a minister of the Crown over many, many years. I believe he certainly would have made a fine treaty commissioner. But we were faced with the choice between preserving the status quo and moving on and coming to a new solution for the many, many First Nations that are not involved in the treaty process.

As I’ve said previously a number of times in this short round of questions, the treaty process is continuing for the First Nations that are currently in it and that are likely to get to a solution. We certainly don’t want to undermine that.

Those groups deserve certainty, and treaty is a great solution to certainty. It defines rights between the two
[ Page 8827 ]
parties — or the three parties, I should say — and sets a context for all of the conversations and the decisions to be made. It’s certainly been very successful for the small number of First Nations that have so far reached treaties under the treaty process.

But we need to do it differently, and that is what we intend to do, as I said, hand in hand, working with First Nations.

J. Horgan: I go back to the first question. It has to do with the federal government. I’ve heard the Premier talk about her aspirational goals for justice and reconciliation with First Nations. Again, the statutory responsibility, the constitutional responsibility, in fact, rests with the senior level of government. They are our partners in this process. They are integral to success on these files.

I’m wondering if the Premier will indulge me by perhaps taking advantage of the many, many staff she has available to her and advise this committee at what point and to whom did she talk at the federal level? I am not asking about the summit. I’m not asking about the Tsilhqot’in decision. I’m not asking about George Abbott, who was treated shabbily, but that’s an aside. He can deal with that. When did you talk to the federal government, our statutory and constitutional authority responsibility in this matter?

Hon. C. Clark: Well, we certainly do know the federal government’s view on this. The Eyford report was commissioned by the federal government. It confirms that the treaty process is too expensive, that it takes too long, and says that we need to find innovative ways. We agree on that, absolutely — apparently unlike the Leader of the Opposition.

I’m going to quote from the report. He says:

“It’s discouraging, however, that nationally only 26 agreements have been finalized in 42 years, given the expenditure of time and resources on negotiations.

“From the outset, the comprehensive land claims process has been undermined by institutional barriers and process inefficiencies. Today 75 claims are at various stages of negotiation. More than 80 percent of those tables have been in the treaty process for longer than ten years, some for more than two decades….

[1640]

“There is a conspicuous lack of urgency in negotiations, and in many cases there are sharp differences between the parties about the core elements of a modern treaty. A plan needs to be developed to bring negotiations to a close. All parties must be ready to confront hard realities. Not all claims appear to be heading to successful conclusions.”

That is the federal government’s report on the treaty process. We know where they stand. I’ve been clear about where we stand. We certainly have heard from First Nations in various parts of the province. The treaty process isn’t working for them either.

It’s our task to work together with our partners to make sure that we create a process that leads to some reasonable conclusion, gives people certainty. We cannot keep them waiting in a process because the member is wedded to it and he apparently helped create it. That just simply isn’t working well enough.

J. Horgan: I believe that we need to recharge the process. George Abbott called me in a non-partisan way and said: “Would you support my nomination?” I said: “Absolutely, I would, provided you’re going to recharge the process.”

Mr. Abbott had been a minister in this place for this file. He’s a good guy. That’s apparently a requirement to get a job from the B.C. Liberals. The chief of staff to the Minister of Energy is a good guy, so now he’s working at B.C. Hydro. So if that’s the only requirement, then Mr. Abbott certainly fills that void. But he’s also a very capable individual, passionate about this file, and he understands it better than most British Columbians, in fact, most Canadians — how important it is to our economic prosperity, to social justice.

I want to go back to the decision-making process that went through the Premier’s mind at the time and the consequences for our partners. Chief Sophie Pierre, then the chief treaty commissioner, said: “This retraction of the chief commissioner selection after months of agreement, expectation and reliance by the other parties raises concerns and questions about B.C.’s commitment to the treaty negotiation process…. This is not how to effect reconciliation.”

The Summit of First Nations said: “The province’s blatant disregard for agreement among the principals…already undertaken is unacceptable. This situation raises questions about our ability to rely on any agreements made among the principals and the provincial government’s commitment to treaty negotiations in B.C.”

The federal appointee, Mr. Jerry Lampert, well-known to this place: “Canada is not happy, of course. Everyone had agreed to a great candidate. We had all kinds of assurances that B.C. believes in the process but they have some ideas to make it better.”

We’re all good with that. We’re all good with making it better. What we’re not good with is arbitrary actions in a tripartite operation. If you have partners, one assumes you should sit down and talk to them. That’s what businesses do. That’s what families do. That’s what neighbours do. That’s what governments are obliged to do when they sign on to agreements.

The province of British Columbia signed an agreement to work with the federal government and the First Nations on treaties and reconciliation in Canada and in British Columbia specifically, and B.C. reneged. I’ve asked the Premier what the determining factor was in November of last year.

It was the gold standard. There’s nothing better than treaties. We can have interim arrangements. We can have economic arrangements with those who happen to coincide with a pipeline corridor or those who happen to
[ Page 8828 ]
have access to minerals or forestry.

But what about those First Nations at the end of the road? What about those First Nations that have had their resources liquidated since 1858? What about those First Nations that are in the treaty process and have been in the treaty process for 20 long years? Where do they sit now? Where do those First Nations that don’t have access to the deals that the Premier wants to cut…? What happens to them?

Hon. C. Clark: Well, I appreciate the member’s new interest in this. He may not know that only half of the First Nations are even in the treaty process in British Columbia. I’ll quote from Mr. Eyford on that fact. He says in his report:

“Many aboriginal groups feel that treaty negotiations are not aspirational, nation-building initiatives but have become another government program mired in bureaucratic intransigence and inertia. Several examples were provided to highlight the poor coordination between federal departments and agencies….

“Many noted that…negotiators have limited authority to agree to anything…. As well, Canada’s negotiators do not have the authority to make commitments on behalf of all federal departments.”

That is just the federal government’s view of these things, but here in British Columbia half of the First Nations, after 20 years of negotiations, are not even in the process.

[1645]

He says that after 20 years it is “clear those expectations were overly ambitious” — apparently expectations the member himself set in creating this process back in the day — “if not unrealistic.” Still, though, there are important lessons that have been learned.

“Only four treaties have been concluded under the B.C. process. Today 53 tables, representing approximately half of the Indian Act bands in the province, are engaged in the process, and only four…are at the stage of negotiating a final agreement. While predicting outcomes in treaty negotiations is challenging, it is improbable that each of the 53 tables will complete a final agreement. It is more likely that no more than ten tables are likely to conclude a treaty in the foreseeable future.”

We recognize that it’s important to find other ways, other methods outside the treaty process, and to reform the treaty process to accommodate those to include the many First Nations who are not at the table or the First Nations who are at the table but don’t have a strong likelihood of success.

That’s why we’ve been working on strategic engagement agreements; pipeline benefit agreements; letters of understanding; atmospheric agreements; clean energy revenue-sharing agreements; economic and community development agreements; forest consultation and revenue-sharing agreements; reconciliation framework agreements; and treaty agreements, of course — incremental treaty agreements.

We’re working on all of those fronts to make sure that we have the building blocks of agreement for a discussion, methods by which we can share more fairly resource revenues and benefits of resource development in this province.

It’s something we are very much committed to, but you know, the member’s apparent view that the treaty process is the vehicle to get there is something that I disagree with. It may be a vehicle to get there for some First Nations, and it has been for four. It may be for a few more, but it’s not the be-all and end-all.

First Nations have very clearly told us that they need a different process. This needs to be reformed, and we are committed to reforming it. The federal government agrees with that. First Nations, many of them, have publicly come out and said that they support those changes. We are very much committed to that as well.

I understand the member is wedded to the old process. My view is very different. I don’t think it’s worked well enough, and I think First Nations deserve better.

J. Horgan: I think First Nations deserve better as well. I think they deserve respect. I think they deserve a heads-up when one of their partners is going in another direction.

I want to quote from another First Nations leader, Judith Sayers, the former chief negotiator for the Hupacasath First Nation. I look down at my friend from Pacific Rim to make sure I said that correctly. This is what she had to say after the arbitrary, unilateral and shocking departure from agreements. She says as follows:

“They” — the province — “chose to act unilaterally and kibosh” — I’ve always wanted to say kibosh in the Legislature, so thank you, Judith, for giving me that opportunity — “that agreement between the parties. If the treaty process needs changes, and it does, the Premier should have called a meeting of the principals and tabled their proposals for a new direction, engaged in a dialogue and come to an agreement based on all three parties’ input.”

I thank the Chief for those wise words. Those are words that I think all of us would want to live by in this place and outside of this place.

If the Premier had new ideas, which she claims to have had…. When we asked her about this in March, when the announcement of Mr. Abbott’s non-appointment became public, the Premier blustered, as she’s been blustering today.

Asked specifically at that time when did she engage with our partners — our First Nations partners, who are within the Treaty Commission…. I don’t need a lesson from the Premier on who’s in and who’s out. I know that there are 65 nations that have, in good faith, entered into discussions with two levels of government in an effort to receive justice and economic prosperity in their communities.

Chief Sayers, Chief Sophie Pierre and a host of others have said quite clearly, publicly — countering what the Premier’s rhetoric has just described — that they’re appalled that they could have been involved in a process to appoint a new individual to recharge the Treaty Commission so that we could achieve the goals and
[ Page 8829 ]
aspirations of First Nations and people in resource communities and non-resource communities right across this spectacular province.

[1650]

You don’t do that. You don’t build confidence, you don’t build relationships, by deciding six months after you’ve agreed to appoint someone that you’re not going to do it — and, in the process, hanging out to dry your Minister of Aboriginal Relations, who had gone quite a distance out on the branch as the Premier was sawing on it.

Again, that’s a reference to the forest sector. I’ve made an error here, because now she’s going to get up and talk about the forest sector rather than the question that I’m specifically asking, which is: why did you not choose to sit down with our partners and say: “How do we get to a better place”?

Why, instead, did you decide to say: “I’m just going to pull the pin on this thing, leave Abbott hanging out to dry,” leaving the minister hanging out to dry, leaving First Nations at the table asking questions about what happens next? And of course, there is the federal government who’s financing this operation, who were never contacted as well.

Why did the Premier not sit down with the partners and come up with a way to recharge this, in the interests of all British Columbians?

Hon. C. Clark: I am delighted the member mentioned forestry. We might at some point get on to talking about the economy and jobs and where we differ on some of those things. So far we’re almost two hours in, and the economy hasn’t found its way to the Leader of the Opposition’s radar. I hope that it will at some point.

To the matter at hand. Treaties, of course, and agreements with First Nations are important to the growth of our economy, and we take that responsibility very, very seriously. It’s not just a question of sharing resources with First Nations better, which is something that we need to do. We need to give First Nations the capacity that they deserve, just like anyone else, to be able to support their communities and grow them and have a vision for them that is their own.

They can only do that if they are able to be self-sustaining, which is why so many First Nations across the province — unlike the New Democrats — support what we are doing in creating an LNG industry. They see the benefits for their communities.

But many of them also, though, don’t see the benefit of the treaty process. Some who are in the treaty process don’t see the benefit of it in particular, either. We are working with all of the parties. As I said, the federal government certainly agrees with our view of the treaty process, as do many, many First Nations.

