2015 Legislative Session: Fourth Session, 40th Parliament
HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Monday, July 13, 2015

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 27, Number 9

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

MONDAY, JULY 13, 2015

The House met at 1:33 p.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

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

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

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

[1335]

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

Tributes

JOHN PHARE AND FIREFIGHTERS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Introductions by Members

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

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

Happy birthday, Tivola.

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

Hon. M. de Jong: Tony and Barbara Miniaci are visiting today from Mission. The member for Abbotsford-Mission and I would like to welcome them. They have two connections to this place of note. Barbara’s uncle was a long-serving and much-respected member of the assembly, Mark Rose.
[ Page 8888 ]
Their son Mario has worked with the government in various ministerial offices for these past years, doing great work for British Columbians. I hope the House will welcome Tony and Barbara Miniaci.

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

[1340]

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

Statements
(Standing Order 25B)

MOUNT POLLEY MINE REOPENING

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

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

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

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

CANADA DAY EVENTS IN BURNABY

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

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

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

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

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

DONATIONS BY ABBOTSFORD RESIDENTS
AND SERVICE ORGANIZATIONS

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

[1345]

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

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

Then, too, there are many business leaders and their families who have turned their successes into successes for people around the world. Harry Schmidt and his
[ Page 8889 ]
Schmidt Family Foundation is just one example, now building schools in Rwanda. The Holmberg family is yet another example, generously donating well over $1 million to establish Abbotsford’s first adult hospice. And we have the incredible generosity that built Matthew’s House on the Abbotsford campus of care. That will soon see the opening of a second Canuck Place for children.

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

CHILDREN AND CAR SEAT SAFETY

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

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

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

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

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

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

B.C. PARAMEDIC TEAM MEDALS AT
MEDICAL RESCUE COMPETITION

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

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

[1350]

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

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

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

PADDLE FOR WELLNESS PROGRAM
AND PRINCE RUPERT FRIENDSHIP HOUSE

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

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

After showcasing them during the Prince Rupert annual Seafest parade, many were used in the first-ever canoe tug-of-war games held in the Prince Rupert Harbour. Many
[ Page 8890 ]
people painted their First Nations family crests and other creative designs.

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

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

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

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

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

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

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

Oral Questions

HEALTH MINISTRY INVESTIGATION

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

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

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

[1355]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Interjection.

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

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

J. Horgan: Pardon me?

Madame Speaker: Kindly withdraw the remark.
[ Page 8891 ]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[1400]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We made it….

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.
[ Page 8892 ]

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

[1405]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[1410]

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

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

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

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

That is the letter that he wrote, expressing some concerns. My letter in reply on behalf of government was to assure the committee that those concerns can all be met. The goal of government is that we get to find out what happened in this issue and resolve it once and for all. The public has concern with that — so does government. That is why the request to the Ombudsperson has gone forward.
[ Page 8893 ]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[1415]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Interjections.

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

DRINKING WATER QUALITY
AT JOHNSONS LANDING

M. Mungall: Three years ago today residents of Johnsons Landing woke up to face the sad reality that their lives would never be the same, after a mudslide tore through their community, leaving four dead and many homes destroyed.
[ Page 8894 ]

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

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

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

[1420]

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

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

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

CORONER’S INQUEST INTO
BURNS LAKE MILL EXPLOSION

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[End of question period.]

Tabling Documents

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you for your attention.

[1425]

Standing Order 35

REQUEST TO DEBATE A MATTER OF
URGENT PUBLIC IMPORTANCE —
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE
TO CLIMATE CHANGE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Madame Speaker: I thank you for the submission.

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

[1430]

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

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

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

Tabling Documents

Hon. J. Rustad: I rise today to submit the summary of the final report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada.
[ Page 8896 ]

Orders of the Day

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

Leave granted.

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 30 — LIQUEFIED NATURAL GAS
PROJECT AGREEMENTS ACT

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

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

[Interruption.]

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

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

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

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

[Interruption.]

Madame Speaker: Madam Premier, please proceed.

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

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

[1435]

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

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

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

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

By accomplishing those three things, we will do this. We will enable the creation of tens of thousands of jobs for working people all across British Columbia. We will ensure that we have the revenues that government needs to be able to create that fair society that I spoke of by delivering those benefits through social services that people depend on. It will give us the means to be able to begin paying off our debt so that our children are better off than we were. And it will give us the chance to right many historical wrongs by making sure that we are growing, and helping grow, First Nations economies — so that if you are a First Nations child anywhere in this province, you have the same shot at success that any other child does, no matter where you live.

It has been remarkable to note how people are coming together across the province to support seeing these principles being upheld. First and foremost, labour unions sitting down with government and industry to hammer out a plan to make sure that British Columbians are first in line for those jobs. First Nations sitting down, again with government and industry, to make sure that they draw up benefit agreements that are going to ensure employment and revenue for those communities so that they can build the future they want for themselves and the people that they represent. Small business making sure that they have the opportunity to grasp the benefits of liquefied natural gas through the LNG–Buy B.C. program.
[ Page 8897 ]

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

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

[1440]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

[D. Horne in the chair.]

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

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

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

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

[1445]

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

I believe British Columbians understand that our resources belong not to the government of the day, not to foreign multinationals but to people in Fort St. John and Prince Rupert and Kamloops and Langley and Victoria and Comox. In fact, they belong to British Columbians. It’s our responsibility, as legislators and as those of us on
[ Page 8898 ]
the side of the official opposition, to hold the government accountable and to check against delivery, as they say in the business — what the government promises and then review it beside what they deliver.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[1450]

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

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

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

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

Last fall, when we were debating the tax framework for liquefied natural gas, it came in at half what was advertised. The government campaigned at 7 percent, and they introduced a tax at 3.5 percent. And we supported
[ Page 8899 ]
that. We were unhappy that it had been cut in half without any explanation. There wasn’t any documentation provided beyond the spin from the Minister of Finance about: “Well, it’s as good as we could get.” But we said, “We’ll support that,” because the investment community needs to have certainty. They need to understand what the terms of reference are coming in.

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

That’s what the government did. They said to the investors: “We will set the rates down here with respect to taxation. We will set the rates down here with respect to royalties. Over the course of 25 years if we change our taxation policies, we’ll reimburse you. We’ll just call it square. If we raise the taxation with respect to liquefied natural gas, we’ll just roll it back into your pockets after we deal with the cost recovery that you’re going to have from your capital programs. After we deal with the sweetheart deal on royalties, we’re also going to look at our greenhouse gas emission profile. We’re going to look at our climate action plans. If we change anything over 25 years that may affect your industry, don’t worry about it. We’ve got it covered.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

[1455]

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

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

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

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

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

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

There’s one section, if you get through. You’ve got to flip through the bulk of the document till you get to the part at the end where it says “First Nations.” What do they get out of this deal? What they get is a slap in the face. If there are any changes with respect to treaty or other agreements between the government of British Columbia,
[ Page 8900 ]
the people of British Columbia and First Nations, we have to be sure to advise Petronas as quickly as possible — not the other way around. I think that’s wrong, and I know that many on this side…. Well, in fact, all of us on this side of the House feel the same way.

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

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

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

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

[1500]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This government has not been doing that. They, instead, have been working with companies that want to bring workers from elsewhere when it suits their interests — not to build B.C., not to build Canada, but to build their bottom line.
[ Page 8901 ]

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

[1505]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[1510]

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

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

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

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

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

One last thing I should say parenthetically, or I wish to say parenthetically. I also sat in this House and listened to and was admonished by members of the opposition, both within the chamber and outside through some
[ Page 8902 ]
of the commentary that developed through the media, withering allegations that the government was going to sneak these agreements through, that the government was signing backroom deals and that British Columbians wouldn’t know what was being committed to.

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

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

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

[1515]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[1520]

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

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

The answer is yes, and to the extent that the member or his colleagues wish to pose questions about that agreement, I’m going to suggest that the appropriate section to do that in, when we get to committee stage, is section 2. I’m happy to hear from the member if he — or she, his colleague — has different views on that.
[ Page 8903 ]

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

To the extent that members of the opposition may wonder why people increasingly don’t take them seriously on matters such as this, I would suggest that in part it is because of their ever-changing positions and difficult-to-discern arguments, but secondly, because they have cried wolf far too often, particularly with respect to the government’s desire to have these documents receive detailed and comprehensive scrutiny.

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

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

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

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

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

[1525]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[1530]

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

That’s the second area, and this is a specific…. You may call it an incentive. It is the second specific area where we
[ Page 8904 ]
have said to the LNG sector, propose to say to the LNG sector and those with whom we sign these agreements, that we will undertake for a specified period to disincent changes.

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

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

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

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

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

Interjections.

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

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

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

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

[1535]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[1540]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[1545]

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

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

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

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

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

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

We are bringing to this House an example of an actually negotiated deal for which there are actual obligations and actual benefits. What are those benefits? Well, $9 billion. By today’s measure, and we heard the commentary, if we had $9 billion today, we could retire the provincial debt by just about 25 percent — taxpayer-supported debt. So 25 percent. And that’s one plant. Jobs measured in the
[ Page 8906 ]
thousands: 4,500. Members opposite dismiss that. I want to talk about that for a moment.

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

[1550]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[1555]

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

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

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

Deputy Speaker: Proceed.

Introductions by Members

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

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

Debate Continued

C. James: I am pleased the Leader of the Opposition came in to be able to make that introduction so that I
[ Page 8907 ]
could take a breath. I have to say, after the speech from the Finance Minister, it’s tempting to spend my 30 minutes responding to all of the comments made by the Finance Minister. I think he was, obviously, not listening to his Premier, who talked about the need to make sure that this wasn’t going to be a political debate or a political discussion.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[1600]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I’m sure the fact that the election was just a few months away from that throne speech has absolutely nothing to
[ Page 8908 ]
do with the growth and the promises. I’m sure it’s just simply a coincidence that we continue to see the job numbers and the economic growth numbers go off the scale in that short period of time.

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

[1605]

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

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

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

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

Here’s the Premier at the negotiating table. She’s having overpromised and underdelivered. She’s having staked her future. She talked about her laser focus. She staked her resources. Every minister had LNG as a part of their requirement in their letter of expectation — including the Minister of Children and Families, as an example. It was her job to make sure that she pushed LNG forward.

Here’s the Premier negotiating — hasn’t got anything yet — at the table and desperate, desperate to be able to show some success. Well, that’s a heck of a negotiating position. Desperate to get a deal is not a strong place to go to a negotiating table with.

I’ve negotiated around enough tables to know that your best place is a win-win or a give-and-take. I have to tell you that this Premier certainly used give-and-take. We gave, and the company took. They took everything, when you take a look at this agreement. We’ll get into that a little bit more as I get into the specifics of the bill as we go along.

Now we’re in October 2014, and we finally see the LNG tax bill. What does it do? Yes, once again, it reduced the amount of resources coming to British Columbians. In fact, it cut in half the number that the Premier was talking about simply a year before as being fair to British Columbians. Oh no, not 7 percent anymore. No, no. “We’ll reduce that in half. We’ll cut it in half for LNG,” because, once again, the Premier was desperate and needed to bring a plant forward to be able to show that her agenda was moving ahead.

We also saw, in the fall, environmental legislation, and I’ll come back to that in a minute. This legislation also completely failed any environmental protections by excluding upstream emissions from natural gas production. There are also enough loopholes in this legislation for companies to not even meet the basic emission targets. We’ll come back to the environmental pieces as we go along.

Here we have the Premier negotiating. Here we have an income tax regime finally introduced, and there’s a reduction, a cut, in the tax and also income tax credits and deductions to the companies that continue to give them outs from providing resources to British Columbia. Again, what did we see with this Premier? We saw she overpromised, underdelivered and negotiated from a place of weakness and a place of desperation.

The sad part about all of this is that it’s the people of British Columbia who lose out. They don’t lose out for one or two or three years. They lose out for 25-plus years with this agreement. They lose out for generations with this agreement that’s in front of us.

[1610]

Now, the Premier continued to try and shift the language that she was using around her promises and commitments on LNG. By this year, by 2015, the Premier is actually quoted as saying:

“The script we thought we were predicting it would go by might turn out to be different than we expected.” Really? “Might turn out to be different than we expected.” More like the promises that were made were hollow in the first place. More like they were empty promises made to the public with no intention of being able to fulfil them. It’s extraordinary.