I’ve quoted Stewart Phillip, the UBCIC. I met with him recently. We are doing our work now together on how we might move forward. Key to this, though, is my commitment to First Nations leaders that we will do this, change the treaty process, change the way we go about finding certainty in British Columbia for them and for all communities across the province — that we will do it together.

It will be a joint process. It will be one that the outcome reflects work that we’ve done hand in hand along the path. That is important work that is yet to be done that is underway but yet to be completed. We are very committed to that because the economic health of our province, getting to yes on economic development, depends in no small part on the work that we do with First Nations.

It’s government’s responsibility to make sure that we fulfil the obligations of the Crown. We take that very, very seriously because we believe in job creation. We believe in resource development. We believe in growing the economy, and we believe in doing it in a way that meets the needs and vision of people who live in those local communities.

We can do much more to share the benefits of resource development with First Nations. But we can’t do it if there is no resource development. So while the member likes to stand up and talk about how we might share resources, he almost always sits down before he tells us what his plan is to actually create that wealth and create those resources so that we have something to share.

On this side of the House we have been very, very clear about our principles, about our values. We believe in jobs. We believe in British Columbians having the chance to be first in line for those jobs. That has been almost the sole focus of our government, and certainly treaty making, working with First Nations, helping First Nations be beneficiaries of that and allowing development projects to go ahead in a way that meets the needs of communities is an important part of that.

J. Horgan: Will the Premier agree with me that we have put back relations with First Nations some distance by acting arbitrarily by not bringing them to a table with the federal government to come up with a plan together, cooperatively in a tripartite manner, as we have done for a number of years?

[1655]

Does the Premier agree with me that we’ve set ourselves back by taking the approach that she has of arbitrarily saying, “I don’t want to play with the old players. I want to make something up that meets my interests, meets the corridor here or the corridor there,” rather than, broadly, social justice and economic prosperity in every corner of British Columbia, not just the areas that the Premier’s interested in?

Hon. C. Clark: No, I don’t agree with him. I will also say he has an interesting way of thinking about how these benefits are going to be shared.

Certainly, the 27 First Nations along the pipeline routes for natural gas would profoundly disagree with
[ Page 8830 ]
him. He says that these projects are going to be all about the government? The 27 First Nations that have come to pipeline agreements and that will see real benefits in those agreements as a result of this work disagree with him, because they want to be a part of economic growth and economic development. What the member fundamentally doesn’t understand is that economic development, resource development, First Nations agreements, are inextricably tied together.

We need to create wealth in British Columbia if we want to have more to share. Gone are the days of the 1990s, where the member supported a government that appeared to believe that the way to grow the economy was to grow government. That the way to grow the economy was to grow taxes. That the way to grow the economy was to grow red tape. Those days are gone, thankfully.

We have taken a very different approach, which is to say we believe in making sure we grow a thriving private sector first, so that we have more wealth to share. In sharing that, we want to make sure that First Nations are integral to the process. That they’re helping create this economic opportunity and that they’re also benefiting from that economic opportunity. That’s the vision that we have for British Columbia.

This is politics. I understand that the member opposite has a very different vision. We know what that looks like because we saw that movie before. But here we are in a province that is targeted for the biggest economic growth in Canada this year and next. That means jobs. We believe in jobs. We believe in creating wealth for the province. And we believe in making sure that we share that wealth fairly amongst the people so that wherever you live in the province, you will see some benefit.

J. Horgan: Tripartite arrangement — two other parties involved in the discussions around treaty settlement, the gold standard. Again, the Premier’s words not six months ago: “The best way for resolution on the land is through treaty.” Six months after making that statement: “I’m on my own. I’m on a new track. I’m making stuff up as I go.”

Can the Premier tell this committee what steps she has taken to repair the relationships with those First Nations that are currently at the treaty table who are now faced with more uncertainty than they’ve had for the past two decades?

Hon. C. Clark: As I said, the treaty process is continuing. We hope that with the First Nations that are close to resolution or have a strong hope of resolution, we will get there soon. But as I said, in talking to First Nations chiefs — as we did at the historic All Chiefs meeting, the first in the history of the province — we heard loud and clear: the treaty process isn’t working, even for many of the people that are in it. We need to change it.

We’re going to do that. We’re going to do it hand in hand with First Nations to make sure it’s something that works for all of British Columbia. I can’t think of a more important task, because First Nations deserve to have certainty sooner than the 100 years that the current treaty process promises them. We agree with that. We want to make sure that First Nations get there sooner.

J. Horgan: The Premier made reference to a meeting last September with First Nations, where she was visited by an epiphany that made her want to change this process. Yet it took her eight months to get to the point of not appointing the person that she agreed to appoint in October. Mr. Abbott was agreed to in October. The Premier said she had her epiphany in September, and six months later Mr. Abbott was told that he was no longer required.

I’m having difficulty, and I would expect many people — perhaps even those backbenchers on the government side — are having difficulty trying to understand the chronology and how the Premier comes up with these thought processes sometimes.

It’s quite simple to stand up and say, “In September I had a good idea based on inputs from leaders in the First Nations communities” that attended her summit. But why then not agree to sit down again and talk about how we can make some progress? Why not sit down with the people already involved in the treaty process like Chief Sophie Pierre, like Chief Sayers, like the chiefs from my community, Chief Planes, Chief Chipps and Chief Daniels? Why not sit down, call the meeting of all of those participating in the treaty process and really talk about effecting change, really charging the mandates for the commissioners?

[1700]

It strikes me and, I think, any rational person…. I look at some of my colleagues across the way in the vain hope that they are paying some attention to the responses that are coming from the leader of their government today.

It strikes me that if you want general consensus to changes in direction, you don’t do it arbitrarily and you don’t do it by a phone call: “Gee, I’m sorry, I know you are in the middle of transitioning. The current commissioner has six days left before she leaves” — already extended once.

If the Premier had an epiphany in September, why did it take so long to be arbitrary in March? Why not, instead, embark on genuine cooperation with First Nations and our federal partners?

Hon. C. Clark: I think the member underestimates all of the other members of this House. Despite the looks on their faces, I can tell that they are excited to discover that the Leader of the Opposition is interested in First Nations issues.

We’ve heard so little from him over the years about this particular issue, despite its huge impact on the economy and huge, tremendous impact that it has on individual lives. He’s rarely raised it, and I think members must be
[ Page 8831 ]
quite excited that he has finally found his voice when it comes to First Nations issues.

It is something that we have been very much engaged in since I became Premier. We’ve signed 250 economic and other agreements with First Nations since that time. We are currently sitting down with First Nations leaders, talking to them about their vision for the treaty process, as I said, after having heard from very many of them that they don’t think that the current process works.

J. Horgan: Why not sit down with those First Nations participating in the treaty process and try and find a way to recharge the mandates and get resolution?

Wouldn’t that have been a more prudent and practical and responsible course of action rather than startling all of our partners by saying: “We’re not going to appoint this very capable individual, highly regarded and respected in every corner of British Columbia. I’m going to send him to the curb, and then I’m going to pretend I’ve got a better idea”?

Why not have a genuine real discussion about social justice and economic equality in British Columbia with the people that are at the table now — with the First Nations, with the government of Canada — and generally say to all of the people in B.C.: “This is how we’re going to proceed, cooperatively, hand in hand, not arbitrarily”?

Hon. C. Clark: The member talks about social justice, but doesn’t talk about economic growth at the same time. They are intimately linked. You must have economic growth, and you must have an economy that is functioning on all cylinders, a thriving private sector investment, if you want to make sure you have social justice.

That’s why we’ve been working so hard to achieve those agreements with First Nations. We are sitting down with First Nations leaders and talking to them precisely about the things that the member raised. So far, those discussions have gone well. There are going to be bumps in the road, as there always are in these things.

But First Nations want economic growth and development. They want to be part of that as much as anybody else in the province. That’s what we hope to be able to get closer to, rather than being wedded to a treaty process that, for the most part, just hasn’t been successful. It’s been very expensive, hasn’t met expectations and has let many First Nations down at great cost.

We can do better. We must do better than that. We are talking to First Nations leadership right now about exactly how we can do it.

J. Horgan: The Premier talks about a bump along the road. I would argue that when you drive into the ditch and take your partners with you and then they turn to you and say, “What’s the plan?” and you go: “Well, I’m working on that right now….”

I appreciate you were planning and preparing for six months to have a very capable individual lead the process of realizing modern-day treaties in a very difficult environment that has been frustrated by delays for a variety of reasons, largely as a result of the federal and the provincial governments, not First Nations.”

How would First Nations respond when, yet again, a senior level of government — or the Queen’s representative in this instance — says: “Yeah, I know we told you we were going to do something, but we’re not going to do it anymore”?

I understand full well the challenges on the land base. I know the Premier doesn’t want to acknowledge such things as the NDP creating the Oil and Gas Commission, which allowed for the expansion of oil and gas development in British Columbia. I understand that the Premier doesn’t want to acknowledge the Columbia Basin Trust, which brought together First Nations and communities for economic development in the 1990s.

[1705]

I understand the Premier would rather talk about her jobs plan, which only exists in her mind, not in reality. The Premier committed four years ago to lead the country in employment, and we are seventh four years in. Promise made; again, promise not kept. The Premier talks about one million job openings, and she talks about being debt-free. She talks about all of these goals that were promises and commitments — during election campaigns, to be sure — and now we’re advised that, well, they’re aspirational goals. “We just thought we’d say stuff that sounded good. We didn’t ever have any expectation that we were going to meet those outcomes.”

I’d like to focus in on debt for a minute. The Premier has said that it’s a fundamental value for her: debt, managing debt, addressing debt. I’m wondering if the Premier can explain, when they were spraying “Debt-free B.C.” on the side of her campaign bus, why they didn’t leave a little bit of room for an asterisk which said: “Coming to you sometime in the future. I don’t know where, I don’t when, but if I say it often enough and loud enough, people just might believe me.”

As I understand it, our direct debt has increased under the Premier’s watch faster than at any other time in B.C. history. Our contractual obligations are heading towards $105 billion. Forget about the deferred debt that we have at B.C. Hydro. That’s make-believe debt. That’s pretend debt. That’s debt that we’re going to deal with at some other time.

You put together our direct debt, you put together our contractual obligations, you put together our deferred debt, and we’re heading towards $170 billion. Four years ago it was a fundamental value of the Premier to wrestle debt to the ground, and it has gone through the roof.

Will the Premier advise this committee if this was, again, a real promise that people could count on or another aspirational goal so she could cling to power?
[ Page 8832 ]

Hon. C. Clark: The member sounds bitter, I have to say. It is interesting to hear this member stand up and talk about debt. He was part of a government that had the distinction of being the last in job growth in Canada for five years straight. We were last in Canada for private sector investment. Six consecutive credit downgrades. Of course, anyone who understands how your credit rating works, understands that that means you’re sending a lot more of taxpayers’ money to the banks in New York and London, and a lot less is available to spend on health care and education.

Eight deficit budgets in a row. Unemployment peaked at 10 percent and remained above 8 percent until 2000. Under the NDP 50,000 people had to flee British Columbia because they couldn’t find work. And this member stands up and pretends that he cares about our debt. He was the guy with the shovel digging the hole of debt that we are still trying to dig ourselves out of.

Here we are in British Columbia, finally, at a spot where we’re able to say our direct operating debt is at its lowest level since Mike Harcourt took over in 1991. Our debt-to-GDP ratio is 17.7 percent, and it is falling. That is compared to almost 40 percent in Ontario, 54 percent in Quebec and 30 percent nationally. We have seen seven credit upgrades for British Columbia. We maintain the highest credit rating possible with Moody’s, Standard and Poor’s and Fitch.

Of course, the way to continue to reduce the debt is twofold. The first is to make sure that we balance our budget, something that the member opposite has proven uniquely he is incapable of and uninterested in, while today he stands up and pretends that he cares about debt. Eight deficit budgets in a row. That’s not how you get out of debt.

The first thing you need to do is you need to make sure you balance your budget. The second thing you need to do, when you have a surplus, is you devote that surplus to paying off the debt. In this House this member and members of his caucus got up and said we should have spend the surplus on something else, that we should have grown government, growth that we would have to pay for year after year after year, rather than devoting it to the debt. We profoundly disagree with that.

[1710]

The third thing that we need to do is we need to make sure we’re growing the economy. It’s through a growing economy that we have the capacity to be able to balance our budget, run surpluses and ultimately pay down our debt. Has it taken us some time to get our province back into surplus? Yes. Is it taking us some time to turn the giant supertanker of debt growth around? Yes, it is taking us some time to do that, but we are getting there.

The credit agencies — external, independent, very tough marking bodies — have confirmed that we’re getting there. In addition to that, we have balanced three consecutive budgets in a row, reaffirming our commitment to getting there. Then, despite the advice from the NDP and the Leader of the Opposition, we have taken our surplus, and we are putting it toward paying off the debt.

We need to continue to do that work. Most of all, we need to grow the economy. That means supporting clearly and standing up on principle for getting to yes. Responsible resource development that meets the needs of communities, that protects the environment for future generations, that shares resources with First Nations — absolutely, but let’s find a way to get to yes.

Rather than waving the white flag every time there’s a problem, rather than refusing to take a position because it might be politically difficult, it’s important to stand for something. Those are principles that we stand for — making sure we grow our economy and, in doing so, increase the revenue to government, increase the amount of money people keep in their pockets. That’s ultimately how you get to a place where you’re able to pay off your debt for future generations.

Unlike the NDP, I do not believe that it is the right thing to do to continue to rack up debt, have deficits, show no interest in paying them off. In doing that, we’re cheating our kids. What we’re saying if we do that — as he did through the 1990s — is that every year we want our kids to take care of these problems for us. No responsible parent would do that with their children, and no government should do that on a parent’s behalf.

That’s why we are so committed to making sure that we look after British Columbia fiscally and, ultimately, find a way to make British Columbia a place in Canada that can proudly say: “We are debt-free.”

J. Horgan: Something is being shovelled in here. I don’t know quite what it is, but you can usually find it in a barnyard. If my friend from Saanich South were here, she’d be able to identify it, absolutely.

Let me just throw a fact at the Premier. I know this rocks her when this sort of stuff happens. In 2001 the total debt and contractual obligations of the province of British Columbia was $31 billion. It sounds like a lot of money, $31 billion. Fourteen years later, when the Good Ship Lollipop over there has been going at it for a good period of time — $165 billion in debt. Yet the Premier finished that answer by saying we’re going to be debt-free. We’ve gone up $135 billion in debt, and it’s going up. Those are just current figures. Sadly, there are two more years of debt mania going on over there.

At the same time, the Premier has the audacity to stand and say that it’s unreasonable for us to leave our kids with debt and that she will not be part of that. “I will not be privy to adding debt to my children,” says the Premier of British Columbia. From $30 billion to $165 billion — that’s a lot of potatoes.

I will ask the Premier to get up again and maybe come back to reality and look at this fact — $165 billion and rising. How is that not burdening the next generation with our problems today?
[ Page 8833 ]

Hon. C. Clark: Well, as I said, our debt-to-GDP ratio is falling, and it’s going to continue to fall. We also have our operating debt down to levels that we haven’t seen since Mike Harcourt took over as Premier in British Columbia and was the first half of subjecting our province to a decade of absolute ruin.

We have to make sure that we find the balance of investing in projects that are going to benefit our children for the long run — $265 million in Royal Columbian today. I suppose the member is going to stand up and oppose that. He is suddenly so principled about government spending. Or the $500 million we’ll be spending at St. Paul’s. Perhaps the member will stand up and oppose that. He’s so concerned about debt in British Columbia, but at the same time, every single day he says we are not spending enough.

[1715]

We are investing in capital projects that will benefit our children long into the future. But when it comes to operating debt, that’s the kind of debt you incur to pay for the groceries. That is not the kind of debt that we want to continue to grow, and it’s not growing. As I said, we’re continuing to get it down. We’ve got it down to 1991 levels.

If the member would at least once stand up and support economic development in this province and support the responsible resource development that’s being proposed in every corner of British Columbia, the billions of dollars that are being invested to create jobs in British Columbia and revenue for government…. If he would stand up and say that and understand that and recognize why that is important, then he would see and understand exactly how it is that provinces dig their way out of long-term debt.

The way we do it is by economic growth. It’s by making sure there is more revenue to share across the province and more revenue to make sure we are able to pay down our debt. But all we ever hear from the member, despite his tears and the worries he’s expressing today about the debt for the province, is: “You shouldn’t bother balancing the budget. It doesn’t matter. You shouldn’t bother going ahead with all these economic development projects, or you should delay them. It doesn’t matter.”

Then, on the other hand, he says: “Government should grow, and government should spend more.” Well, guess what. We’ve been there. We were there in the ten years that this Leader of the Opposition advised the NDP for that decade of ruin that British Columbians had to endure. We are not going back to that.

We are going to make sure that we grow our economy, that we increase the amount of revenue available to citizens and government and that we take that revenue to balance our budget, to run surpluses and then to devote those surpluses to making sure that we pay down and, ultimately, pay off our debt.

Is this something that you do overnight? No, it’s not. Perhaps the member’s failure to understand that is at the root of his question today. He seems to think that this should all have been done last year, the year before, the year before that. It doesn’t happen that quickly.

We are on a plan — a plan that is working, a plan we are focused on and one that will ultimately get us there for the benefit not just of British Columbians working today, the ordinary people who make a difference every single day in building our province…. It will make a difference for their children, their children and their children after them.

J. Horgan: So from 1858 or 1871, whatever date you want to pick, to 2001 the people of B.C. incurred debt to the extent of $30 billion. Over 100-plus years — it took us that long to get a debt of $30 billion. The Liberals in 14 years added $135 billion to that, and the Premier — again, audacity seems to spring to mind — has the audacity to stand up and say: “It doesn’t happen overnight.”

It happened over 14 years. We went from $30 billion to $165 billion, and the Premier says: “I’ve got a plan. We’re sticking to the plan. The plan is going to work.” It strikes me that the plan has taken us to the poorhouse. The plan is taking generation after generation going forward into the poorhouse.

She talks about a time in the past, 14 years ago, when she became the Deputy Premier of British Columbia — $30 billion and $135 billion added on top of that. And the Premier somehow thinks that’s my fault. “It’s the problem of previous governments. We have never done anything wrong on this side of the House. I just have to get up and make a statement, and it will be somehow construed as fact” — at least in her mind and the mind, regrettably, of executive council and, I’m hopeful, not too many of those on the back bench.

We’re going to be debt-free. That was a commitment. That was a promise the Premier made. She promised to get to the bottom of the Health firings. She promised to have the back of the people in Babine and Lakeland. She promised to be debt-free, and it was in big font. It wasn’t an asterisk. It wasn’t “read it in the fine print.” It was as advertised: “I’m going to commit to this.”

Then the Premier stands up today in this Legislature and has the temerity to say it’s somehow my fault. It’s somehow the people on this side of the House that have increased the debt in British Columbia by $135 billion. What world do you live in when you can…?

[1720]

In 2001, when the Premier went from over here to over there, it was $30 billion. That’s a small number. You only need three sets of hands to get there. Three sets of hands will tell you $30 billion. It takes a lot more hands….

Maybe this will help the Premier understand it. The Premier made a commitment to the people of British Columbia. We were going to be debt-free, and we have $135 billion more debt over the past 14 years.

My question to the Premier is: instead of blaming other people for the challenges that she has brought upon all
[ Page 8834 ]
of us — not just New Democrats but Liberals as well; Liberals have to pay debt too — can the Premier advise us on the plan that she wants to stick to, the plan that she says is working? Can you give us some indication just what that is? And will it be 100 years before you even get close to paying it off?

Hon. C. Clark: I’m delighted to have the opportunity to talk about the plan, the plan that we created in 2011 and that we’ve been continuing to build on.

I mean, here we are. The irony of this, of course, is that we have this member standing up and talking about how he’s so concerned about debt. And he’s got all these big numbers, he says. He stands there and talks about how important…. He indicates that he somehow thinks debt is important and that it’s something that we should do something about.

Of course, I agree with that. For a moment, before I realized: “Wait a minute; there’s something wrong here….” It’s great to imagine that the Leader of the Opposition has had a conversion on the road to Damascus and suddenly cares about debt.

But here’s the reality. He was part of a government that ran eight consecutive balanced budgets. I’ve got news for the member. You can’t start paying down debt until….

Interjection.

Hon. C. Clark: Unbalanced budgets. Thank you for correcting me. He remembers it clearly.

You can’t pay off your debt unless you balance your budget. Eight consecutive deficits is not a way to get there. Six consecutive credit downgrades. It’s not a way to get there. Shrinking the economy and sending British Columbians fleeing to other provinces is not a way to get there.

They ran these deficits. They dug British Columbia into a deep hole of debt. They grew government enormously at the vast expense of taxpayers. And at the same time, they didn’t build hospitals. They didn’t open up a single training space for doctors. They didn’t invest in B.C. Hydro. They invested in portables rather than investing in schools.

Meanwhile, this member stands up and says that he cares about debt. If that member cares about debt, perhaps he will tell us which projects he doesn’t think we should be spending money on.

We’re investing in legacy projects that are going to make a difference for the future of British Columbians. But we are also, at the same time, balancing our budget, running surpluses, devoting that surplus to paying off the debt — none of which the member has supported. Instead, all he has said, and all we have heard from him in this House day after day is: why doesn’t government spend more?

The reason that we don’t is because we are determined to wrestle this debt under control in British Columbia. Does it happen overnight? No, it doesn’t. Are we dedicated to making sure that it does happen? Absolutely. And how are we going to do that?

We’re going to do that through the B.C. jobs plan, which has created thousands of jobs all across the province, by making sure that we’re getting to yes in the eight key sectors of the economy on which we are focused. And we are getting there in mining, in forestry, in natural gas, in agriculture, in technology, in all of the fields that we’ve identified as priority export areas.

We are supporting the growth in that economy by making sure that British Columbians have access to the training that they need to be a part of it, to make sure that they are first in line for those jobs. The B.C. skills training blueprint for jobs plan is underway.

We are working on something similar with the tech business as well, specifically focusing on how we can grow the number of graduates and people available to work in the tech business. Keeping taxes low for individuals so that they can continue to have as much money as possible in their pockets….

It’s a process that requires tenacity. It requires focus. It requires determination. And we are getting there.