So we come to this bill, the agreement in front of us today. The Premier has already cut in half the revenue option for LNG. She has opened up loopholes to reduce even the minimum taxes proposed, and she has reduced the environmental standards. Heck of an agreement to be able to negotiate. Heck of a position to be able to bring us forward to.

This bill, as I said earlier, certainly is a good deal for
[ Page 8909 ]
the company but not a good deal for British Columbia. When we’re in a time of historic low natural gas prices, when we see the Premier in this kind of poor negotiating position, what does she negotiate? She locks in a 25-year deal, a deal that provides, for the company, tax protections for 25 years.

Now, I wonder how many other companies would like this kind of deal in British Columbia. I wonder how many of the forest companies would like to see this kind of agreement. I wonder how many of the mining companies would like to see this kind of agreement, or manufacturing or agriculture or other industries in British Columbia. For 25 years: “Don’t worry; no changes. It won’t matter. We’re not going to make a difference to anything that you have to pay.” It’s certainly not a good deal that British Columbians can ask for.

I heard the Finance Minister earlier talk about taxes and the expectation of taxes. Well, let’s take a look at taxes. In fact, British Columbians have continued to be hit by fees and services and increases in hydro rates and MSP and tuition and ferry fares. You name it: the public is paying more.

Hard-working British Columbians. The Premier mentioned earlier people who built this province — the people who go to work every single day, who support their family, who do everything right. Those people, under this government in this last budget, got hit with increases. Those middle-class British Columbians, those average folks who just do everything right, who are struggling to manage paycheque to paycheque, who are trying to squeeze a little bit aside for their kids — those people didn’t get a 25-year break from an increase on taxes. Those individuals and those families are paying more now in MSP and hydro rates and ferry fares and tuition. But oh no, when it comes to a company: “Don’t worry. For 25 years you’re not going to have to make a difference. We’re going to lock those in.”

I heard the Finance Minister say: “Don’t worry. This doesn’t tie the hands of future governments.” It may not tie their hands by saying that they can’t make a change, but it ties their hands by saying that the company gets to be compensated if a government does decide to make a change.

Well, what might change in 25 years? Everything could change in 25 years. LNG prices could change. The world market can change. Certainly, climate change targets, I expect, will change. Taxes, regulations — all of those things in 25 years could change. Yet this government thinks it’s just fine for companies to lock it in.

In fact, it’s longer than 25 years. If you take a look at the agreement, you don’t actually start counting until the company has reached its commercial operations date, as they call it in the agreement, which is after the first LNG cargo has been shipped. Well, that could be five to seven years. So in fact, it’s longer than 25 years. It could take five years to build the plant. It could take five years to get there. Really, you’re talking about what could be a 30-year-plus protection from any tax and environmental changes to do with this industry. So much for negotiations for British Columbia. So much for standing up for the people of British Columbia.

[1615]

Now, what about the environment? The Premier said we’d be the cleanest LNG industry in the world. What does this bill say specifically about that area? This project development agreement protects the company from any changes in the greenhouse gas industrial reporting. Those are the requirements, as I mentioned, that were in Bill 2 that came forward in October of 2014, which establishes benchmarks for the LNG industry and which also leaves out, as I said, and as was said by our leader, any upstream emissions, which could be up to 70 percent of the emissions from the industry.

In other words, there will be no future climate change action in the area of LNG without a cost, without a huge cost, to the company. The agreement says that specifically. It says it specifically.

It’s unbelievable. One of the biggest issues facing us, the issue of climate change, and the Premier says: “Don’t worry. There will be no changes to do with climate change.” There will be no new regulations. There will be no new requirements for over 25 years when it comes to the LNG industry. Unbelievable.

No future discussion around greenhouse gas emissions with the industry. No future discussion around the cost of offsets or future targets or additional changes that may occur in 25 years. We don’t expect any kind of change when it comes to climate change and the industry for 25 years? Extraordinary.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

I thought we’d seen everything when we saw this government move to allow companies to regulate themselves when it came to health and safety — when we saw this government get rid of what they called red tape and regulations and say to the companies: “Don’t worry. We’ll trust you. You can go out and regulate your own health and safety.”

Now, in essence, what this bill does is lock in environmental regulations for the companies, for the LNG industry. It says to them: “You now are in control of the environmental regulations for your industry by signing this agreement.” It’s saying: “You are now locked in to the bill that was introduced in 2014, and no changes unless we compensate you for any changes that come forward.”

What about jobs? Surely the Premier, in this agreement, ensured that there were jobs for British Columbia. She hasn’t taken care of the environment. She hasn’t taken care of fair share for British Columbians. Surely she at least looked at jobs for British Columbians. Well, no. In fact, there is no specific commitment on jobs in this
[ Page 8910 ]
agreement — not a single reference to guaranteeing jobs for British Columbians.

Petronas has already indicated that they might use up to 70 percent of temporary foreign workers on their projects, so it seems to me that it would be even more important for a Premier, if they were really looking out for British Columbia, to make sure that there were jobs for British Columbians written into this agreement. But no. There are no apprenticeship quotas, there are no training quotas and there are no job numbers that are in here.

I heard the other side and I heard the Finance Minister in his remarks talk about Australia and their project development agreements. The minister said they did look at the agreements. Well, if they did look at the agreements, they decided to leave out some very critical pieces that could have been important for us to include in our project development agreements if the government was bringing them forward.

Not only are there clauses in the Australia project development agreements that specifically require the use of local labour — very specific — they also actually require the use of professional services and local materials. Australia actually includes a buy-local policy in their project development agreements.

They say: “If you’re going to come in and utilize a resource that belongs to all of British Columbia, you better make sure that British Columbians are the ones who benefit from it.” You better make sure that local businesses have the opportunity to contribute, that local jobs are here and that local manufacturers can benefit from building materials and utilizing their skills to be able to contribute.

Australia also, by the way, has a very specific policy in their agreements around environmental benefits. They have a fund for ongoing programs that they require the companies to actually contribute to. They’re actually looking at how you provide that balance between economic growth and environmental protection.

The clause says, for ongoing programs, that resources will be paid by companies “for ongoing programs that will provide net conservation benefits.” Wouldn’t it have been nice to have that kind of clause in the project development agreement we’re seeing in front of us today? But it’s not. It’s not there in the agreement.

[1620]

What about First Nations? What about First Nations as true partners? Where are the requirements for companies to fulfil their legal responsibilities in consulting and in negotiating with First Nations?

I think the first thing that stands out is the fact that this an agreement signed by the province and Petronas, not First Nations in the area. The only mention of First Nations in the project development agreement is actually in the appendix. It’s not even in the main part of the agreement. It’s in the appendix, and it’s under “Other matters.” Well, First Nations are certainly more than other matters.

It states in the appendix: “The province, in a manner consistent with the public interest and its legal and fiduciary obligations under the law, will consult or reasonably cooperate with the proponent where it deems it appropriate in respect to First Nations engagement relevant to the project.”

I would say that it’s not simply where appropriate to engage with First Nations. It’s not simply where appropriate for the proponent to have discussions with respect to First Nations. It’s a requirement.

Now, I know I’ll hear the province talk about the fact that they are entering into their own agreements with First Nations. The province also has a responsibility. We certainly saw that in the Chilcotin decision. We’ve just seen it in law over and over and over again that the province has a responsibility to ensure that companies that are investing in British Columbia build true partnerships with First Nations.

I’m sorry, but it comes across as lip service when it’s stuck in the appendix under other matters.

Then there’s the question of future agreements. The Premier also made sure that companies benefit in this case as well. The project development agreement includes a most-favoured-nation protection provision, which says for a period of ten years after the deal is signed, if a different LNG proponent comes along and gets a better deal, then this proponent actually retroactively gets the benefits, and the agreement is renegotiated.

Sure, it’s locked in for 25 years. But by the way, if somebody gets a better deal over the next ten years, you get to come back and get that better deal. You get to actually reduce the amount of revenue coming to British Columbians. You actually get to benefit more than you did in the agreement that you signed today. Again, extraordinary.

The me-too clause, as I call it, ensures that the agreement actually sets the bar but can be worse for British Columbians. We take a look at this agreement and think this is as far as we can go. No. In fact, this agreement, through a provision, through a clause called the most-favoured-nation protection provision, can actually mean that British Columbians can get less, not more. A company negotiates a better deal, this deal actually gets reopened, and there’s less.

It’s also interesting to remember that this is actually a one-way clause. There’s no me-too for the province. If Petronas goes and negotiates a deal that gives more to other jurisdictions, there’s no opportunity for the province to go back and say: “Oh, we’d like to make sure that we get that good deal that you negotiated with another jurisdiction.” No. It’s good for the company to do that. It’s not good for British Columbia to be able to do that — and no provision in the contract to be able to do that.

Then there are royalties — the entire issue of royalties and what the royalties will be. We have understood from the Finance Minister that they’re going to be fluctuating
[ Page 8911 ]
as prices go up and down — interesting that they didn’t build anything of that in when it comes to the taxes. They didn’t build any of that in when it comes to the environmental protections.

It’ll be another shoe to drop yet when we see the issue of the royalties and what those royalties actually look like. They’re not part of this bill, and they’re not in front of us for debate. It’s still an unknown, another piece in the entire debate around LNG.

I said at the start that I would talk a little bit about the principles that could and should be in place for responsible development in British Columbia. I think it’s important to do that.

I’m a proud British Columbian. I’ve lived in this province for more than 50 years. I know the people of this province care about our resources, and they care about our environment. They are tired of the debate of either-or. They are tired of governments playing politics around this issue.

[1625]

They want to see plans that move economic growth along and do it in an environmentally sound way. They want to make sure that although this province is built on resource development, it does it in a way that protects our land and air and water and fisheries. That’s what the people of this province care about. They don’t want our resources given away for nothing. They want a fair return. They want a fair share, and they want a fair share for current and future generations. They don’t want to pit the economy against the environment, the environment against the economy, and that’s exactly what this bill does.

We’ve outlined four conditions for an LNG industry: a fair return to British Columbians, who own the resource; jobs for every British Columbian ready to work or be trained; protection for our air, land and water; and a true partnership with First Nations.

These resources that we’re talking about, this LNG industry, doesn’t belong to the B.C. Liberals. It belongs to the people of British Columbia, and this project development agreement does nothing to provide them with support and nothing to meet those principles. Without those principles in place, without those protections in place, we cannot support this agreement coming forward.

We have an opportunity here to stand in this Legislature and talk about local benefits; to talk about support for education; to talk about support for a diverse, value-added modern economy; to talk about investments in people, which are our greatest resource — not to talk about a giveaway to simply meet the Premier’s political agenda, which is what we’re talking about right now.

The Premier said we’re going to be remembered for how we vote on this bill, and I would agree. It’s rare that I’d agree with the Premier, but on this one, I would agree. We are going to be remembered. We’re going to be remembered by what’s good for this generation, the current generation, and future generations to come, and this is not that deal.

It’s time to end the divide between the economy and the environment. It’s time to make sure that we have a discussion about responsible development; future industries; a diverse, modern economy that will be there for my kids and my grandchildren. That’s what the people of British Columbia are looking for.

G. Kyllo: This is an exciting day for me and for all British Columbians as we introduce Bill 30, the LNG project development agreement enabling act, 2015. On behalf of my constituents of Shuswap, it gives me great pleasure to speak on this bill. It will set the stage for what I consider to be a game changer in the economic future of this great province.

B.C. is truly the envy of Canada with the new prospect of a liquefied natural gas industry truly at our doorstep. Last year we were No. 2 in economic growth for GDP in Canada, and we’re projected to lead Canada in each of the next three prospective years.

Over the next five years Asian economic growth, combined with a switch to a cleaner-burning fuel, will almost double Asia’s demand for liquefied natural gas. Fortunately, our province has a natural gas supply that is estimated at close to 3,000 trillion cubic feet, which could support domestic and export markets for the next 150 years.

That is why I’m so excited about the possibilities that are linked to the liquefied natural gas development in British Columbia. LNG will be a pillar upon which the northwest and the northeast regions of our province can build their futures. At the same time, the same can be said for every region and every community in B.C., from Atlin to Elkford and from Armstrong to Zeballos.