J. Horgan: The Premier said we aren’t going to get there overnight. Can she tell us when we’re going to get there?

[1725]

Hon. C. Clark: As we continue to grow the economy and revenues expand to government. This is something that I’ve been clear about for the last few years, saying: “We cannot do this unless we grow the economy.” Creating a liquefied natural gas industry will speed us along that path faster.

But we want to make sure…. As I said, the first thing we have to do is see that economic growth happens, do everything that we can as a government to enable it. The farther we get along that path, the more economic development that we’re able to enable across the province, the quicker we’ll get to becoming debt-free.

The first step in that is making sure that you balance the budget. I know the member doesn’t understand that. He was never part of a government, I think except one year, that actually managed to balance a budget. We have done that for three years consecutively in some very, very difficult times. We’ve balanced the budget. We’ve kept taxes low. We’ve attracted new investment. We maintained our credit ratings.

We are projected to be number one in economic growth this year and next year. We’re going to continue that work. As revenues grow, as the economy grows, as more wealth is created, our ability to be able to balance the budget, of course, will be assured and so will our ability to be able to run surpluses. And some portion of those surpluses, as they grow, will be devoted to making
[ Page 8835 ]
sure we pay down our debt in future years, as it was this year. But we can’t get there unless we grow the economy.

I want to urge the member to stand up, support economic growth at every chance that he gets. I know it’s a big change for him, but he should make the U-turn, support economic growth, support responsible resource development, support British Columbians getting those jobs, the jobs that are going to make sure we can ensure our future — not just for ourselves but for our children and for their children, rather than shovelling off those hard decisions for them to make because we didn’t have the courage to do so ourselves.

J. Horgan: “Sometime later” — not to be defined. “Debt-free B.C. coming to a theatre near you” — but not overnight. That’s kind of what I heard. So 28,000 jobs lost last month in British Columbia, according to StatsCan; 25,000 fewer people working in the forest industry than there were in 2001.

The Premier wanted to lead the country in job creation. B.C.’s total job growth over the last four years has been abysmal when compared to previous periods of time. From 1991-1995 B.C.’s total job growth was 14.5 percent. From ’96 to 2000 job growth was 7.8 percent. From 2001 to 2005, when the Premier saddled up, the total job growth was 8 percent, so it went up 0.2 percent over the previous four years. But 2006-2007 it started to drop. Since the Premier saddled up as the boss, 2011-2015, B.C.’s job growth was 1.8 percent, trailing everyone but PEI and Nova Scotia.

This plan, the jobs plan. “We’re going to be number one. We’re going to be debt-free. We’re going to have an LNG plant operating in 2015.” I don’t think that’s going to happen.

Interjection.

J. Horgan: Yes, you did.

Promises made, promises not kept. Jobs plan — not working. Debt-free — not working. LNG — not working.

Will the Premier admit today that the commitments that she made during the election campaign and almost every day since then have been fiction, that the job growth in British Columbia is flatter than it has ever been in our history, that the debt is higher than it has ever been in our history and that the prospects for future generations are pretty dim?

In fact, this may well be the first generation since the First World War that is worse off than the one before it. My kids will not have the same opportunities that I had, and that’s not the legacy that I want to leave for the people of British Columbia.

Hydro rates, 28 percent increase. MSP premiums, up again. Camping fees. Ferry fares. Tuition fees. Everything is going up, up, up — except marginal taxes for high-income earners. So $150,000 a year — you just got a tax break this year. Because that was a solemn commitment that the Premier made. Not an aspirational goal. That was: “We’re going to raise your taxes a little bit, but don’t worry. We’ll drop them again as soon as we win the next election.”

They didn’t say that about the debt. They didn’t say that about the jobs plan. They just said that about income taxes for high-income earners. They said before the election that they were going to wrestle Hydro to the ground and that rates were going to be stable. And we were visited by a 28 percent increase.

The Premier says: “We’re going to be sound fiscal managers.” B.C. Hydro cost overruns just on information technology alone would be sufficient to ensure that we didn’t have to raise MSP premiums this year or next year — just on IT.

[1730]

The cost of transmission lines — through the roof. The cost of everything the Premier and her government puts their hands on — through the roof. The consequence is crippling debt.

What I have trouble with is not the notion that the Premier isn’t committed to this. It is the hypocrisy. It’s the hypocrisy that in the same breath the Premier can say: “What are you in favour of? But I’m against debts.” How do you do that?

So $135 billion in new costs added onto future generations, 28,000 jobs lost last month. Two shaky legs on the three-legged stool for the Premier are a jobs plan and debt reduction.

That third leg on the stool is an LNG industry in British Columbia by 2015. Hasn’t happened. Not likely to happen this year, unless some miracle happens and we manage to get a plant built between now and December 31. I don’t think that’s going to happen. I look at my learned colleague from Surrey-Whalley. I don’t think he believes it’s going to happen either.

My question to the Premier is this: if your debt reduction plan is a failure, how can you possibly say your job creation plan is a success when we’re No. 7 in job creation and just last month we lost 28,000 jobs?

Hon. C. Clark: Mr. Chairman. I understand there’s a transition. I’ll help you get through that if I can.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

So 45,000 new jobs have been created in British Columbia since the introduction of the jobs plan. We’ve seen the biggest drop in unemployment in British Columbia of any province in Canada. Those numbers are great, but we need to do much, much better. We need to continue to grow through difficult times, and we need to make sure that our province is really thriving and working on all cylinders.

There’s a great quote from the member for Vancouver-Kingsway. On the 1990s NDP, he said, “It was like Murder
[ Page 8836 ]
on the Orient Express. We were all to blame” — I guess, including the Leader of the Opposition today — for the terrible impact that they had on so many people’s lives. The highest income taxes in the country, making British Columbia a have-not province so that we were on the take from the country rather than contributing to it. The highest unemployment rate in all of the western provinces.

We are today in the midst of economic growth. The member talked about how I wanted British Columbia to lead in economic growth. Well, that is the prediction for this year and for next year. We are getting there.

Are we getting there on managing down our debt? Yes, we are. The first step in getting there is making sure you balance your budget, which we’ve done three times. Make sure you maintain your credit rating, and we have maintained the highest credit rating possible with all agencies. And we’ve made sure that we’re keeping taxes low across the province.

Do we have more to do? Absolutely. We have more to do before we get there. As I said: “Will it be done overnight?” No, it won’t be done overnight.

The member doesn’t understand how economics work. He doesn’t understand how economies work. The member doesn’t understand how to create job growth. He doesn’t understand the relationship between revenue to government, being able to share resources, and the importance of growing a thriving private sector.

Those fundamentals appear to be absolutely lost on that member. He’s certainly proved that throughout his tenure in government in the 1990s, and he’s making it very clear today that in the interim between then and now he hasn’t developed any new knowledge on any of those issues.

The Chair: Is it the will of the committee to have a five-minute recess? We have been going for the last two and a half hours. A five minute recess?

The committee will have a recess for five minutes.

The committee recessed from 5:34 p.m. to 5:43 p.m.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

J. Horgan: Before we took the break we were discussing the government’s commitments to jobs, the government’s commitment to being debt-free and the government’s commitment to LNG. I’d like to focus a little bit on some of the things the Premier said — again, promises made, promises not realized.

CBC radio, February 2013: “Well, the money’s going to start coming in, in 2017.” That would be for the fictitious prosperity fund which currently doesn’t exist, but perhaps by 2017 it will exist. It was going to be $100 billion in the prosperity fund. There’s no timeline on that. It was just a commitment pulled out of the sky. “We’re going to have three plants up and running by 2020, the first one by 2015. That’s pretty close,” the Premier said on CBC radio.

[1745]

A couple of months later: “Our goal is a debt-free B.C., and we intend to reach our goal 15 years from today.” That means that we’re running out of time, and we’re running up the debt. We have $135 billion to eradicate, and we’ve only got a few years left to do it. That commitment was made two years ago, so 13 years, according to the solemn commitment the Premier made during the election campaign.

The Premier then, lastly, said in that famous April of 2013: “Development in natural gas can stimulate $1 trillion in new economic activity across the province — 100,000 new jobs and $100 billion over 30 years.”

The Premier was going to get rid of the sales tax. The Premier was going to get rid of the debt. Everything was going to be great. Of course, like most British Columbians, I want to see the economy prosper. I want to make sure that my neighbours are working. I want to make sure that they’re raising their families, as I’ve been able to do, in British Columbia and as many, many others have. But when we look at the job growth….

This is, in my opinion, the key issue for the Premier. She put it all on the line with her jobs plan, and last month we lost 28,000 jobs. Over the past number of years our ability to keep pace with other jurisdictions has been lagging.

I went to Tumbler Ridge shortly after I became leader of the B.C. NDP, and I was watching people leaving Tumbler Ridge as mines were closing. Two coal mines shut down. HD Mining, which is populated by temporary foreign workers, is still running, or at least the preliminary stages are still going, but the other coal mines in Tumbler Ridge have shut down.

The Premier had a jobs plan. We’ve seen a decline in jobs in the forest sector — 25,000 in the past decade. We’ve seen a 500 percent increase in raw log exports. Those are jobs leaving British Columbia. We’ve heard from the B.C. Business Council that our trade deficit is growing.

Our ability to manage over the long term…. What it’s called is our export intensity. We export just under $19,000 worth of goods and services per capita, far behind every other province except Nova Scotia, P.E.I. and Quebec. The Premier has talked about an export economy. We’re exporting raw logs. We’re not exporting manufactured goods.

The B.C. Business Council chief economist, Jock Finlayson, highly regarded by everyone in this place, says there are only four provinces that we’re better than. One of them is Prince Edward Island, which is the size of the district of Saanich here in the capital regional district.

My question to the Premier is: can she take this reality, these facts, and put them up against the commitments and the solemn promises she made with respect to hav-
[ Page 8837 ]
ing an LNG plant running this year and 100,000 jobs in that sector when, in fact, we’re losing jobs in B.C. and our export intensity is going down, not going up?

Hon. C. Clark: I don’t know if the member noticed, but there have been some changes in the energy and commodity sector in the last little while. Oil got down to 50 bucks, and that has had a major impact on the oil and gas industry all around the world.

We’re coping with that, and we’re continuing down the path, but as I said when oil dropped, it is something that we’re going to have to pay attention to. We don’t know what the results of that might be, but we’re going to continue to work diligently and as hard as we can.

We got to a project development agreement with Petronas, with $36 billion estimated investment in the province. That’s going to mean a lot of jobs — and, by the way, in a project that the member does not and has not and his caucus has not supported. Despite their absence of support for that, we continue to support it.

That economic growth is crucial to making sure that British Columbia is able to pay off the debt, keep taxes low and create those jobs, but you have to have a plan. The fact that the member doesn’t understand that…. He distinguished himself, along with his government, as the most incompetent economic managers in British Columbia’s history. I’m not surprised that he’s confused by how jobs are created, how wealth is created and how it turns out that government has the revenue that we need to be able to share that wealth amongst British Columbians, particularly those who are most vulnerable.

Unemployment. British Columbia’s unemployment rate has dropped more than any other province’s in the country. We have single-digit unemployment in every single region. We are going to continue to try and edge that downward and make sure that British Columbians are first in line for the jobs that are coming. That’s central to our economic plan.

[1750]

It’s still underway. The jobs plan was launched in September 2011. We’ve continued to update it since then, but it’s not a job that we can just rub our hands together and say: “Gee, it’s over.” It’s something that requires tenacity, hard work, focus. That is what we are giving it.

While the member might rub his hands in the hope that these projects fail, I take the exact opposite view. What is good for British Columbia is economic growth. That means investing in resources. It means making sure that we get projects to yes, rather than putting in the way the roadblocks that the member has tried in this House numerous times to put in their way. The path to prosperity, the path to debt-free, the path to low taxes, the path to jobs is paved with getting to yes on economic development projects.

It would be great if the NDP, once in a while, supported some of those projects, but, frankly, we can do it without them. If we have to, we will do it without them, because British Columbians deserve to know that their government cares about creating good, long-term, stable, family-supporting jobs in every region of this province so that they can guarantee the future for their children and their grandchildren.

J. Horgan: I take comfort in the knowledge that anyone who knows me knows that everything that the Premier just said there was just what was shovelled earlier on, which we were talking about. I’ll leave it at that.

Again, I’ll go back to the fact. From 1991 to 1995 — job growth, 14.5 percent. Job growth under the B.C. Liberals, under the jobs plan — 1.8 percent. Employment growth — nonexistent. Yet the Premier steadfastly believes that if she says it often enough, it’ll become true. Four-year record — promise made; promise not delivered on. The jobs plan is not working. People have stopped looking for jobs, and 28,000 jobs last month disappeared.

My question to the Premier is: does she believe that a 500 percent increase in raw log exports is going to create more jobs in the forest sector over the long term?

Hon. C. Clark: The forest sector is one of the sectors that we focused on in the jobs plan. We have been working very hard with the industry, with workers, with communities to make sure, in an era of pine beetle and some of the other issues that the forest industry has been coping with and the workers have been coping with, that we grow the industry and that we make sure that we grow the number of jobs.

Now I understand why the member thinks that he did such a good job in the 1990s. His statistics don’t reflect anything that most economists would tell you happened. We were No. 1 in unemployment in the country under the NDP on his watch. In the Cariboo they had an historic high of 6.3 percent unemployment. In Prince George, which is now at 5.6 percent, they had a high in 1999, on his watch, of 17.6 percent.

Back in those days Prince George was a lonely and depressing place to walk down the main street, with so many businesses closed and so many people who had lost hope as a result of the decisions that this member and his government took.

Abbotsford-Mission. Under his watch, there was a 13.2 percent unemployment rate. Today it’s 6 percent. Thompson-Okanagan — 11.8 percent. Today it’s 7.4 percent. Vancouver Island and the coast, his own communities: on his watch, the unemployment rate was 11.7 percent. Today it is 6.4 percent.

It’s no wonder that British Columbians rejected the 1990s and still remember them so clearly. They had a devastating effect on so many people’s lives. I’m sure British Columbians will remember that his government and this adviser to that government were the most incompetent economic managers that British Columbia has ever had
[ Page 8838 ]
in power. Those are the statistics that bear the truth to that statement.

J. Horgan: They are statistics. I think that Jimmy Pattison would dispute the competence of the people who were managing issues in the 1990s, but that’s, again, just more reality. So 28,000 jobs lost last month and 1.8 percent employment growth.

I’ll just pause for a moment so that people can understand the difference between an unemployment rate and employment growth. Creating jobs means you are doing just that. Stopping looking for jobs means you fall off the rolls. We’re not creating the jobs. People have stopped looking for the jobs, and last month we lost 28,000.

[1755]

Again, the Premier likes to pretend that these things are important to her. She talks about it with passion. But at Kitwanga, in the northwest, she was there for a photo opportunity when the mill started up. She wasn’t there months later when the mill shut down. Western Forest Products, right here on the Island, in Nanaimo. The Premier was there for the photo opportunity when the mill was started up and didn’t show up when the mill shut down.

The Premier talked about commodity prices a moment ago and how she’s doing the best she can about that. She may know that in 1998 copper was selling at about 65 cents a pound. Over the past number of years, on the Liberal watch, it has been in the $4 neighbourhood. That’s a big difference. That’s a big deal. Despite that, there was economic activity in the 1990s. There was economic activity in the 1980s and the 1970s and the 1960s. In a boom-and-bust, commodity-based economy things go up, and they go down. They go up, and they go down. British Columbians, by their ingenuity and their hard work, have always made a go of it.

By demonizing people, as the Premier has a tendency to do…. Suggesting that only she and the keepers of the sacred runes in the B.C. Liberal Party understand economic activity is just not true, and most people are really tired of it. The Premier doesn’t seem to tire of not standing up and focusing on what she’s responsible for: the past four years as Premier of the province of British Columbia, where we have not seen the results that were promised on LNG, on debt and on job creation.

Those are critical economic issues. They all work together seamlessly, and there are a host of reasons why she’s been unsuccessful. But when posed with questions about the lack of success, her default position is to say that something terrible happened a long, long time ago. Reality just does not bear that out. Up and down in the commodity cycles is what British Columbia has always been about.

We need to change that. We need to diversify our economy. We need to focus on those new industries that the Premier has mentioned, since she’s given up on LNG. We had three throne speeches in a row where the only thing the Premier would talk about was LNG, That’s it — start, middle, end: LNG, LNG, LNG — until this February, when it became abundantly clear that the promise of an LNG facility in 2015 was not going to happen. All of a sudden it was no longer a certainty. It was a hope. It was an opportunity.

If everything goes well…. I hope it does go well. Anyone who knows me understands that. The Premier will dispute that. She’ll make up some rationale to complain that I do not support the industry. I was there when the Oil and Gas Commission was developed, which led to the expansion of this sector in British Columbia. I am hopeful, as all British Columbians are, that we can maximize the benefit of this resource that belongs to all of the people of British Columbia, as do our minerals, as do our metals, as do our forest products. The trees, the rocks, the water, the gas belong to all British Columbians.

The question I hear wherever I travel…. In the Interior, on the Island, in Vancouver what I hear is: is this government selling the store? Are they giving away these resources without getting a return back to the people who own those resources? Sadly, when you look at the information that’s made available to us…. It’s infrequent that we get complete stories from the B.C. Liberals.

We’re not getting access to project development agreements. We’re not going to be able to take a look at those. I’m fairly confident that Petronas has been well taken care of in these documents, but I have no understanding or no ability to understand whether or not job protection is there for British Columbians, whether the resource will get a fair return to those who own it, the people of British Columbia.

We’ll see that later on. “We’re cutting deals,” says the Premier, “and we’ll let you see it when we’re done.” Is it just going to be temporary foreign workers that benefit from any expansion in this sector? According to the environmental assessment documents that Petronas tabled with the government of Canada, they anticipate 70 percent of the workers that they will need to build that sector will come from somewhere else. I haven’t seen anything to contradict that from the Premier.

In fact, when we talk about the project development agreements, we’re told: “Yeah, well, it’s going to be really good. We’ll show it to you sometime in the future after someone else has approved it.” I don’t believe that’s good enough. We have a Legislature that could have, should have been working on these issues over the past number of months.

In the infrequent visits from the Premier we get hyperbole and rhetoric. I think what we need to start focusing on is the facts and the reality that people are feeling right across this province. They’re being squeezed by their government, costs are going up, and it’s tougher to get by now than it was four years ago. There are fewer job opportunities than there were four years ago. Go to Tumbler Ridge
[ Page 8839 ]
and look at the for-sale signs there. Go to Tumbler Ridge and see those people who just dropped the keys in the front yard and drove away.

[1800]

It’s tough times out in the hinterland. It’s tough times in resource communities. The Premier’s response is: “We have a plan. It’s a good plan. We’re sticking to the plan.”

Premier, the plan’s not working;1.8 percent employment growth on the four years of the jobs plan. Again, can the Premier explain to this House how it is that we can lose 28,000 jobs last month and the Premier thinks her plan is working?

Hon. C. Clark: Well, of course, the difference is that our government, in an era of low commodity prices, has still managed to balance the budget, not use it as some all-inclusive excuse for being total economic failures, which is what this member was a part of for a decade.

Our government, in an era of low commodity prices, in one of the worst crashes of oil prices in recent history, has managed to sign a project development agreement with Petronas that could mean up to $36 billion overall in investment in our province. That’s really significant, and it’s the product of a lot of hard work and being willing to say we’re going to keep working through the issues, not throw up the white flag as the member loves to try and do every time there is a problem.

We want to make sure we work our way through those problems and we get there for the benefit of British Columbians. The LNG industry — just the $36 billion investment alone — will mean thousands of jobs for the people of the province.

We do need to make sure we are focused on diversity in our economy. In addition to the work that we are doing on LNG, the member could look at the jobs plan and the work that we’ve done and the reporting out that we’ve done on the jobs plan and the skills-for-jobs blueprint and see the progress that we’ve made in every single sector that we identified as a prime candidate for growth because they are export-focused.

The member talks about jobs. He talks about making sure that we’re creating jobs, as though he didn’t preside over an era of terrible economic decline for a decade — an era when the member, who claims that mining matters, was a part of a government that saw two mines closed for every single one that opened. They wiped out over 36 percent of B.C.’s mining jobs. That’s a lot of jobs for a lot of people. That’s a lot of livelihoods and a lot of families that were destroyed.

Since 2011 five new mines have opened, creating over 1,300 new jobs. Seven expansions of existing mines have been approved. In addition to that, of course, Red Chris created over 300 more jobs. Thirty thousand people are employed in mining today. That is up from 14,700, which is all we were left with after the economic mismanagement that this member was a part of throughout the 1990s.

We support economic growth in British Columbia. We have been very, very clear about that, whether it’s in forestry, mining, agriculture, technology or liquefied natural gas. And the member pointed out that as part of the project development agreement and the $36 billion potential investment from that, the government has made some commitments. But they’re commitments that will only be fulfilled after this Legislature has a chance to look through that document in its entirety.

For the member to say he doesn’t get to have a look at it is just completely inaccurate. He will get a chance to have a look at it. It’s going to be part of the discussion that we have in the Legislature. And when it comes to the Legislature, that member and all of the other members, I’m sure, on the other side can stand up, one after the other, and tell us that while they support LNG, they don’t support this agreement.

British Columbians are going to see through that. They’re going to know that when the members opposite stand up and vote against what I think is the biggest single private sector investment ever made in Canada — one that is going to be the beginning of a brand-new industry for our province — they are standing up against jobs. They are standing up against economic growth. They are standing up against a responsibly managed resource industry that shares benefits with First Nations and communities. And they are standing up against — rather than in favour of — the best interests of British Columbians today and for the next 50 years.

J. Horgan: You see? It’s the hyperbole and the rhetoric that catches the Premier out on these things. She makes outlandish claims and outrageous commitments and can’t deliver on them. “The greatest thing in history. The biggest thing ever. There’s nothing ever like it in the history of mankind.” That’s what gets you into trouble.

[1805]

Most people have modest expectations of the success of governments. They have little, little hope for this government or any government to succeed on the promises they make. But this government has distinguished itself from almost all others by making promises that are just outlandish.

I’d like to ask the Premier about the prosperity fund. How’s that going?