As Parliamentary Secretary for the B.C. Jobs Plan, I’ve travelled to these regions, and people are filled with genuine optimism about what a flourishing LNG industry will mean for their families and what it can mean for their communities. Developing the LNG sector in a responsible and prudent manner means hundreds of thousands of jobs will be created in every region of our province. From construction trades labourers — steam fitters, pipefitters, welders, concrete finishers, heavy-equipment operators, gas fitters — and a whole host of others, we need the people and their skills to get the job done.

Our government established the Premier’s LNG working group, with representation from organized labour, industry, First Nations and the federal and provincial governments. The mandate of the working group is to address skills training and workforce planning issues related to the LNG sector to support personnel demands, including those related to associated pipeline and upstream development.

[1630]

In addition, the province is calibrating its apprenticeship system and re-engineering its education and training model to be more responsive to the demands of the labour market.
[ Page 8912 ]

The skills-for-jobs blueprint provides a plan for reorientating training resources for jobs that are in demand, including those in the LNG sector. To ensure the focus is on the right jobs, our government will work with industry and labour to update occupational forecasts for the LNG sector. The province is also working closely with the federal government and has signed the Canada-B.C. MOU on a strong resource economy, an agreement to work jointly on labour market information and programming to ensure British Columbians are first in line for the resource industries.

Our government will also work with the proponent during the construction phase of the project to facilitate trades and occupational trades training in Prince Rupert and surrounding First Nations communities. The province will also support the proponent in their engagement with the federal government on matters relevant to the project, including labour supply and skills training, First Nations and regulatory impacts.

B.C. and the federal government have established a federal-provincial working group of assistant deputy ministers on joint planning and early implementation of priority areas that support the timely development of a liquefied natural gas industry in B.C. The assistant deputy ministers working group facilitates the involvement and input of appropriate federal and provincial departments and agencies in a number of areas relating to LNG, including regulatory alignment, labour supply and skills training and infrastructure and First Nations.

LNG and natural gas are central to B.C.’s future prosperity. They’ll play a key role in determining the jobs of tomorrow in our province, and thousands of opportunities will come from the LNG sector. We have a diversified economy in B.C. — again, I think, the envy of Canada when it comes to the diversification both with respect to the different industry sectors that we employ within B.C. as well as the markets which we serve. Our government, under the leadership of our Premier, is working to seize the opportunity of developing our natural gas resource wealth and saying yes to the economic opportunity that LNG will bring.

This is an exciting time for British Columbians who will soon be entering the workforce. This is a tremendous opportunity for all of them, and we are committed to maximizing the potential that this sector will bring to British Columbia so that they stand to benefit and have an even better quality of life than we enjoy today.

It is expected that by the year 2022 one million new job openings will be available for British Columbians, especially in trades and technical occupation fields. The added pressure of the demand for skilled labour will be heightened as investments for LNG proponents continue in B.C. Without a comprehensive plan such as the skills-for-jobs blueprint, there would be a significant shortage of skilled labour, especially in the northern regions of our province. This is why our government has created the blueprint — to ensure that all these jobs in all regions of B.C. are filled so we can keep our economy moving forward.

Essentially, the plan will give young people a seamless path from school through to the workplace, from learner to earner, maximizing their earning potential and helping to secure their futures. We are re-engineering our education system from kindergarten through to post-secondary training and beyond to ensure that B.C. youth and B.C. workers are first in line for the jobs of B.C. in the future. Labour and education leaders agree that the skills training blueprint is the best path forward to train students in B.C. so they can adequately be trained and be first in line for the jobs of tomorrow.

The potential of LNG in British Columbia is staggering. The prospect of just five of the 14 LNG operations that are looking to be constructed in B.C. would result in upwards of $100 billion in industry investment over the next decade alone. This agreement alone, the Pacific NorthWest LNG, represents a total investment of $36 billion U.S. in the B.C. and Canadian economy. Other benefits include an estimated 330 direct operational long-term jobs, 300 local spinoff jobs and up to 4,500 jobs at peak construction.

[1635]

Under the tax and royalty framework in place, by 2030 we estimate that the province could see nearly $8.6 billion in total royalty and tax revenues. For example, it’s estimated that we’ll receive royalty revenues of $3.64 billion; LNG income tax of $697 million; carbon tax, $1.16 billion; corporate income tax, $1.2 billion; provincial sales tax of $1.26 billion; motor fuel tax, $462 million; and property taxes of $253 million — truly staggering numbers.

Natural gas is the cleanest burning of all fossil fuels and results in lower greenhouse gas emissions and pollution when it replaces coal-fired power generation. The project development agreement, or PDA, signed by the province and Pacific NorthWest LNG marks a major milestone on the path to realizing the largest capital investment in B.C.’s history.

LNG is going to keep families together and create thousands of jobs in the north. That’s not the government saying that. That’s the plumbers and pipefitters union. Organized labour is excited about the opportunities that LNG is going to create. Why isn’t the opposition? I know it’s summertime. There’s lots of sun and sand and bathing suits and the NDP flip-flop.

Over the past three years, B.C.’s LNG industry has gained momentum with concrete signs of progress taking place. Here are a few of the major accomplishments. As of last month there were 20 LNG export proposals in B.C. When the LNG strategy was released, there were only two facilities proposed for development. Now 11 LNG proposals have received export approval from Canada’s National Energy Board. Provincial environmental assess-
[ Page 8913 ]
ment certificates have been issued for seven LNG projects — that’s three facilities and four pipelines — with others that are still under review.

The project development agreement and accompanying adherence agreements have been reached between the province and Pacific Northwest LNG. A long-term royalty agreement was also reached with the producer, the North Montney joint venture, which specifies royalty rates over a 23-year time frame and minimum levels of commercial investment.

Nearly 90 percent of the 32 First Nations with proposed pipelines through their traditional territories have indicated their support through one or more pipeline benefit agreements. LNG–Buy B.C. will create long-term partnerships for B.C. businesses to support LNG projects during planning, construction and operation. The on-line registry has now been launched.

The province has introduced and passed the Greenhouse Gas Industrial Reporting and Control Act, legislation to ensure that B.C. has the cleanest LNG facilities in the world. The centrepiece of the plan is a greenhouse gas emission intensity benchmark. The Liquefied Natural Gas Income Tax Act has also been released, providing proponents the certainty that they need to make investment decisions, while ensuring that British Columbians benefit from the revenue generated by LNG production.

The rates for LNG proponents to connect to B.C. Hydro’s electrical grid have been finalized, providing details for industry to plan power costs. Industry investments and new and upgraded infrastructure will ensure ratepayers are protected. The first power agreement reached between B.C. Hydro and LNG Canada has been reached.

The province has hosted two international conferences, with a third event scheduled for October 14 to 16 of this year. The first event, “Fuelling the future: global opportunities for LNG in B.C.,” was held at the Vancouver Convention Centre in February of 2013. The second conference was another great success. With over 1,400 delegates attending, it is considered to be the largest event of its kind in B.C.’s history.

I said earlier in my remarks that Bill 30 is a game changer for B.C. More than that, it’s a life changer for thousands of British Columbians, and that makes me extremely proud. It gives me great pleasure today to add my voice in support of Bill 30.

S. Simpson: I’m pleased to take my place to join the debate around Bill 30, the Liquefied Natural Gas Project Agreements Act. This is a piece of legislation that essentially enables the project development agreements that the government intends to put in place for any prospective developers of liquid natural gas. The first one we’ve seen, with Pacific NorthWest, is the agreement that we will talk about in some detail.

[1640]

Of course, this is an agreement that we all know is now the floor for any future agreements that Shell or anybody else might bring forward. It’s the floor, because the government has essentially agreed to a whole range of indemnifications for this company, this consortium, and have said that they will certainly sign this same agreement with anybody else.

The minister responsible for LNG has called it the template. Not only that. It also has the clause in there, the me-too clause, that has been talked about by others that says: “Should somebody else come along and negotiate another benefit for the investment interest, everybody will achieve that as well.” That’s the agreement that we’re looking at and talking about today — an agreement that offers very little to British Columbians but provides a whole series of protections and indemnifications for the companies who are participating here.

This debate — and we’re going to see this as it plays out — is going to be a rhetorical debate, particularly from folks on the other side who will wag their fingers about who does and who doesn’t support LNG.

We have been very clear about our position on LNG, and we have said that we expect that there may be a plant or two that will get developed in this province. Nothing like what the Premier had claimed in 2012 and moving forward from there, but there may well be a plant or two. Whether it’s Pacific NorthWest, whether it’s Shell or whether it’s Woodfibre, we’ll see as this unfolds.

There are a whole lot of reasons why there’s not a rush to that right now, why nobody has signed an investment agreement. A final investment decision has not been made. Even though the Premier told us that we’d be pumping LNG by 2015, we haven’t even signed an agreement yet.

What we have said on this side, in terms of what those deals have to look like, is what deals in the resource industries need to look like moving forward. What we have said is that B.C. resources need to deliver B.C. jobs. First and foremost, it needs to be British Columbians who get the work. It needs to be Canadians who get the work.

We have said that an LNG industry needs to have a fair return to the B.C. treasury, and that return has to be evident. We have said that an LNG industry needs to provide effective protections for air, land and water in our province. And we have said that there needs to be a partnership with the First Nations where everybody benefits. Those are the conditions that we have put on our support, and the project development agreement does not deliver on those conditions.

How do we get to this place? Well, we got to this place because of the Premier’s claims, claims made prior to the last election and claims that she campaigned on — $1 trillion of economic development, 100,000 jobs in British Columbia and a $100 billion prosperity fund that would make us a debt-free province, that would potentially end the sales tax and that would be manna from heaven for decades and generations to come.
[ Page 8914 ]

A debt-free province — splashed across the side of the campaign bus. We know that we’re not a debt-free province, and we’re not going to get there any time soon. We know that we’re heading for $70 billion very quickly — record levels of debt exacerbated by this Premier in terms of her investment decisions and her management decisions for this province.

What we know is that for this to happen, of course, we need to have six, seven, eight, nine LNG plants. Well, we don’t have one LNG plant at this point, and the challenge is: will we get to one? Will we get to two? What will we see in LNG plants? Well, the first one was supposed to be operating in 2015. Now, based on this particular decision, clearly the hope is that maybe somebody will sign an investment decision before we get to the election in 2017. That seems to be the new target: get an investment decision signed before the campaign starts.

This project development agreement is framed exactly for that purpose. It is one very large carrot to hang in front of these companies, with the deal being: “Give us a signature before the 2017 election so we can go and campaign on that.”

There are a number of reasons why life is as challenging as it is for LNG. We know that. We know that the global markets are shifting. We know that key potential buyers like China are being more challenged. We know that the price has dropped dramatically — less than half what it was when the Premier was making these claims. We now are looking at $7 or $8 instead of $16 or $18 — a significant issue.

[1645]

We also know that the competition is significant. Australia will open a couple more plants in the next year. The Gulf Coast in the United States will be operating and selling product in the next year or two. We will be hoping to get a final investment decision signed, and they’ll be moving product. We know there are changing global conditions.

We also know there has been mismanagement on the other side. That has been mismanagement around how we got to the place we are today and how it is that we got to being in this place with this document in front of us. What we see here is a result that isn’t about the best interests of the province. When you talk to people in the industry and you talk about prices, they will tell you that it’s the long game and that everybody plays the long game. That’s fair comment. Everybody is playing the long game, and they’re making decisions based on the long game. I accept that.

The only person and the only people not playing the long game here are the B.C. Liberals. This is political desperation to get a deal done for a Premier who put all of her political chips on the side of LNG heading through the last election and knows that for her to have any credibility on this economic development question heading into the next election, she needs some action here. As many have said, she’s prepared to pay these proponents to take this out of the ground and sell it if that’s what it takes to get a signature before 2017.

As a consequence, we have a government that is not doing this with the best interests of British Columbians right in front of them. They’re doing it with a political interest in front of them to be able to deal with the political catastrophe of the claims the Premier made — $1 trillion of economic development, $100 billion prosperity fund, 100,000 jobs, a debt-free B.C. Those are the claims. None of it’s real. So now it’s: “Can we cobble something together by 2017 to get us through this?” And these project development agreements are, in fact, what they hope will do that. We have this situation, and that’s the reason that we’re in this place today, doing what we’re doing.

Now, we know that there have been two pieces of legislation already passed, the first one around royalties. We passed that earlier this year. You will recall that the minister responsible was up months and months before that talking about a royalty regime of 7 percent, talking about our ability to make wonderful returns here.

Of course, once we got to the actual table, once that legislation was put on the table, 7 percent had become 3½. We cut the royalty regime in half. Now, this side reluctantly supported that. We supported that because we understood that the royalty number had to be in play, that it was fair game to say companies needed to know what the royalty number was if anybody was going to move forward. So we supported that.

At the same time, the government brought forward legislation to deal with climate-related initiatives and the impacts of LNG on climate. But what we know, of course, is that that legislation, essentially, left 70 percent of emissions off the table. So 70 percent of emissions were left off the table, and we opposed that legislation because it was not legislation that would provide and deliver the kind of protection that we say in our four conditions, for land, air and water. Rather, the vast majority of those emissions got a pass. And when this government talks about the cleanest LNG anywhere, it’s just simply not true. It’s just simply not true, and this legislation that we passed earlier kind of opens the door for that to be the case.

Today we’re dealing with this agreement. What this agreement does is it indemnifies Pacific NorthWest and anybody else who will sign this deal moving forward, and I’m sure there’ll be lots of encouragement. It indemnifies them on the tax side around LNG-related taxation, around any LNG-related costs around climate impacts and protecting against climate impacts and costs.

[1650]

What it does not do: it does nothing to provide any guarantees for jobs for British Columbians. It does nothing to guarantee any kind of local purchase. It does nothing in terms of looking at how the public interest is protected, moving forward on some of those critical issues around air, land and water. No guarantees in these
[ Page 8915 ]
areas, yet significant guarantees for the company — indemnification, I think, is the term that’s being used — around their costs.

If we’re going to provide certainty, the question has to be: how come the certainty is not provided for British Columbians? How come British Columbians aren’t realizing any of that certainty?

Now, I think part of the challenge here is…. We go back to the Premier’s claims, when she claimed the $1 trillion and the 100,000 jobs and the $100 billion prosperity fund. We have moved from that position to a very different position, one that may arguably be a more real position. We’ve had the minister for LNG — and I believe I heard the Minister of Finance saying the same thing — on television the other day, saying: “It’s better than nothing.” That’s a pretty outstanding position. It’s better than nothing.

It’s better than nothing because you have a government that can’t negotiate a deal that works for British Columbia, because every one of those companies and those investment groups that you’re dealing with knows the political box that you’re in, knows the political desperation to get a deal done before 2017, and they are free to play their cards in any way they want. They know that you have no choice but to find a way to put a deal on the table. The result is this agreement, this piece of legislation.

Now, it’s pretty clear that the companies aren’t entirely trustworthy of the government, because you’ve signed a deal here. I mean, this is like a ratification vote. It’s not like we’re talking about content here. This is an agreement that was negotiated in private. This is an agreement that we’re now looking at to ratify. But the interesting thing is that the company, Pacific NorthWest, had no interest in just a signed deal and taking your word for it. They said: “No. If we’re going to trust you on this one, you better legislate it, where you can’t back away.” So we have legislation.

This is what’s happening now. Other people are coming to the table. I’ve heard lots of the talk about the interests of the workers in this. Well, I believe you’re going to hear from workers over the next while who are going to say: “We want LNG to go forward, but we want some guarantees for jobs. We want some guarantees on the training. We want some guarantees at the local level for our communities about local sourcing of product.” There’s a whole array of things. But none of these were important enough for this government to guarantee any one of them. Not a single one of them was enough. That’s the reality.

We have a document…. The Premier’s working group on LNG, a group made up of labour, First Nations, industry interests and government, put 15 recommendations forward to the Premier around skills training, around job opportunities, around apprenticeship levels, around a process for temporary foreign workers — 15 recommendations. Apparently, though it’s not in writing, sometime in February or March of last year the Premier said that she accepted all of those recommendations and they were great.

Well, if those recommendations were good enough to be accepted, why aren’t they good enough to be part of this deal? Nobody is guaranteeing one of those recommendations. Not one of them is guaranteed. Nobody’s even talking about those recommendations at this point. You had the Premier’s working group, and now you have this situation here.

The government also talks about — and we heard the minister of LNG talk about this — how it’s important to look at other models. He pointed to Australia and said: “They do project development agreements there, and that’s the model that we’re adopting.” So we went and looked at those project development agreements and looked at the one on Barrow Island, the Gorgon project. That’s one we talk about.

[1655]

Well, let’s be clear about that agreement. That agreement has specific requirements about jobs for Western Australians. It’s very clear. It has specific requirements about the use of products of local purchase. It has specific requirements about the protection of Barrow Island and what can and cannot be done on the island in terms of environmental impacts. It has a range of items around taxation and other matters, but there is no 25-year deal on those, not at all. There are arbitration processes in place to resolve issues. There isn’t just a carte blanche that says you can’t make a change.

If Australia really is the model, let’s be clear: the project development agreements that we’re looking at in Australia offer a very, very different story than the one that we’re seeing here. That’s a story about the government of Australia standing up for the people of Australia, negotiating an agreement for them and understanding they are there to look after the interest of Australians, not the interest of Petronas and the Malaysian government. That’s whose interest is largely being looked after in this agreement.

That’s occurring because this government is in a politically desperate place to get a deal done before the election in 2017. It is the only thing that matters. It is the priority — as a consequence, a very bad place to negotiate from, a very difficult place to negotiate from, for sure. The result is an agreement that speaks to the company but doesn’t speak to the people of British Columbia.

We know that there are other issues here and issues for workers. One of my biggest concerns is that we see the workers be the real beneficiaries here. If we can create the jobs, it will be a big positive. So what are we looking at? Well, maybe up to 4,500 jobs in this project around the construction period at the peak period. But let’s be clear. If you look at when the environmental assessment process went on and you look at what Pacific NorthWest said in their submissions around the environmental assessment, they said they expected to use 30 percent temporary foreign workers at the outset and at the peak period
[ Page 8916 ]
possibly as much as 70 percent. That’s their document.

There is nothing in this project development agreement that addresses that in any way, shape or form, that talks about how you get the temporary foreign workers, about when you have shortages and how you deal with it.

Right now in this province we have about 80,000 people who work in the construction industry, skilled tradespeople, and about 20 percent unemployment — about 20 percent of them not working today, about 8,000 union and about 8,000 non-union, more or less. So you’ve got 15,000 or 16,000 people who could go to work. That is more than enough people certainly to guarantee that first project could be built by British Columbians. Yet there is nothing in here that provides any assurance that that will happen. In fact, the silence on it suggests it will not happen.

I’ve got to believe that if the government had any intention of having that be the case, the Premier would be standing on the top of the building yelling that British Columbian LNG is going to be built by British Columbians. She isn’t saying that because she knows full well it will not occur. She’s prepared and has done that deal, and it won’t just be a deal with Petronas. That’s the floor. That’s the deal that gets done with everybody now.

There are companies like Shell that are not as enthusiastic about temporary foreign workers as some others, but don’t guess for a minute that they are not coming to the table saying: “If that’s the deal they’ve got, then I’m taking the same deal, and maybe we’ll sweeten it a little bit along the way.” That’s the reality that we’re facing.

We don’t have those assurances on jobs. We don’t have the assurances. If we’re not creating the jobs…. We know we have cut the royalty regime in half. We know that we have a preferential tax rate for gas. There will be questions about how much revenue we’re actually going to see out of these plants, and that’s a challenge for the treasury. But on the jobs, if we could create the jobs….

[1700]

For all this talk about construction, everybody knows…. The building trades know. They’ll tell you. The government knows. We know that much of this plant is going to be modulized. You’re going to build this plant significantly in China and elsewhere, put it on a barge and bring it to British Columbia and put the pieces together here, whether it’s in Kitimat or it’s in Prince Rupert. You’ll bolt them together here, but they will essentially be built somewhere else.

Not only that, we see that Pacific NorthWest in their environmental assessment submission were pretty clear when they said for the technical services, engineering and other professional technical services, they’re going offshore for that. They’re going to go offshore and get that work done someplace else. So we’re not going to realize a benefit out of that. The benefits to British Columbians just aren’t there around that.

And we talk about those jobs. You might have 4,500 construction jobs at the peak period. That’s quite possible. But as was spoken by one of the other members on the other side, when it gets to the operation of this, it’s not a particularly labour-intensive operation. You’ve got 300 jobs in the province — 300 jobs, 350 indirect jobs. They’ll be good jobs, but they are not the 100,000 jobs the Premier promised. Remember that, the 100,000 jobs the Premier promised? Let’s see, 100,000 jobs the Premier promised. So far nothing. Amazing.

What do we have here? We have a situation where the government has essentially taken a pass on the interests of British Columbians to meet a political obligation that they know they have in 2017 — a political obligation. The only job that side is concerned about is the Premier’s job and their jobs and trying to hang on to government. That’s the priority of that side — is hang on to the Premier’s job and a few ministers’ jobs, pretty good-paying jobs. Those are the only good-paying jobs this side is concerned about.

That’s the reality we have here. It doesn’t matter as long as they think they can survive this political mess that has been created by a series of promises that were just untrue. They were untrue the day that they were announced. They are untrue today, and now how do you try to fix that? That’s what they’re dealing with, and they’re dealing with it to try to hang on to those jobs.

We have opportunity here. There’s no doubt. But in order to do that, there have to be some kinds of principles that you build that strategy on, and those principles have to be about B.C. jobs for British Columbians. They have to be about using our resources, our wealth. When people talk about billions here and billions there, be clear. We are giving a lot of wealth away in the resources we have. In the natural gas we have, we are giving…. We’re putting a lot on the table here when they take that and sell it. So it’s got to be B.C. jobs and B.C. resources. There has to be a return to the treasury that makes sense.

We hear every day about services that are being stretched, whether it’s health care, whether it’s education. We heard from a Premier who said that we’re going to be debt-free, and we’re going to be able to underwrite all of those things in ways that we’ve never done before. “Generational change,” I think, is the term. Well, you know what the reality is? We’re not going to see that unless we have a good deal, so there’s got to be a deal here. And we have to protect our air, our land and our water. We have to deal with it in the most responsible way. And we have to have that partnership with First Nations that makes sense for everybody.

Those are the principles and values that we need to move forward with. Not a long list. Not a complicated list. But we need to do that. This project development agreement does not deliver the jobs. It does not deliver the resources. You know, just to highlight that. We’re at a time when the market is at a low end, where there is a glut of product, where there’s more competition than ever in the LNG field. And now is the time that we’re try-
[ Page 8917 ]
ing to make this work. We have the political clock ticking on the promises that the Premier made — promises that nobody believes and that she needs to find some way to at least be able to defend come 2017.

[1705]

That’s the reality of the situation we face. So we will move forward. This legislation will pass over the next couple of weeks or so, whatever time it takes for us to get there. And we will see the deal. But what we know is that, for British Columbians, the statement of the minister for LNG that “It’s better than nothing” has now become the mantra for the government.

“It’s better than nothing.” Now, that’s a government of vision. “It’s better than nothing.” That’s the vision. That’s pretty spectacular vision. Maybe instead of “Debt-free B.C.,” it should be: “It’s better than nothing.” That can be on the side of the bus. That’s the situation we’re in.

I was talking to some people, some of those people in those building trades that they were spouting off about on the other side. They’ve looked at the PDA, and a number of those, including some of those leaders, are starting to say to themselves: “Is it really better than nothing?” We’ll see. We’re going to have that conversation, and you’re going to see.

That’s the challenge we face. We’re going to pass this, we’re going to have the debate about the environmental side of this, but we’re also not even going to have a decent deal, potentially, for British Columbians.

We’re going to have a deal that future governments, for the next three decades or so — probably from now to the next three decades — will have their hands tied to do what’s in British Columbia’s interest — for three decades. That’s not how this should work.

I was thinking about mortgages and things, and we’ve talked, I know members have talked, about that. Lots of people sign a 20- or 25-year mortgage, but every three or five years they like to come back and have a conversation about the terms of that. They don’t change the fundamentals, but you come back and talk a little bit about the terms. Maybe we should be doing that here.

That doesn’t work for Petronas. That doesn’t make this quite as sweet a deal for Petronas, so that isn’t going to happen, because they’re holding that stick over the Premier’s head about whether they might sign a final investment decision in the next couple of months if you do this, and if they can figure out how to get past their environmental concerns about Lelu Island. So we’ll see.