Hon. C. Clark: Outlandish? We signed a project development agreement with Petronas. We’ve promised that the agreement will come to the Legislature and not take effect until and if it is passed by this chamber.

I am very much looking forward to seeing what the Leader of the Opposition and his caucus have to say about that agreement — whether or not they would support moving ahead with an LNG industry in British Columbia. It will be enlightening, and British Columbians will finally know where they stand on at least one of the issues
[ Page 8840 ]
around economic development.

The member has refused to say, for example, where he stands on Site C, a project that is going to create thousands of jobs. That’s not mythical. That’s real — a project that’s going to create 100 years of clean, reliable power for British Columbians. That’s not mythical. That’s real. It’s a project that will be underway this summer, and it will start creating those jobs immediately.

We announced today, in working with the building trades council, that B.C. Hydro and the trades had come to an agreement around the jobs and the workers on the site. We’re proud of that because we’re working with people from all different sectors of the economy, including unions, to make sure that these economic projects go ahead.

But the member stands up and refuses to say where he stands on these projects — this one in particular. I hope today that he’ll take the chance to get up and be honest, be principled, take a stand and tell British Columbians what he really believes about Site C, because so far, we’ve heard nothing. We’ve heard nothing but waffling and flip-flops and stories that mean different things to different people.

British Columbians deserve better. They deserve leadership not just from government. They deserve leadership from the opposition as well.

J. Horgan: Again, to the Premier, how’s the prosperity fund going?

Hon. C. Clark: I keep giving the member options and opportunities to talk about Site C, but he keeps refusing. I wonder why. I’ll answer this question, and then perhaps he can get up and talk to us about where he stands on Site C. Or is that…? That’s just maybe too delicate an issue.

He believes, of course, that government needs to tell people where it stands, which we do. But I think that he is also living in a different world from British Columbians if he thinks that the people of this province don’t also want to know where he stands. The dodge, the weave, the waffles and the flip-flops on issues like Site C are far too important for him to continue to avoid and evade.

The prosperity fund is, I know, an issue that was canvassed with the Minister of Finance as well. We are going to make sure, once the LNG business is up and running, that we have a place to start being able to put some of those revenues as the economy grows. We’re working on it. And in due time, before the next election, the member will, I’m sure, be really pleased — or perhaps not — to see that like the other promises we’ve made, we’ve kept that one as well.

J. Horgan: So then there is no prosperity fund. It doesn’t exist. It was an aspirational goal. As part of the prosperity fund, we were going to set aside billions of dollars after we had eliminated the $135 billion in debt that has been increasing over the past 14 years under the Liberal watch. Then, I remember, after the trillions of dollars — gazillions….

I like to think of it as kind of a playground number. Remember when you were in kindergarten and someone said “gazillions”? You knew they were just making it up. “Trillions” is kind of in that sphere.

It’s the hyperbole and the rhetoric and the exaggeration by the Premier that, I think, catches her out quite often. The prosperity fund, no debt, and we were going to do away with the sales tax.

Can the Premier advise the people of B.C. how that’s going?

Hon. C. Clark: On the prosperity fund, as I said, we are on track to make sure that we put that in place, as I promised, before the next election. We’re going to deliver on that for British Columbians.

[1810]

We want to make sure that there is a place to make sure we lock up the wealth that’s created from future governments that may decide they want to do what Alberta did and fritter it away over the years — to take the legacy of future generations and spend it all on growing government. The most expensive, least effective health care system in the country — it’s Alberta.

If you look at the costs and the growth in government in the province next door, you’ll see — previous Premiers have talked about this — that it was largely funded over the years by taking that wealth that was intended to be locked up, wealth that Peter Lougheed created the heritage fund to support and to make sure that it was there for the future generations.

We don’t intend to allow future governments to make the same mistake. That’s the purpose of the prosperity fund: to ensure that the wealth that we create from new economic growth, particularly in the LNG sector, goes and gets locked up so that future generations will see the benefit of that, rather than following the plan that we saw all through the 1990s, which was a constant and inevitable growth in the size of government at tremendous cost to the people of British Columbia.

The member talks about some of the numbers that government has referred to. For example, the numbers that come from the Ernst and Young report — not a government report — and the numbers that come from Grant Thornton as well — independent, reputable accounting firms that stand by their reputations for independence and deliver that information. That’s where that information comes from. It doesn’t come from me.

We want to work hard to create these opportunities. The member has worked hard — with a hoist motion in this House, for example — to try and delay them. We are taking a very different approach. We want to make sure that we leave this province better than we found it.

I’ll ask again…. I’ve answered that member’s question a couple of times. Will he stand up and tell us where he
[ Page 8841 ]
stands, if he has a view or a position on Site C? Or is he just going to continue to dodge and weave and hide his real view of that from British Columbians and the thousands of people who are depending on those jobs?

J. Horgan: The Premier’s vision of leaving B.C. better off than they found it is $135 billion more debt than we had in 2001. The Premier’s vision of leaving B.C. better off than when they found it was going from 14 percent employment growth to 1.8 percent employment growth. I don’t see that as making progress. In fact, I think we’re going in the wrong direction.

I will ask the Premier again. I asked her how she’s doing at eliminating the sales tax, which was yet another election promise tied to LNG.

Hon. C. Clark: Well, my view is — and I was quite clear about this — that when we create economic growth in the province, we have the opportunity to reduce taxes. That’s ultimately what we want to do, and it’s the exact opposite approach that the member believes in, which is that if you raise taxes, grow government and spend more, you’ll somehow put more people to work.

Well, guess what. A bigger government doesn’t put people to work. A bigger private sector economy is what puts people to work, and as we grow those revenues, we will have some choices. How much do we want to devote to paying off our debt? How much do we want to devote to lowering taxes? But we need to be able to create the opportunity to have those options to be able to have that debate.

That’s why it’s so important that we not allow the New Democrats to stand in the way of the development of the LNG industry, as they have attempted to do time and again in this Legislature. It’s too important to the future of British Columbia, and it’s one of those issues where, thankfully, this leader and this caucus are going to finally be forced to take a stand. We will see what they think of LNG when they get a chance to vote on finalizing the project development agreement in this House.

It may also be that we have a chance in the future to have a vote on Site C, in which case this leader can no longer avoid answering the question that so many people in the union movement, in businesses and in First Nations in the northeast are asking, which is: “We know the government supports it. Where is the NDP?”

J. Horgan: Again, it’s difficult when the Premier wants to just continue talking about those halcyon days when she could sit over here and just make stuff up. She’s still now sitting over there and making stuff up.

[1815]

That’s unfortunate and, I think, diminishes the ability of British Columbians to truly understand the state of play, not just on resource issues but on First Nations issues, on accountability within government and the power relationships that I’ve been talking about most of the day, where the government believes that everything they do is right and anyone who criticized them is wrong. I think that diminishes us all. I think it deadens debate; it doesn’t invigorate it.

When the Premier makes assertions about things that other people have ascribed to members of this side of the House, or even members on the other side of the House, again, I don’t think that helps too much.

I wanted to focus on the promises that the Premier had made on the record, publicly, about what her government was going to do. After she left the radio talk show industry, she came to government with a whole bunch of aspirational goals. They were supposed to be, in my world, promises, solemn commitments to voters that she was going to live up to.

We have no prosperity fund. Sales taxes are still in place. They’re going to be in place. In fact, if there’s a referendum success in the Lower Mainland, sales taxes are going to be going up on the Premier’s watch. When the Premier talks about….

Interjection.

J. Horgan: Yes, I do. I support expanding transit in the Lower Mainland, and if there was some leadership on that side of the House, we’d be a lot further ahead. We’ve wasted two years on that issue, but that’s for another day.

The increase in costs to families is something that I want to talk about. “Families first” was another one of those catchy phrases that the Premier liked to use. It wasn’t as big a font as “Debt-free B.C.,” but it was alliterative. It rolled off the tongue. People were of the view that the Premier was genuine when she talked about families as being a high priority for her.

Yet when we look at the last budget, this cycle that we’re in right now, there were hundreds of millions of dollars of new costs put upon families — medical services premiums, hydro rates, ICBC increases looming, ferry fares looming, tuition fees looming. Adult basic education — formerly free, no longer free, stifling opportunity for people who need to upgrade their K-to-12 numbers so they can get into training programs.

These are opportunities that families would like to see from their government. But what did the families of B.C. get in the last budget? Increased costs. What did the richest families in British Columbia get? They got a tax break: $236 million to the top 2 percent of wage earners. Individuals making over $150,000 a year get a break. The rest of us have to pay more. That’s not families first. Far from it. That’s selected families first.

Middle-class families are struggling. The Premier does not seem to get that. Instead, she wants to go back 14 years and pretend that nothing has happened in the past 14 years that wasn’t absolutely pristine perfect when, in fact, all of us rational, reasonable people know that there
[ Page 8842 ]
are ups and downs in every endeavour. There are bumps along the road, as the Premier referred to earlier.

If there was a little bit of modesty and humility on the other side of the House, we might well be able to have a genuine debate and there would be opportunities for agreement on a range of issues. One thing that we have agreed on since we’ve been in this place is the apology to Chinese Canadians, Chinese British Columbians. That was a bipartisan event that we all came together on.

What that did was it allowed us to recognize the differences that we have are infinitesimal and the things that we can and should agree on to make this province a better place — to use this institution for the good that it was designed for, to bring people from every walk of life, every corner of British Columbia, to one place so they could stand and advocate for their constituents.

The notion of parliamentary democracy, representative democracy, does not work in British Columbia because of the adversarial nature, in my opinion, of the person heading the executive council of British Columbia.

We were talking about shootings and crime in Surrey a couple of weeks ago in this House, and the Premier insisted upon having a fight when none existed. All of us in this place want to see the end of gang violence in every community in British Columbia. There is no debate on that matter, but the Premier could not help herself. It had to be a partisan issue. It had to be a wedge to divide British Columbians rather than unite them.

It’s my view that this institution is adversarial, but it can be used for very positive things as well, and it’s not happening. This debate is representative of that if ever there was one. I’ve been asking the Premier for accountability from those in power, as opposed to those who do not have power. The response is heavy sighs and rhetoric about days gone by.

I want to focus the Premier’s attention in the last few minutes of our discussions today on the issue of the project development agreements with respect to LNG.

[1820]

I stood in this place and supported the fiscal framework that was put in place. The Premier might not remember that. She might not have been here for the vote. I’ll have to check Hansard for that.

This side of the House joined with the government, although we saw deficiencies in the framework. It was not as advertised. The tax rate was half what had been promised months earlier. But the principle of ensuring that investors had an understanding of what the fiscal framework was going to be, what the rules of engagement were going to be, is appropriate and reasonable for governments to do. We support that.

Where I divide from the government on this question and with my colleagues from Victoria–Beacon Hill and Surrey-Whalley is that we need to have an open discussion about the value of our resources and who we’re trying to benefit most. Because the government overpromised on LNG, my fear and the fear of many British Columbians is that the secret agreements that are being negotiated right now are going to be giving away that resource.

We’re going to be tying the hands of future governments. When commodity prices do go up, which they usually always do, we — the people of B.C., the owners of that resource — will not be able to benefit from that because we’re locked into agreements that were signed by a desperate government trying to make one promise, out of the many they made, come to fruition.