But this isn’t a deal. For all of the talk about the billions that we’ll hear on that side for the next few days, once British Columbians really look at this, once people who have an interest really look at this — whether it’s from economic opportunity, return to the province, jobs, environmental considerations — they’re going to say that this is not a good deal for British Columbians and that we have time to get a good deal, and to get to a good deal, and that’s where people want to go.

If this government put British Columbians first instead of their own political interests, we would get a good deal, I’m sure. But that’s not going to happen, because that’s not the values, the principles or the integrity of the people on the other side.

J. Martin: Again, as others have expressed, I welcome my colleagues on both sides of the House back after a little time away. It’s always nice to be in this chamber and to speak to something particularly as significant as Bill 30, the LNG project development agreement enabling act. I’m very happy to take my place in this debate, and I look forward to hearing what everyone else in the chamber has to contribute to this.

This particular agreement, signed by the province and Pacific NorthWest LNG, marks a significant and major milestone on the path to realizing the largest capital investment in B.C.’s history. Now, how someone could automatically be opposed to the largest capital investment in B.C.’s history is absolutely mind-boggling.

This deal represents a generational opportunity. Pacific NorthWest LNG would be a $36 billion U.S. contribution — a total buildout and operation investment in northern B.C. that would be a key driver of jobs and economic activity in the province. I do find it quite bizarre — in Canadian funds we’re talking about a $40 billion investment — that the opposition is taking such a confrontational stance on this.

[1710]

I mean, this is monumental. This isn’t taxpayer money. This is private investment in the province of British Columbia. I’m sure if the government was borrowing $40 billion for a venture, the opposition would be quite happy to see that type of deal go down. But this is private money. It’s investment, and this is something that is going to be absolutely groundbreaking for British Columbia.

The deal representing $40 billion includes 330 direct operational long-term jobs. Why would anyone be against 330 direct operational long-term jobs? And 300 local spinoff jobs. Why would anyone oppose 300 local spinoff jobs? Up to 4,500 jobs at peak construction. “Let’s oppose 4,500 jobs at peak construction.”

Under the tax and royalty framework in place, by 2030 we estimate that the province could see almost $8.6 billion in total royalty and tax revenue. That is about…. If you take the amount of potential revenue from this, apply it against our debt, this is generational opportunity. We need to seize it. We have a responsibility to seize the moment.

This is not anything to take lightly. There has never been a capital investment in this province’s history that rivals this. Nothing we have done in the past under any administration is on par with this particular project. Royalty revenues: $3.64 billion. LNG income tax: $697 million. Carbon tax: $1.16 billion. Corporate income tax: $1.2 billion. PST: $1.26 billion. Motor fuel tax: $462 million. Property tax: $253 million. All of this is good for
[ Page 8918 ]
B.C. It’s good for British Columbians.

A bit of context here — British Columbia is already the second-largest producer of natural gas in the country; 13,000 people are already employed in the production of natural gas. These are all good, highly-skilled, well-paying jobs.

Our plan all along has been to create more of them by exporting natural gas in its liquid form to developing countries and to developing economies in Asia. The world needs energy, and British Columbia is better positioned than any other jurisdiction to provide it.

Right now we sit on trillions of cubic feet of natural gas. It’s sufficient to supply our own domestic needs for generations to come, with plenty more sitting on the ground ready for export. But we have to build the export facilities necessary to render the gas down to a liquid form so it can be safely exported abroad. This takes investment. Today we are discussing a $40 billion investment exactly along those lines. Again, why would anyone oppose this?

This isn’t a one-off. This is part of the DNA of the opposition to oppose. The current Leader of the Opposition always seemed to be first in line to shout down any made-in-B.C. proposal to expand opportunities for our young people to live and work right here in B.C.

For example, it wasn’t that long ago when a well-known B.C. entrepreneur suggested that it would be possible to finance a fuel refinery in B.C. and make it safer to export energy products. The Leader of the Opposition, in his former capacity as NDP energy critic, had this to say in a CKNW interview: “It’s irresponsible to assume because the guy has an idea that it’s going to be successful, because that’s not the track record of private sector investment. Everybody’s got a good idea…. As they say, there’s a sucker born every minute.”

So there you have it. Anyone in the private sector with a good idea who wants to attract investment who wants to create jobs, who wants to take a risk, is a sucker. That’s the level of confidence that the opposition has in entrepreneurship.

It gets worse. I’m reminded of an article published just last year by the former MP and NDP MLA Dawn Black and party adviser David Bieber. They said: “It’s not good enough for the party to simply quote Tommy Douglas and insist that what worked in the postwar world will still work in a 21st century transformed by globalization, demographic shifts and technology.”

[1715]

Furthermore, they went on to say: “The B.C. NDP” — now, this is coming from their own party, people within their own organization who have a long history with the NDP — “must celebrate and promote entrepreneurial aspiration. Healthy societies evolve and advance by giving good ideas a chance to succeed. The B.C. NDP must embrace change, reward risk and foster innovation.” Some advice that probably could have been taken with a little more seriousness than it was.

Dawn Black and Dave Bieber put it down to the prevailing attitude within the NDP that we call the BANANA syndrome: build absolutely nothing anywhere near anybody. So it’s no mystery that the NDP was going to come out against this project, against LNG. It’s difficult to recall too many NDP legacy projects other than maybe the construction of the fast ferry fleet, but there were a few there, and maybe it’s time that we did revisit them, although some people would maybe prefer that we didn’t.

One was a proposal to build a natural gas pipeline to fuel three power plants on Vancouver Island. But that would have involved pipelines, and that would have involved supporting B.C.’s natural gas industry. So, of course, that project never got off the ground.

There was another one. There are not too many of them, but there was another one, a major facility to be built by the NDP, but that was going to be done in Pakistan, not in British Columbia. It was when the government handed over a $1 million loan to the CEO of Southern Electric, and the Pakistani officials, lo and behold…. We don’t know; the money just seems to have disappeared.

When we look at the legacy of the NDP in their opposition and their non-movement to major projects, it’s little surprise. Not too much mystery here. The NDP opposes LNG. They oppose pipelines, oppose fracking, oppose the northwest transmission line, oppose mining, oppose aquaculture, oppose log exports….

Interjection.

J. Martin: Excuse me? You threw…. I’ve got a cadence here. I’ve got a cadence, right? Okay.

Oppose B.C. Place. Last Friday 23,000 B.C. Lions fans enjoyed one of the most exciting conclusions of a CFL game in recent memory — 23,000 of them in B.C. Place. They loved it. The NDP was against B.C. Place. They were against the 2010 Olympic Games. They didn’t want the 2010 Winter Games coming to British Columbia. Sidney Crosby scored one of the three or four most iconic goals in hockey history. The NDP was against that.

Interjections.

J. Martin: Well, they were also against the trade and convention centre. They were so against it that they planned their big victory party there a couple of Mays ago. I mean, karma can really bite you sometimes. That didn’t work out too well. Against the Sea to Sky Highway. Against the new Fraser perimeter road, which saves me 20 minutes coming and going to and from Chilliwack, to catch the ferry to come over here and engage in these lively, collegial conversations with my colleagues.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Let’s have order, please.
[ Page 8919 ]

J. Martin: If I have a chance, I will revisit some of my quotes, but right now let me read from a quote from, I know, good, good friends and supporters of….

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Order, Members.

J. Martin: Fine, fine people. The United Association of Plumbers and Pipefitters, local 170, right? Good union people.

[1720]

“The proposed LNG projects are projected to take 4½ to five years to build. This provides an individual an opportunity to work their way through their apprenticeship during the construction phase of the project, acquiring the necessary on-the-job training hours and in-school technical training in each of the four years of the apprenticeship. Successful completion of training qualifies individuals to apply for jobs maintaining these facilities within the northern communities or elsewhere. This investment is not just a job for today but a career for the future.”

I repeat: “This investment is not just a job for today but a career for the future.”

This wasn’t written by our savvy and learned communication team. This was written by the United Association of Plumbers and Pipefitters, Local 170. So are we going to throw the pipefitters under the bus the same way the NDP threw all the construction and tradespeople under the bus in the last election? That didn’t work out too well.

Seeing as we’ve been asked to do some quotes, let’s do another quote, from the B.C. Chamber of Commerce. Now, I know that not all opposition members think that people associated with chambers of commerce are clowns and snobs, but here’s what the B.C. chamber had to say. “B.C. is witnessing a truly historic event with the birth of a brand-new industry. The LNG industry will have a profound impact on the B.C. economy and will create jobs and benefits to businesses of all size while firmly placing the province at the forefront of the global energy industry.”

There’s more. “The project development agreement between the provincial government and Pacific NorthWest LNG is a critical component as it creates certainty for the industry to grow and stimulate economic activity that will support communities throughout the province.” That’s from Jon Garson, vice-president, policy development and government relations, B.C. Chamber of Commerce.

We’re seeing that it’s pretty well just the NDP that seems to have some difficulty with this LNG project. Others seem to be quite enthusiastic about it — the people of British Columbia, the trades and construction people, northern communities. Sometimes I try to wrap my thoughts around this constant, endless negativity. I understand the opposition, the role — “we’ve got to oppose” — and such, but to be so negative about it.

We announced a $75 million investment in trades and training this afternoon. I suppose that you’re against that too? Why wouldn’t you be? It was announced by this government, so you’ve got to be against it.

On Thursday, when we go, some of us catch the ferry; some of us fly home. We get home to our families, our loved ones, and it’s just so nice to spend some time. We’ve been away. I try to think what it’s like for the NDP to sit down, grumbling and staring a hole through their scrambled eggs just because they’re so mad. But there’s no B.C. Liberals in government there for them to take out their frustration and anger of 14 years of being in opposition, so they take it out on their meatloaf. It just doesn’t make any sense.

We need to be constructive. We need to be positive.

Interjections.

J. Martin: There, there. See, it makes perfect sense. We’re for it; you’re against it. We’re for growing the economy; you’re for stifling the economy. B.C. LNG is good for business. It’s good for British Columbia.

Sometimes I wonder also: does the NDP really believe that you don’t need private investment, you don’t need entrepreneurs, and you don’t need risk-takers? Everyone can just work for the government. Everyone can just work for the government, and that’s the end of it. There’s no need to create industry.

I know that there’s significant division within the NDP with their approach toward LNG and major natural resource projects together, but I wonder if that’s as small a minority as we’ve been led to believe. I’m surprised that a member hasn’t introduced a shovel registry to make sure no one ever sticks a shovel in the ground again because nothing should ever be built. No homes should ever be built. There should never be anything framed up. No industry, no investment, no capital and no jobs whatsoever.

This particular agreement is unparalleled — the equivalent of $40 billion in investment in a project in British Columbia. It should be something that is being celebrated by all British Columbians. This is something that has taken years and years of work, consulting, working hard with the different levels of government, with industry, with First Nations, with the people that supply the trades and training that’s required to get all of the infrastructure in place.

[1725]

We have worked extremely hard, and it’s been a very, very tough road. We have to contend with a lot of global factors that are not necessarily in the control of this particular administration, and we’ve come to that point where we have an agreement. We have a $40 billion investment in British Columbia.

I am going to be enthusiastically supporting this, as I know British Columbians will be enthusiastically supporting the agreement as well. This is a milestone. It is something that is unparalleled in the history of British Columbia. We got here because we believed in something.
[ Page 8920 ]
We wanted to say yes to something. The easiest thing would have been to simply say: “No, we can’t do this.”

Hon. Speaker, I thank you so much for the opportunity to participate in this debate. I have enjoyed every moment of it.

S. Chandra Herbert: Well, I must say I cannot avoid commenting on the remarks of the speaker before me, the member for Chilliwack. He expressed some concern. He couldn’t understand why people might have some concerns about this ripoff deal that this government has imposed. He couldn’t understand it. Why might they have some concerns?

Well, let’s see. What did he call climate change? He called it “junk science.” He professed to be very concerned about this government — how great they were and how everybody else was horrible. What did the member for Chilliwack say about this government just a couple years ago? “Not even the most devoted Liberal supporter could argue with a straight face that this government has earned a fourth mandate. Theirs is a legacy of” — these are his words — “deceit, incompetence and financial mismanagement.” I agreed with him then. I agree with him now. Fiscal mismanagement and incompetence. This bill is full of those things.

What else did he say? “The only people getting ahead in the Premier’s B.C. are cronies, insiders and lobbyists.” That’s the member for Chilliwack. Well, let’s see. I think he’s right. He’s still right. I haven’t heard him withdraw those remarks. I haven’t heard him say he was probably wrong. He was just trying to get elected as a Conservative. When that didn’t work, his principles were dropped and he decided to get elected as a Liberal. Thus, he fits in with the cronies, insiders and lobbyists, embracing incompetence and financial mismanagement. That would be what the member for Chilliwack decided to do. That’s why he embraces this deal. No principles then; no principles now. But it’s unfortunate.

I’ll speak about this agreement from an environmental perspective. I am proud to be the New Democrat official opposition environment advocate. Some people have said: “Why is it an environment critic? The environment has a hard enough time. It doesn’t need to be criticized all the time.” With this bill, well, it will have an even harder time.

It seems that side of the House has embraced the member for Chilliwack’s view that this is junk science. Climate change is junk science. We just don’t need to pay attention to it. The member for Chilliwack-Hope holds the same view. I’m sure many others on that side of the House have that same view. But it’s here. Climate change is hitting us now. We’re paying for it now. We’re paying for it in massive storms, floods, fires, dying fish, the fact that a whole bunch of species are having a heck of a time surviving, being able to be here.

It’s such a big problem that the pope, of all people, has decided to issue an encyclical calling for action against climate change. Now, this is a religious figure. I’m not that much of a religious person. I believe in spirituality. So I look to his message to see what that religion had to say about addressing climate change. And you know what he said? He talked about our earth as being a sister, being a brother, being a relative, somebody connected to us, not somebody that you could dominate and harm and hurt but somebody you had to have a relationship with.

That’s right. We need a relationship with the earth, because right now it’s pretty mad at us. You look at the storms and the fires we have in this province today — worst ever. You have the hottest days, the driest days — months and months and months. You have droughts — months and months and months. And you know why that happens? That’s because all of us in this room, all of us on this globe, keep putting more of that stuff up into the atmosphere that’s ruining the climate.

[1730]

Interjections.

S. Chandra Herbert: Well, you know what? That’s the truth. They may not want to hear it. They may be shouting at me because they don’t want to hear the fact that climate science and climate change are real — instead embracing the member for Chilliwack’s view that it is junk science. But it is not. It is here. We are paying for it now. My children will pay for it in the future. Our grandchildren will pay for it in the future, on and on and on.

How does this relate to this deal, you want to know? Well, this deal, just with this one plant, with this one project, because this government exempted 70 percent of climate change emissions….

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Order, please.

S. Chandra Herbert: Because this government refused to acknowledge that climate science is real and the fact that it is so dangerous, this deal exempts approximately 70 percent of the climate change emissions for this project.

Not only does it do that, it locks a government, any government, for the future, for at least 25 years. If you plan ahead for construction, etc., should this project get environmental assessment approval at the federal level, should they be able to steamroller the Lax Kw’alaams, who’ve been speaking out against this in their territory, who said: “Wait a second. That doesn’t work for us….” Should this government completely ignore that and they proceed, let’s say the plant is built in 2020.

What’s 25 years out? It’s 2045. That’s getting us pretty close to 2050. You might ask: what happens in 2050? This House has passed a law saying that we in this House would actually reduce our climate change emissions from
[ Page 8921 ]
British Columbia by 80 percent by 2050. Okay. That’s a number, a broad percentage. People tell me: “Don’t talk about the percentages. Don’t talk about the numbers. People will go to sleep and not pay attention.” Well, it’s pretty easy to understand this, so I ask people to bear with me just a little bit.

With this deal, using the information that has been provided, what would this plant put out with the upstream emissions? What would be the megatonnes of carbon pollution — methane, etc. — harming the climate? Well, they say it would probably be about 10.7 megatonnes per year — 10.7 megatonnes. What does that mean? It doesn’t mean anything to me, 10.7 megatonnes. Can you visualize it? Enough to say that if B.C. was actually going to follow the law, if British Columbia was actually going to address climate change in a real way, the total amount of carbon pollution we could make in 2050 is 13 megatonnes.

One LNG plant pumps out 10.7 megatonnes, and we sign a deal today saying they can keep doing that at least until 2045, maybe 2050, and if we ever want to touch it, we have to pay them. Well, what did that do? Thirteen megatonnes is all we can produce. This one plant — and this government wants to create five of them — would create 10.7 megatonnes. That basically says to every other industry — forestry, mining, tourism — to cities, communities and people driving their cars that every one of them has to stop because of this one plant.

Every one of them has to subsidize the operations of that one plant because this government brings in a deal that’s unfair, that locks us into a 25-year agreement, basically giving away the store, basically telling them: “You write the environmental regulations. And by the way, should a future government actually care about the climate, they’re going to have to pay you to stop you from harming the climate, from putting emissions up into the air.” How does that make any sense? How does that make sense? It doesn’t. It makes no sense.

But it’s not just that. It’s not just that, that the environmental regulations will be created by the company, as this Liberal government has decided Petronas should write all the rules around this place, not the people of B.C. looking out for the public interest. “Let the company decide. Hey, environmental regulations? Whatever. Just let the company decide.” Well, no, that’s not the right approach. That is an approach that fails our future. It absolutely fails our future.

What else? This government said: “We’re going to try and do something better with LNG, so we’re going to institute a tech fund. If they’re not that clean, maybe they have to pay some money into this thing.” That fund will be frozen. So $25 — that’s the price today; that’s the price 25 years from now.

I don’t know about you, hon. Speaker, but 25 years ago…. Well, actually, I do know about you, hon. Speaker. I was a little boy, you not quite so much. But you know, prices were a lot lower then. Think about the cost of a stamp. Think about the cost of a beer. Think about the cost of, well, most anything. Prices have gone up. It’s called inflation. Does this government address it? No.

They instead think we should freeze that cost, so over time it decreases in use. Carbon taxes — over time it decreases in its ability to incent better behaviour. Less for the public; more for Petronas. Meanwhile, we’re completely ignoring climate change. Remember that. That’s what this agreement does.

[1735]

Air quality. Let’s think again. Maybe there’s an air quality issue that comes about. You think we need to address that issue? Well, based on this agreement, too bad. You can’t. You’ve got to pay the company if you want to make your air healthier for your communities.

Water — the same thing. Again and again, this government is selling out our environment. They’re selling out the future.

Let’s just imagine. Forestry is having a tough time. What would have happened in the ’80s if this government had tried the same with the forest industry, decided to subsidize the forest industry in that way and locked in a deal? We would still have beehive burners in most of our communities. We would still have pollution levels way higher and health impacts way higher than we have today. They could clearcut right to the stream bank. Who cares about riparian areas? If you want to fix that, you’ve got to pay the company. That doesn’t make sense to protect our environment and our future.

Our motto in this province, after all, is “Splendour without diminishment.” A whole heck of a lot of diminishment is going on and no protection for that splendour. But so it goes with this government.

Now, what else? What else does this agreement do? This agreement basically locks you, me, our children and our children’s children into paying this company approximately, over the life, over 25 years, $411 million in subsidies — subsidies to them to try and make them pollute a little bit less. We’re paying a company to harm our environment a little bit less. That’s the way this deal works.

Pembina, which the Premier actually thought was so good that they should be on that climate panel…. Matt Horne, I believe was his name, put out a recent report which shows this, and he’s on the Premier’s panel. This is a respected individual who knows what he’s talking about. This government has decided 411 million of our dollars should go out to a company to pay them to pollute a little bit less. Rather than making the polluter pay, in this, the public pays for their pollution. How does that make sense? Not only that, it’s locked in for 25 years.

You want to change it? You’d better cough up. You’d better give the company more money to change the rules, to stand up for the environment.

You look your grandchildren in their eyes and say: “Yeah, we care about climate change. We’re going to act. Oh, but we’re going to bring in a bill that makes it pretty darn
[ Page 8922 ]
difficult for B.C. to do anything but increase emissions.”

I guess I shouldn’t be surprised. This Premier, in her tenure, has only increased climate change emissions. She has not driven them down, which we need to be doing as a province. She has driven them up. That’s her legacy that she is leaving for the future: a warmer climate, more storms, weaker habitat, weaker species and a real challenge to our future.

You talk to the insurance industry. You talk to businesses all across this province, whether it be in forestry, shellfish, agriculture, tourism, insurance, accounting, local government. You talk to local governments. You go through the whole list. They see it. Climate change is here. It’s harming us now. It’s hurting our economy now. What does the government do? It makes it worse.

We need to be moving to a cleaner path, a greener path, a more healthy path that actually recognizes climate change impacts today, in the future and distant future, because it’s going to get worse. It could be way worse, or it could be bad. This government has decided to go with way worse. We know it’s already bad. We feel it today. But if this government continues on this path, they’re going to be putting the pedal to the metal, so to speak, to drive up emissions, increase the climate instability and create climate chaos. That’s the Liberal record. That’s this Premier’s record.

Look at the science. Look at the math. Look at this agreement. Look at your conscience. Look at the future. You can’t support this agreement of locking in 25 years of no environmental protections, giving away the store and harming the future.

I can’t support this agreement on environmental reasons alone. It does not make sense. It’s bad for the future, and I will be voting against.

Personal Statement

CLARIFICATION OF COMMENTS
MADE IN THE HOUSE

A. Weaver: Just a quick, brief note and a clarification of interpretation.

It has come to my attention that earlier today some people might have perceived that, actually, I had brought these demonstrators here into the Legislature to utter the words that they were uttering. Frankly, I did not, and I had nothing to do with that.

[1740]

What I will do here is I will say, first off, that I think it’s important for the record to know that I was not involved in bringing it here.

Secondly, one of these people turned out to be a guest that I brought to the Legislature. That’s very troublesome to me, because I believe that this person got caught up in the hoopla up there. I met this person outside. There was a group that came from Squamish to the Legislature to demonstrate. I was talking with them. They expressed an interest in seeing question period, and we decided to see if we could get them some tickets, as any MLA in this place would do, to come to question period.

I sincerely regret and do apologize to the Legislature if anyone thought that I was involved in this demonstration. It was not my intention. I had no idea. When I made the comment — jokingly, of course…. Hansard cannot record the joking tone here in the Legislature when I made a joke about: “Oh, they’re on the right side of history, and you’re on the wrong side.”

For the record, that was not meant to impugn any member. It was a joke that we were having in a kind of odd situation.

Interjection.

A. Weaver: What am I…? I have some heckling from the other side. I’m not sure what that’s all about.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Member, for doing it.

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 30 — LIQUEFIED NATURAL GAS
PROJECT AGREEMENTS ACT

(continued)

M. Morris: I’m pleased to rise today in this House and speak in support of the project development agreement that our government has signed with Pacific NorthWest LNG. I want to just go over a couple of comments that members opposite have made over the last couple of hours in the House this afternoon and go back to some of the comments made by the Leader of the Official Opposition where he talks about our government’s lack of action in dealing with mine closures in Tumbler Ridge and various other places around town and the downturn in the forest industry.

If there was some way that we could predetermine what commodity prices would be in this world, we’d all be in a better place here. But one thing that this government has done, and has done very, very well over the term of this government, is that we’ve diversified our economy. We not only rely on mining, forestry, agriculture, the tech industry and some of the other industries that we have in British Columbia, but the Premier had a vision for LNG in this province, and she’s bringing that vision to fruition.

Comments were made by the member for Victoria–Beacon Hill about this laser focus, ridiculing in some respects the laser focus that our Premier had on LNG in the province here. Well, a laser focus is a necessary ingredient for the execution of any kind of strategic plan.

The Premier had an outstanding vision a number of years ago that LNG would help diversify our economy and pick up some of the slack that some of the other sec-
[ Page 8923 ]
tors perhaps might be losing. One of those losses is that we’re going to see a downturn in the AAC in the province because of the post–pine beetle problems that we have in the province here. But the Premier developed this vision and developed the strategy to go along with that vision and aligned her resources that we have with our ministers, with various government agencies to ensure that we would achieve the vision that she had with respect to LNG.

One of the most important factors that is often under-represented — and one of the high rates of failure, whether it’s the corporate world or whether it’s governments, to execute that strategy and that vision — is execution. You have to have a laser-like focus on your vision in order to execute and make that vision come to reality, and I think that’s what we’ve done here today.

Another comment that we’ve had from across the floor here this afternoon is that the province is losing out with this project development agreement that we have here. I differ on that. We’ve got landlocked natural gas in northeast B.C. that will last us domestically for well over another century, maybe a century and a half, maybe two centuries — we don’t know. We’ve got no place to sell it. We can’t use that amount of LNG in this province.

We have a company that has looked at the world prices, and we’ve got some historically low prices that the opposition has brought to our attention here. Our government has been able to negotiate this agreement with Pacific NorthWest LNG during times of historic low natural gas prices, and this company is still willing to invest $36 billion in British Columbia to assist British Columbia and to assist the world.

[1745]

With the development of LNG, we’re also supplying natural gas to developing countries in the world to help them lower their greenhouse gas emissions as a result of the coal-fired generators that they will end up no longer having to use.

One of the other comments made as well is that there’s nothing in it for British Columbia. Well, if there’s nothing in it for British Columbia, where does this $9 billion come into play — $9 billion that this province will receive over the next decade or so as a result of this one agreement, this one $36 billion agreement, that we have in British Columbia? And $9 billion, in my books, is not insignificant.

In my books, $9 billion is something that is going to contribute significantly to the welfare of British Columbia, and that’s only one natural gas facility. We’ve got other proponents that are on the books, other proponents that are going to be looking at this agreement. They’re going to say: “Yeah, we can fit into that. We can make this work for ourselves.” We’re going to see maybe two or three other agreements signed and the plants up and running in no time.

The labour market that we have out there and the work that this government has done…. My colleague spoke earlier on the jobs plan. We’ve gone to great lengths to ensure that British Columbians are prepared for the work that’s involved in building these LNG facilities that we have. You know, 4,500 people is a significant number for one plant. You’ve got 300 permanent workers in that plant once it’s up and running — a significant number. Then you multiply that by perhaps one, two, three, four other plants that will come on line — maybe more than that. We don’t know. We can only speculate at this time.

But we’re going to do our best to make sure that British Columbians are ready for those jobs when they become available, through the apprenticeship training — we just made an announcement today with respect to the apprenticeship training that we have — and preparing our students in schools through the CTC program and many of the other programs that we have out there to prepare British Columbians for the advent of the LNG industry, this brand-new industry for British Columbia.

Just one other comment, as well, with respect to the environmental perspective that our friend from Vancouver–West End was talking about. Climate change is a phenomenon that this government is looking at and addressing some of the issues dealing with climate change. We feel strongly that LNG will play a significant role worldwide in trying to address some of the climate change issues that we have around the world. Like I mentioned earlier on, with the prospect of a lot of the coal-fired generators being fired now with LNG instead of coal, it’s going to significantly reduce the greenhouse gas emissions.

We’re going to look at our oceangoing vessels that will be converting to LNG instead of burning bunker fuel. We’re going to look at the transportation infrastructure within the province and across Canada and across North American and around the world. That’s going to be looking at LNG as fuel for their vehicles, which again, is going to reduce greenhouse gas emissions right around the world. When we look at this as a complete package, I believe that is going to have a significant impact there.

Talking about jobs, northern British Columbia has relied on the resource industry ever since northern British Columbia was inhabited by the trappers, the miners, our agricultural sector — and by mining and the forest industry, which has a significant foothold in there. Now we’re going to have LNG.

We don’t know what kind of downstream industrial activity might be spurned as a result of LNG activity in British Columbia. We don’t know what kind of petrochemical activities will result from LNG activities in the province. But I know for a fact that we’re going to be prepared for that in the interior of British Columbia, which generates a lion’s share of the revenue for British Columbia.

[1750]

We’ve talked about First Nations and the implications for First Nations with this particular agreement and with
[ Page 8924 ]
a lot of the other agreements that we have out there. We continue to work with all the nations in the province. The Tsimshian nation has been working very closely with government and Pacific NorthWest LNG. We’ve reached agreements with 16 First Nations near the proposed facility and along the Prince Rupert gas transmission pipeline right so far. We’ve got more work to do on that. We’re working very hard with the Lax Kw’alaams to address their concerns to the best of our ability.

To date, nearly 90 percent of the 32 First Nations with proposed pipelines through their traditional territories have indicated their support through one or more pipeline benefit agreements. That’s more than 60 benefit-sharing agreements with the 28 First Nations.

We’re talking to all of those nations about our joint LNG environmental stewardship initiative and about skills-training opportunities. I’ve heard that from First Nations communities up in my riding and beyond that are looking forward to the opportunities with LNG and pipeline development. We’ve got a company in Prince George now that is focused on providing training for First Nations — and others, but a lot of First Nations groups are involved in that — in how to construct pipelines, welding and laying the pipe in the ground.

We’re attentive to the concerns raised by the Lax Kw’alaams community. We know there are more steps that we need to take there, including reaching understandings with the nation on how environmental concerns may be addressed. We’re glad that the proponents are continuing to work with all the First Nations groups in that area to address the concerns that they’ve raised as well.

Pacific NorthWest LNG is looking to produce large, stable volumes of natural gas in British Columbia for many years in order to supply its export needs.

Again, I go back to some of the comments that we’ve heard across the floor here this afternoon — where we’ve got record low prices for LNG; we’ve got competition from all over the world with an abundance of LNG. I guess I have to ask the question: if we do have this abundance of LNG around the world and all this competition out there….

It’s interesting to note that a company is willing to spend $36 billion in developing a single plant here in British Columbia and that there are 19 or 20 other proponents that are lined up to do the same thing. I think that says something. Maybe they know something that the members opposite don’t know. I think that they see a future in LNG development and the benefits that it’s going to provide the world, not only from an environmental perspective but also from a socioeconomic perspective for British Columbia and Canada.

I’m fully supportive of this bill, and I look forward to ongoing discussion here this afternoon.

J. Rice: I’m honoured to stand before the House today to stand up for my community, for the north coast and for British Columbians.

We on this side of the House support the development of an LNG industry for B.C. We have always said that it needs to meet the conditions of a fair return to British Columbians, who own the resource; jobs for every British Columbian ready to work or be trained; protection for our land, for our air and our water; and true partnerships with First Nations. Bill 30, the LNG project development agreement enabling act, does not meet these conditions.

The project development agreement locks in taxes for over a quarter century, locks in environmental regulations for over a quarter century. It doesn’t guarantee jobs or apprenticeship quotas for British Columbians. It doesn’t include environmental or conservation protections. It ties the hands of future governments. It provides the basis for all other LNG agreements with the me-too clause. It asks for an FID by the next election, not one in the best time frame. And it does not include First Nations as true partners but rather, as I quote, “other matters” listed in the appendix of the agreement.

British Columbians tell us they place high value on our resources, and they place high value on their environment. British Columbians insist that our land, air, water and, particularly in the north and central coast and Haida Gwaii, our fisheries are protected. They realize that we have a resource-based economy, but that doesn’t mean they want our resources given away for nothing. There has got to be a benefit to the people. They expect a fair return for current and future generations in exchange for B.C.’s resources.

[1755]

This project development agreement is a good deal for the proponents — namely, Petronas — but it’s not a good deal for British Columbians. With a very pompous, obsessional LNG election campaign, the Premier of this province has put us in a very poor negotiating position. She’s locked us into a 25-year deal at a time when natural gas prices are at historic lows. The deal contains zero job guarantees for British Columbians — zero. This deal gives foreign-owned corporations special lower tax rates through the natural tax credit….

Interjection.

J. Rice: I love jobs in Prince Rupert. Thank you to the member opposite for his heckling.

The deal gives foreign-owned corporations special lower tax rates through the natural gas tax credit and guarantees them for 25 years. This is a better deal than everyone else who is doing business in British Columbia and paying their fair share of taxes. In the meantime, British Columbia households are hit with increases year after year in MSP, B.C. Hydro rates, ICBC premiums and more. Wouldn’t we all like our taxes locked in and guaranteed at a low rate for 25 years?
[ Page 8925 ]

Canadians in other jurisdictions have seen this before, in Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and Alberta — signing shortsighted agreements to give away Canadian resources without a fair benefit to the people who live here and tying the hands of future governments to do anything about it. British Columbians don’t trust this Premier to look out for our interests. While Australian leaders negotiated guarantees for local labour, for local professional services and for local procurement, this Premier insisted on none of these.

We’ve seen in many, many other areas that the Premier looks out for the wealthy and the powerful but not for everyday British Columbians. She’s doubled the cost of a post-secondary education and put punishing fees on adult basic education, reducing opportunity for people to be successful. British Columbians have further obstacles put in front of them to participate in the LNG economy or any other part of our economy by charging adult basic education fees.

My local college, the Prince Rupert campus of Northwest Community College, in the heart of this proposed supposed LNG boom is seeing programs cut, not added for people to participate in the economy. The Premier reannounced the skills-training funding, which already existed, to distract us from the fact that her LNG deal doesn’t guarantee a single job for British Columbians.

People have come to my constituency office this past winter who couldn’t afford to turn on the heat because of their outrageously skyrocketing hydro bills — again the people of B.C. paying more to get less. These are the same people that are going to reimburse the richest corporations in the world if future governments infringe on their profit-making. That is wrong.

The Premier is even allowing Petronas to write their own environmental regulations. We haven’t seen their long-term royalty agreement, which was passed in the miscellaneous….

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members. Order, Members.

Member, continue.

J. Rice: Thank you.

We haven’t seen their long-term royalty agreement, which was passed in the miscellaneous statutes bill, Bill 23, this past spring. Its contents are secret, so we don’t know what else it contains. The only thing this government insisted on is a ribbon cutting before the next election. The Premier has sold out B.C. families and B.C. workers for political purposes.

We can do better. I believe we can do better. We support resource development. We support the development of an LNG industry as part of a diversified, value-added, modern economy. We support access to training and post-secondary education so that people get the opportunity to participate in this economy to the best of their ability.

Other jurisdictions in the world, like Australia and Norway, insist on local benefits for their resource development. B.C. can and should do the same. New Democrats will stand up for the interests of British Columbians first, not foreign-owned corporations and not for short-term political benefit.

[1800]

Let’s talk about First Nations development in this project. The province, Petronas and Prince Rupert gas transmission line are all independently negotiating agreements with First Nations along the proposed pipeline and proposed facility site on Lelu Island. While some First Nations have signed agreements, for most, the negotiations remain ongoing.

The associated pipeline and the facility will cross the territories of many B.C. First Nations. While this government claims they are committed to partnering with First Nations on LNG opportunities, they have not reached consensus with a number of impacted First Nations regarding benefit agreements.

Furthermore, the project development agreement between Petronas and the government does not envision First Nations as true partners. Instead, it stipulates certain obligations the province has to Petronas in regards to First Nations engagement. It’s placed in the appendix of their project agreement. It’s listed under “Other Matters.” Is this how the Premier and this government see First Nations people in British Columbia, as other matters? This level of respect reminds me of the Premier’s idea to celebrate yoga on National Aboriginal Day.

I will support LNG projects that respect and make partners of First Nations and recognize their right to a share in any of the benefits that may flow from LNG. This government maintains the position that they are committed to partnering with First Nations, yet they have not said publicly whether the project will move forward without First Nations approval.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Order, Members.

Please continue.

J. Rice: The silence is pretty telling. One would assume that in today’s day and age the government would seek approval of the First Nations whose traditional territory is most impacted by a project of this magnitude, particularly with the recent Tsilhqot’in decision. We know that First Nations people have the right to decide how their traditional territories will be used and managed, including its natural resources. Clearly, there is much more work to do to satisfy First Nations concerns. The issues expressed by Lax Kw’alaams have not yet been addressed.
[ Page 8926 ]

We hear things around the economic and skills-training opportunities the LNG industry represents for First Nations, but where is the explicit commitment within the project development agreement? It’s one thing to say you are going to do something and another to enshrine that commitment into a contract or into legislation. Australia could do it. Why can’t B.C.?

The B.C. Liberal government claims to be engaged with 25 First Nations and to have signed 14 agreements related to the facility and pipeline. Despite these claims, only seven agreements are listed in the project development agreement, as well as on the government’s natural gas pipeline benefits agreements webpage. There is a list of a whole bunch of other LNG pipeline projects that have various First Nations agreements, but some of these projects are nowhere near or have nothing to do with the Petronas project.