The challenge, then, is: are we putting in place a royalty regime that does not meet the needs of a growing economy, does not meet the needs of a resource that will go up in value? The benefit of that will be realized by the company and not by the owners of the resource.

Surely, the Premier will agree with me that the people of British Columbia should see the primary benefit from an LNG industry. We need to make sure we get maximum benefit from the resource. We need to make sure that the jobs go to British Columbians, not to temporary foreign workers, that First Nations are dialled in, Lax Kw’alaams and others.

Most important, I believe, in an era of climate change — and we’re going to be getting to that, maybe not tonight, perhaps tomorrow — the commitments the Premier made from wellhead to waterline with respect to emissions are not being realized. The companion legislation with the tax framework last fall was far from what was promised by the government and could not be supported by this opposition and will not be supported in the future.

If we’re going to be serious about climate change, we have to have serious goals. We have to meet those targets. We’re not going to do it unless we ensure that over time, over the course of the life of an LNG facility, we’re able to have instruments at our disposal, at government’s disposal, to make sure we can check those issues. We’re not going to be able to do it if we don’t have access to those documents.

Will the Premier advise this House at what point we will be able to have a genuine discussion about ensuring that if the commodity price goes up, the benefit will remain to B.C., not to the developers?

Hon. C. Clark: Well, of course, the member is asking questions about a future debate that will happen in the House. We’ll certainly have a chance to answer those questions in real detail when we get a chance to look at the PDA in this Legislature. It will not take effect until it has been — if it is — passed by this Legislature. We’ll certainly get a chance, as I said, to debate it and understand where the Leader of the Opposition stands on it.

The thing is that the member has supported a hoist motion which would delay the creation of the industry and movement on some of the important issues that are needed, making those milestones in order to create the industry — to delay it by six months. He has in his caucus many people who don’t even support getting it out of the ground.
[ Page 8843 ]

This incredibly valuable resource belongs to the people of British Columbia. The people of British Columbia deserve to benefit from that resource. This view held by many of his colleagues that the resource shouldn’t even get out of the ground is one that I completely reject because it’s not worth anything to the people of British Columbia if that’s where we leave it.

What we need to do is we need to extract it — something that the member has said he’d like to put a moratorium on. We need to move it from the northeast to the northwest. We need to support the private sector in building LNG facilities that are going to add value to that product and send it overseas so that we can garner a higher price for it.

Those resources belong to the people of British Columbia, and our goal in supporting a liquefied natural gas industry is to make sure that we get as much value out of that resource for the people of the province as we possibly can. It’s to make sure that we put as many people to work as we possibly can, create as many family-supporting jobs as we possibly can. Those are things we believe in. That’s fundamental to the reason that we want to create a liquefied natural gas industry in British Columbia. This is why it matters so much for the future of our province.

[1825]

Do we have other industries in the province that make a tremendous difference? Absolutely. Are we focused on making sure that those industries as well are supported and enabled the way that they need to, to support jobs for people in every corner of the province? We’re doing that too.

But with the LNG industry, because it’s a new industry, it needs a new tax framework. It needs a new environmental compliance framework. There are agreements that need to be reached with First Nations all across the province, because this investment is new, and news of the resource in British Columbia is new to many people around the world. It has taken us a lot of work over a lot of time to make sure that we have gotten to the place where we are today — in signing a project development agreement on what’s estimated to be a $36 billion investment in our province.

The member laughs at that as though it’s not something worth taking seriously. It is worth taking seriously. It’s worth taking seriously for the people of our province who will be depending on those great, high-paying jobs. That’s why we’re working so hard to make sure that it becomes a reality for the people of our province.

I am looking forward…. I hope, when the debate unfolds in this Legislature, that we get a chance to agree on the importance of this industry, that we get a chance to come together and support the project development agreement and ensure that this business goes forward in our province, because the more of us that support it, the greater the likelihood of its success in the long term. So I am very much looking forward to that moment of agreement between us in this Legislature.

The member is right. It doesn’t happen that often in this place that’s structured for conflict and confrontation. It did happen when we talked about those first temporary foreign workers, who were so badly treated by the government of the day.

When the Minister of International Trade and Minister Responsible for Multiculturalism made an historic step on behalf of all of our government in offering an apology, she was at the cemetery in Vancouver, where so many people of Chinese descent, people who paid the head tax, are buried. Again, an historic moment in the history of British Columbia that the member for Richmond made happen. I was very proud that we came to agreement around that.

I very much hope that around the motion on the project development agreement, we can again find unanimous consent of this House. I very much hope, when we debate the motion on Site C that was tabled today in the House, that we can again find unanimous support for that.

British Columbians are better when not just the government but when the opposition come together in this House to make sure that we are supporting economic development and job growth. That’s what I hope we can accomplish over the coming months in this Legislature. I know it’s what British Columbians hope we can accomplish.

We are going to move ahead and make sure that we do everything that we can to support the families that depend on these jobs for their economic futures. When I talk about families first, what I mean is making sure we are doing everything we can to support families, finding their way into high-paying, stable jobs that are going to mean they can do the best job they can as parents, as role models and as citizens in communities. You can’t do that without a growing economy.

That’s why we’re doing it. We’re doing it so that we can make sure that the people of British Columbia, the families of British Columbia, have a better shot in the future at making sure that they are able to look after the ones that they love.

J. Horgan: Again, coming back to families, how is it that a 28 percent rate increase on their hydro bill is somehow going to make life better for British Columbians? How is it that finding more money to help pay for tuition for your kids is going to help you in the long term? Families in the middle are getting squeezed. The challenge, I think, that the Premier has is that the realities that people are experiencing in communities right across British Columbia are inconsistent with her rhetoric.

The jobs, the high-paying jobs that she’s talking about, are disappearing. They’re not materializing — 25,000 jobs lost in the forest sector and 28,000 jobs lost last month. Employment growth is down, the lowest it has been in decades. These are not numbers that have been created out of thin air. These are Stats Canada numbers.
[ Page 8844 ]
These are numbers that have been put in place by those that are looking at our economy and saying: “We have some difficult times ahead.”

As always, British Columbians will persevere. I understand that that optimism that the Premier is looking for is critical to our long-term success economically. But, again, you’re not going to get by on just hope here. You need to have something practical to go with your plan, other than: “We have a plan. The plan is working, and we’re going to stick with the plan.” That’s what I hear time and time again from the Premier.

[1830]

When I talk to regular people, they say: “Well, there’s a jobs plan, is there? What is that exactly?” I say: “Well, the Premier will tell you she has a plan. The plan is working. She’s going to stick to the plan.” That’s rhetoric. Simple as that. There’s no other way to describe that. “The plan is working. We’re going to stick to the plan.”

What is the plan? Is it to continue to hope against hope that market forces will prevail? She suggested, somehow, in her last response that if we all hold hands, it’s going to work.

What will happen in the LNG file is that investors will make decisions that it’s in their shareholders’ interest to proceed. The concern that many British Columbians have is that the promises that have been made by the Premier to the people of B.C. about a prosperity fund, about doing away with the sales tax, about eliminating the $135 billion in new debt that’s been added on by this government — the absolute necessity to have some sort of a fig leaf to hold up before the next election — and the project development agreements that are a secret today, and the royalty agreements that are being negotiated today, will not be in the long-term interests of the people of British Columbia.

I had that moment, I think — when the Premier goes back and looks at the Blues — where she was condemning the 44-years of Conservative rule in Alberta, about how they have mismanaged their resource. I don’t disagree with the Premier on that, but boy, I thought she was rooting for Jim Prentice, as I recall. I thought the only Rachel Notley fans in this place sat on this side of the House — and 40 percent of Albertans, of course.

Again, if we’re going to have economic growth outside of the northeast and the northwest, we need to focus on other issues in other parts of the province. One area where family-supporting jobs are being eliminated is in Interior Health, where laundry services are being privatized, and people who have family-supporting jobs — 99 percent women — are losing their jobs, or they’re going to lose their jobs as that service is contracted out.

Although the Premier likes to say that governments don’t create jobs, governments certainly can eliminate jobs. In the case of Interior Health laundry workers, that’s going to happen. Does the Premier have any thoughts for those women who are going to be out of work?

They’re going to have hydro rate increases that are unsustainable. They’re going to have to start paying medical services premiums when they no longer have a unionized job, and they’re going to also have to pay for adult basic education if they want to upgrade their skills to compete in a very competitive job market.

What does the Premier have to say for regular people who are not going to become pipefitters or electricians or tradespeople, as much as I endorse and support the expansion of those sectors? What about people who do not have the aptitude for that type of activity, who are currently working and because of the policy of this government will not be working come the end of summer?

Hon. C. Clark: Well, first, the member wants to hold hands. Government reaches out its hand, and then he doesn’t want to hold hands anymore. Fair enough. Consistency is not his strong point, and we are all — those of us who have watched him over the years — aware of that.

The member said: “What is our plan?” You know what our plan is? It’s to do the work. It’s to make sure that every day we are focused, diligently, with real commitment, rolling up our sleeves to make sure that we do the very, very hard work that’s required to grow an economy at a time when economies around the world have been struggling.

It’s to make sure that we put our backs into it, that we set out our plan, that we do everything we can to live up to the goals that we’ve set in that plan and just keep at it. There is no replacement for hard work. That is how we are going to accomplish our plan.

This Legislature is well aware of the jobs plan. The member opposite is well aware of it, including the updates and the other steps that we’ve taken to make sure that British Columbians are first in line for all of those jobs. That’s why we’ve been so focused on making sure we deliver on it. It matters for the people of the province. Economic development, economic growth matter for the people of the province.

We told people in the election that we weren’t interested in growing government. We were interested in growing the economy, because the people who pay the price for government are taxpayers across the province. What’s happening in Interior Health is an effort to make sure that taxpayers, the people who pay the bills of government, get the best possible deal out of that, out of the services that are provided.

[1835]

That’s the work that’s underway now. It’s part of the reason that we have, at the same time, the best health outcomes in the country and one of the least expensive per-capita health care systems in the country — because we’ve worked very hard to manage other people’s dollars as well as we possibly can.

The example that the member raised at Interior Health is part of that. Again, it speaks to our central premise, which I know is very different from the members opposite — that is, that you don’t put people to work, and
[ Page 8845 ]
you don’t create long-term prosperity by growing government. You do it by growing a thriving private sector.

J. Horgan: Well, what the Premier completely misses here is that there are going to be a whole bunch of women out of work in areas of the province where finding employment of a similar stature is going to be very difficult to do.

I want to move to Housing for a moment. The Premier used to live in Vancouver. Maybe she still does live in Vancouver. I don’t know. But it is increasingly difficult for families to find affordable housing in Metro Vancouver and environs. Unless, of course, you were in on the Burke Mountain real estate giveaway, it’s really tough to find cheap property. The big challenge, of course, is in Metro Vancouver. The #don’thave1milliondollars is one that I think may well have come to the attention of the Premier.

It has not come to the attention of the Minister for Housing. He believes that it’s not even appropriate to have any way to manage and track what the challenges are for young families in the Lower Mainland. But because families first is such a high priority for the Premier, I wonder if she has given any thoughts to how she would help manage increased costs for housing in the Lower Mainland, particularly with respect to non-resident owners.