The government’s comments on First Nations consultation rarely focuses specifically on this Petronas project. Instead, they conflate messaging with negotiations on other pipeline projects to give the appearance that significant progress is being made. For instance, when they announced the project development agreement with Petronas, their news release stated: “Nearly 90 percent of the 32 First Nations with proposed pipelines through their traditional territories have indicated their support through one or more pipeline benefit agreements.”

Even the PDA, the project development agreement, fails to specify which First Nations the province is engaged with and instead refers to pipeline projects more generally. “The province has entered into framework agreements with a number of First Nations related to proposed natural gas pipelines. Benefit-sharing negotiations are being conducted with approximately 31 First Nation and aboriginal groups impacted by proposed pipelines.”

What proposed pipelines? Which ones?

We believe that in negotiating any LNG project, the government must respect and make partners of First Nations and recognize their right to share in any of the benefits that may flow from LNG. The government needs to do more than say they will consult with First Nations. Lax Kw’alaams First Nation in my constituency has outright rejected this Petronas proposal, stating that environmental and cultural concerns override the financial benefits contained in this deal. They turned down over $1 billion.

Lax Kw’alaams have title claim to Lelu Island, the proposed site, and to Flora Bank, the salmon habitat adjacent to Lelu Island. Flora Bank provides a habitat for salmon to mature in the Skeena watershed. They are concerned that the facility poses significant environmental risks to the fish population.

[1805]

They are, however, not opposed to LNG. They are not completely opposed to this project, either, but will not support the current proposal. I quote from a Lax Kw’alaams press release:

“Hopefully, the public will recognize that unanimous consensus in communities…against a project where those communities are offered in excess of $1 billion sends an unequivocal message that this is not a money issue. This is environmental and cultural. That unanimity was achieved in three separate community meetings.

“Lax Kw’alaams is open to business, to development and to LNG,” including this Petronas project. “It is not open to development proximate to Flora Bank.”

In June 2015 the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency halted their review of the project as they required further information from Petronas regarding the potential effects of the facility. The Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency has halted this project three times with concerns to the fish and fish habitat of Flora Banks.

These concerns are truly valid concerns. The Skeena River and its estuary is the second-largest salmon-producing river in our province. It’s the largest undammed river in North America. Flora Banks is one of the most diverse and abundant life-producing eelgrass beds in our province, if not this continent.

Without Flora Banks, juvenile salmon would have no place to acclimate to the salt water ocean, to hide from predators and gain enough weight to make them strong enough to go out to sea and become the big, beautiful, not to mention delicious, icons we are known the world over for, our salmon.

Other proponents have already looked at and turned away from Lelu Island as a potential site based on concerns in their ability to construct an LNG terminal that wouldn’t have adverse effects to fish and fish habitat. No doubt, the site poses an enormous environmental and engineering challenge for Petronas.

First Nations, commercial fishers and residents up and down the coast and along the Skeena River place tremendous value on the life-sustaining qualities the estuary provides. There is no dollar amount that can compensate people for the fisheries value it provides. Lax Kw’alaams has clearly stated this, and pushing through this project without these concerns addressed is completely disrespectful and plain wrong, in my opinion.

The Natural Gas Minister and Deputy Premier has said in this Legislature: “If you’re looking to do it right, you go and look at similar economies. Australia has a similar economy. They just developed an LNG industry, and they used project development agreements to help develop that industry.”

But an examination of Australia’s LNG agreements shows B.C. didn’t follow their lead when it comes to guaranteeing jobs or environmental protection. Australia guarantees local jobs. B.C. doesn’t. Here’s a fact: agreements like the Australian Gorgon LNG project contain clauses that guarantee jobs for Australians, saying that the proponent must use labour available within Western Australia.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]
[ Page 8927 ]

Australia’s North West Shelf LNG agreement, another LNG project, has the same provisions. Fact: the Premier’s Petronas deal doesn’t have a single reference to guaranteeing jobs for British Columbians. Petronas has already indicated that they could use up to 70 percent of workers from overseas if other projects are going on simultaneously.

Australia requires a buy local policy. B.C. doesn’t. Fact: the Australian Gorgon LNG agreement says the proponent must give preference to Western Australian suppliers, manufacturers and contractors when letting contracts or placing orders for works, materials, plant equipment and supplies.

Further, they must use the services of engineers, surveyors, architects and other professional consultants, experts and specialists, project managers, manufacturers, suppliers and contractors resident and available within Western Australia. Australia’s North West Shelf LNG agreement has similar provisions.

The Premier’s agreement with Petronas makes no requirement to buy local products and services from B.C. Petronas has already signalled that they will be bringing engineering services from overseas.

[1810]

B.C. gives away revenue. Australia doesn’t. Fact: the Australian Gorgon LNG agreement doesn’t give tax breaks and protection from future tax increases to the proponent for any length of time. Fact: the Premier’s agreement with Petronas locks in the LNG income tax that was already cut in half, reduces the corporate income tax from 11 percent to 8 percent and gives protection from LNG carbon tax increases for 25 years.

Australian agreements contain environmental benefits; B.C. doesn’t. Fact: the Gorgon LNG deal includes a clause where the proponent must pay tens of millions of dollars for ongoing programs that will provide net conservation benefits. Fact: the Premier’s LNG deal contains zero clauses that benefit or protect the environment and protects the company from increased costs if B.C. moves to improve environmental regulations on the LNG industry for 25 years.

The Premier negotiated an LNG that benefits foreign-owned corporations first and puts British Columbians last. New Democrats, like most British Columbians, want to see an LNG industry that protects our land, air and water, including our climate change commitments. But the Premier’s LNG deal lets Petronas help write its own environmental regulations.

Fact: the project development agreement signed by the B.C. Liberal government with Petronas gives the company the right to negotiate with government on the environmental regulations that will come into force when the Greenhouse Gas Industrial Reporting and Control Act is enacted. These rules will apply to all future LNG facilities as well.

Fact: the rules the company helps write will be locked in for 25 years, meaning a future government that wants to improve environmental measures will have to pay the company back for any cost it incurs as a result. It’s hard to believe that in 25 years we would not be improving our commitments to fighting climate change and reducing greenhouse gases.

Fact: the agreement also protects the company from changes to the carbon tax on LNG production for 25 years. Fact: the government already legislated an exemption of 70 percent of GHG emissions from the benchmark LNG facilities are required to meet. Looking at the GHG impacts from the marine facility without looking at the impacts of the product we are putting into the pipes from upstream is pre-selective and doesn’t capture true impacts.

The Premier has sold out B.C. families and B.C. workers for political purposes. We support the development of LNG for B.C. We have always said it needs to meet the conditions of a fair return to British Columbians, who own the resource — jobs for every British Columbian ready to work or train; protection for our land, air and water; and true partnerships with First Nations.

The LNG project development agreement enabling act does not meet any of these conditions. That is why I stand here and object to this generational sellout of a deal. I want to see my community and the communities I represent thrive. I want to see British Columbians prosper without tremendous expense to the environment. I want to see First Nations respected and treated as true partners, not as an engagement box to check off in the appendix of an agreement.

The Premier promised us the moon with LNG, and she did so to win an election. Now we’re being told that this is good enough, but I don’t accept that. My opponents have criticized me for not standing up for the people in the north by opposing this agreement, but I assure you, hon. Speaker, I stand here today doing quite the contrary. It’s a bad deal for my community and a bad deal for B.C., so I oppose this.

Hon. B. Bennett: Well, I stand here today to not only support the agreement but to support the legislation that’s before the House. I have for the last 25 years or so heard the New Democrats say in this province, both in this House and out in the public realm, that they support various things. But their actions always speak louder than their words.

[1815]

I’ve heard that the NDP supports mining. Well, that is until there is an actual mining project where government has to make a very difficult decision on whether an environmental assessment certificate is awarded and whether the mine should be built. At that point in time the NDP always finds a way to oppose. Always. They always oppose.

When it comes to tourism, they claim to be great supporters of the tourism industry. But when there is an
[ Page 8928 ]
opportunity for a brand-new resort somewhere in the province on a green site, a brand-new resort….

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

Hon. B. Bennett: They can give it out, but they can never take it. They can never take it.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Columbia River–Revelstoke.

Hon. B. Bennett: They pretend to be in favour of tourism. But when there is an opportunity for a resort on a green site…. Not all the members will understand the significance of that. Hopefully, they’ll think about it, and maybe eventually tonight when they’re in bed, they’ll think: “Oh, a green site. I know what he means.” They’re opposed to that as well.

Now, they say that they’re in favour of LNG. I just heard the member for North Coast say that she’s in favour of LNG. Well, how can you be in favour of LNG when you are absolutely opposed to fracking? Where does she think the gas comes from? Where does the NDP think that that gas comes from? It comes from the northeast.

Do you know how the gas gets out of the ground? Well, you have to use the technique of fracking to get that gas out of the ground. So if you’re opposed to fracking — and I believe that the NDP in British Columbia is formally opposed to fracking — then you are opposed to the development of LNG. When you hear a member on the other side of this House over the next two weeks say that they support LNG, it’s not true.

I want to say a couple of things about leadership. A few years ago the current Premier of this province fought a very challenging battle to win the nomination to represent our party. It was a tough battle. She did it largely on her own resources, her skills and her determination, and thank goodness she won. Thank goodness she won. The first thing that she did was she went north of Prince George. Imagine a leader going north of Prince George.

I remember the 2013 election. I remember that. The leader of the NDP was wearing bowler hats in Barkerville, and the furthest north he went was Prince George, while the leader of the B.C. Liberal Party went to the northeast.

What did she learn up there? She learned that we had 100 years, at least, of clean natural gas in the northeast. What else did she learn? She learned that because of new technologies that allow companies and jurisdictions to extract natural gas from shale foundations, the world was going to have a huge surplus of natural gas.

Now, ever since the NDP were in government in the disastrous 1990s, the government of British Columbia has depended heavily on the extraction of natural gas in the northeast and the royalties that are paid by that industry. That was true of the NDP when they were in government. It certainly has been true of the B.C. Liberals.

When our current Premier learned that that natural gas we have in the northeast is going to become increasingly difficult to sell and when she learned that there was an opportunity to actually liquefy that natural gas on the west coast of British Columbia and ship it to other nations across the ocean and make money for British Columbians and create jobs for British Columbians and generate tax revenues that we can use to pay for health care and education and social services, our leader said: “Yes, that is a vision that is possible.” That’s what she said. She talked to her caucus, those of us on this side of the House and at that end of the House, and we said: “We can share in that vision.” So we set about going to work to try to make it possible to actually have this LNG vision come to fruition.

[1820]

Here we are today. Here we are on the first day of debate, and we’ve heard over and over and over again that the NDP are opposed. Well, what else is new? We knew that they’d be opposed. It’s in their DNA. But we’re not opposed because we can see that that possibility that our leader saw a few years ago has now turned into a probability. This is going to happen. We’re going to have $9 billion of revenue generated from this one LNG plant.

I’ve heard members on the other side of the House today say: “Well, there are only going to be 300 or 400 jobs.” Do they really believe that? If they do, if they actually believe that and it’s not just rhetoric, then we have to make sure they’re never in government ever again in British Columbia. It is our solemn and sacred duty to ensure that they never form government again if they are really that naive.

Hon. Speaker, $36 billion, the single largest investment — private sector investment, any kind of investment — ever in the history of B.C., surely one of the largest investments in the history of this country. It is parallel to building a railroad all the way across this country. This industry is so important not only to British Columbia but to Canada in terms of the tax revenues that will be generated for people, ordinary people, the jobs that will be generated for ordinary people. That’s how profoundly important this is to this country and to this province.

The fact that the NDP opposes this is just absolutely remarkable. The only thing that I can put it down to is…. I got this from the member for Vancouver–West End, a very honest young man who stood up and said: “I oppose this because I believe it’s bad for climate change.” Well, it’s his right to express himself, and that’s what he believes. By God, he was honest in what he had to say.

But I also know there are people over there on the other side who are more closely associated with the trade union movement than they are with the environmental movement. You have this impossible situation, this dead-end canyon that the NDP finds itself in here today and over the next two weeks. So they are