Hon. C. Clark: Well, affordability in the Lower Mainland and across the province is a central issue for us and this government, making sure that we recognize it is really difficult to get ahead, particularly in Vancouver where housing prices are very high compared to other comparable cities across Canada and around the globe. We are giving that some very serious thought and putting some hard work into working our way through that. I’d ask the member to make sure that he stays tuned.

[D. Horne in the chair.]

J. Horgan: That clearly is an answer that’s not going to provide much comfort to families who are seeing themselves looking at mortgages that are absolutely off the charts. Fortunately, interest rates are low today, but should they see an uptick in the future, we’re going to have significant challenges for many families who are in housing now and absolute lack of opportunity for those who are not. I think that the Premier could probably do better, if she put her mind to it, than stay tuned.

When we asked the Minister Responsible for Housing if he had any plans to track the challenge and monitor that, to have some sort of an inventory so that public policy could be developed in this sector, his view was that the market will take care of it. And I well appreciate that that’s the minister’s view. He has been hanging onto this file wherever he goes, whether he’s dealing with liquor or electricity or LNG, he always tends to hang on to the Housing file. But I think over time, ministers start to lose track of just what it is they’re supposed to be doing.

When you have the challenges that families have in the Lower Mainland, with respect to affordability, “stay tuned, and the market will take care of it” really doesn’t cut it. We’ve had developers and we’ve had politicians in the Lower Mainland come up with some creative ideas to help address these challenges.

I’m wondering if the Premier could enlighten the committee today rather than staying tuned on what her views are on this matter.

Hon. C. Clark: The member made reference to our Minister for Housing. I just want to take a minute to say a word about what an incredible job he has done since he took on this portfolio. It is a really difficult portfolio.

Housing the homeless, making sure that people who are at risk of homelessness don’t become homeless, is an incredibly complex issue that cities across North America have really struggled with. Vancouver, in particular, but other cities have made more progress according to experts than almost anywhere else. That’s really thanks to the work that the Minister for Housing has undertaken — 21,000 new units of affordable housing since 2001. That’s a big number.

It has meant that although we still have big issues to tackle, we have been able to support people who are homeless and at risk of homelessness. And that is so important in a wealthy society. It’s part of being able to share the resources, share the wealth in a society that has a thriving private sector.

[1840]

Of course, one of the reasons we’re able to do this, and the housing minister has the budget to do this, is because we’ve grown the economy. We’ve made sure that revenues to government as a result are growing, not because taxes are higher but because the economy is bigger.

The minister for housing, though, has not just taken some budget. He’s also taken an incredible amount of creativity to his role and has gone a long way in addressing many of these issues, what many people might have said in the past were insoluble issues. We have a long way to go. Homelessness is not something that’s going to go away in the next year, but it is something that we need to continue to work very hard on. The work that the housing minister has put in is something, I think, that most people who pay attention to these issues would be more than happy to salute.

We are working on this, thinking about this issue. Certainly, affordability in Vancouver is a major issue, particularly for people who are trying to enter the housing market. Again, I’ll ask the member to stay tuned. The government will make sure that we speak to British Columbians, not just to this Legislature, about it after we’ve finished working through our considerations on the issue.

J. Horgan: As the Premier probably knows, British Columbians are represented by 85 people in this place.
[ Page 8846 ]
All British Columbians are represented, regardless of their political views. Great for the shout-out to her buddy there about his tireless work here, but it completely misses the point that affordability is driving people away from where they work, where they want to live or where they grew up, to places further afield. With the congestion challenges and the absence of transit opportunities, for many people that becomes increasingly difficult.

I want to talk about an international conference in Singapore, hosted by Credit Suisse. At that conference the head of the largest private money manager in attendance, Laurence Fink, who manages $4.7 trillion — there’s that number that the Premier seems to think is going to be coming here in investments — told those assembled, those smart investors, that they should put their money into condos in Vancouver, not into the gold market. That speaks to people looking at flipping properties, not living in homes. That is the root of the issue.

There are those who disagree. The minister responsible clearly disagrees that offshore investors looking to make a quick buck are driving up the cost by constricting the supply, but I think that’s a reasonable position. Bob Rennie — Order of B.C. at the recommendation of the Premier, a fundraiser for the Premier — thinks this is a pretty important issue.

The mayor of Vancouver and the council in Vancouver are clearly seized of this challenge. In my discussions with councillors there, they think the number one issue in Vancouver is housing.

The Premier touched upon the work that the minister has been doing on affordable housing or social housing for the homeless, but what about those who are looking to get into the market and home ownership in the Lower Mainland? Does the Premier not agree that tracking the problem is the first step to trying to find solutions? The minister responsible doesn’t think so. What about you?

Hon. C. Clark: I just want to finish my comments about homelessness, because I think it’s relevant. Housing for the homeless has increased by more than 6,200 units, with approximately 800 under construction. Emergency shelter beds, close to 1,800 permanent, year-round shelters, plus the extreme weather spaces. Aboriginal housing, more than 4,300. Households that are helped are more than 100,000 all across the province. There are 6,000 fewer homeless in British Columbia than there were five years ago. That is an incredible record, and it’s something that the minister for housing, in particular, deserves to be applauded for.

The member asks: what about others, particularly Vancouverites, who are faced with this? I’ve given him my answer to that, but I will also say that affordability in the city of Vancouver is a major issue that we need to address. We need to attack it from a number of different fronts. We do need to be careful as we attack the issue, though, that we don’t go about reducing the equity that people have in their homes already. We need to make sure that the solutions we find for affordability across the board, particularly in Vancouver, aren’t ones that have unintended consequences that end up robbing people of equity that they’ve built up over the years.

[1845]

That’s one of the central issues facing government, one of the issues that we’re working our way through now. We’re making sure we look across the world to see what’s worked and what hasn’t, to see what’s had unintended consequences and what hasn’t, to work with folks, particularly in Vancouver, where prices are exceedingly high by most international standards, to make sure that it’s more affordable for people.

You know, most people would love to be able to buy a place in the place where they grew up. That wasn’t true for my parents with their first home, their only home. It wasn’t true for me with my first home. But I think that’s an ideal that many people strive toward. So the affordability issue — making sure that people can find their way into that housing market, especially in Vancouver — is something that we’re spending a lot of time thinking about.

As I said to the member, he should stay tuned as we continue to work our way through this issue so that we can support those British Columbians who have trouble finding their way into that market today.

It’s a beautiful place to live. It’s the greatest place to live anywhere in the world. People understandably want to come here from all over the world. Many people who grew up in Vancouver and have made it their home all their lives would like to be able to stay there. That’s a question of affordability, and it’s something we are very much seized with.

J. Horgan: Again, these problems didn’t just appear last week. They’ve been around for a while. In fact, they’ve been around largely on the watch of the B.C. Liberals.

“Stay tuned. We’re working on it. We’ve given that some thought.” When we were talking about issues today about children and families resources and children aging out, it was as if there was nothing going on for 14 years. The B.C. Liberals have been in power for almost a decade and a half. At some point there should be some accountability.

To say, “Well, we’re working on it. We’re going to do the best we can” — that’s okay. That’ll get you by every now and again. But when we see each other so infrequently, the Premier and I, I think it’s better that we have something beyond, “Stay tuned” and “We’re going to talk to other people first.”

I think that it’s incumbent upon the government leader to be here and to be accountable and ready to answer questions beyond saying what a great guy the housing minister is. I know that the Energy Minister thinks that great guys can just get good jobs because they’re good guys. But most people would like to see some accountability.

We’re running out of time today. I want to go back,
[ Page 8847 ]
, just briefly if I could, to LNG and natural gas. This is a question I hope that the Premier will be able to stick to what I’m saying and try and answer the question directly.

The Premier said that burning natural gas to create liquefied natural gas was going to be green. This was going to be green energy. Inconsistent with any other measurement by anyone else in the known universe, but to be consistent with the Clean Energy Act, burning gas to create electricity to liquefy gas to export elsewhere was a green undertaking.

I’m wondering, after having said that and believing that, how the Premier can justify not allowing B.C. Hydro to maintain the Burrard thermal plant — as a backup generator, not as a baseload plant — as a facility that can be called upon in a time of need, for peak times, to be used as infrequently as is entirely possible — and how that is unacceptable one day a year, maybe two days a year, but 365 days a year on the north coast is okay.

I think that most people concerned about climate change, most people concerned about the increased costs of electricity, ask themselves why it is that you can do this in one place but you can’t do it in another, especially if you only want to do it as a backup supply which will reduce the need for new supply in the long term. It’s good energy policy.

I know the Premier doesn’t think I know anything about this stuff, but I do. It’s going to have an impact on the taxpayers in Port Moody. Their tax base is going to be reduced. Their costs for residences is going to go up, and Hydro will have to pay more for energy than they would otherwise.

It’s a simple proposition. Why not allow Burrard thermal to exist as a backup generator if you’re going to be burning natural gas somewhere else?

Hon. C. Clark: I’d like to speak to the previous question and this one.

I’m recalling the last time government went in…. It was an NDP government that went in to deal with property tax increases. It was in 1993 when the then Minister of Finance introduced a budget that had $800 million worth of tax increases, including a surtax on property and a reduction in grants.

[1850]

Homeowners, particularly on the west side of Vancouver, went into revolt. They were going to absolutely be clobbered by the move that the government made back then.

We need to make sure that any changes that we make with respect to affordability don’t have unintended consequences and don’t clobber people that already have homes — in the city of Vancouver in particular.

We want to make sure that whatever measure we’re able to take is one that’s fair and is one that respects the fact that people who have invested in their homes — many of whom will already have large mortgages — don’t see the government, without meaning to, take away some of their equity. They’ve worked for that equity. They’ve paid for that equity, in many cases. They’ve mortgaged against that equity.

I think the opposition would be well advised to support government in making sure that we don’t move in a way that is hasty — and a way like in 1993 the then Finance Minister did, clobbering people who really didn’t deserve it and couldn’t afford it.

With respect to Burrard Thermal, it would be very expensive to repair and maintain it. What is the difference between the Lower Mainland and other places? The Lower Mainland is already the most polluted airshed in British Columbia. Rather than making a very, very large investment in a plant that the member would like to see running perhaps three days a year in what’s already the most polluted airshed, government has decided to take a different direction.

We believe in a green economy in the province, and we believe in making sure that people in the Lower Mainland in particular can breathe cleaner air. I recognize that the member and I very much differ on this. We have since I first got elected in 1996.

J. Horgan: I, too, want people in the Lower Mainland to breathe clean air. But again, it’s a couple of days a year with new technologies. The Premier might not be aware of this, but technological change is upon us every single day and in every facet of our lives. So over time there will be solutions to those challenges, and to mothball this is bad energy policy.

Again, I would not ever advocate that it be a base load plant. But as a peaking resource, it’s critically important to B.C. Hydro. If there was someone that wasn’t a sycophant there to give an answer to that question, that’s what you would hear back from them.

With that in mind, I move that we rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:53 p.m.

The House resumed; Madame Speaker in the chair.

Committee of Supply (Section B), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. R. Coleman 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 6:54 p.m.

Hansard Services publishes transcripts both in print and on the Internet.
Chamber debates are broadcast on television and webcast on the Internet.
Question Period podcasts are available on the Internet.

Copyright © 2015: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada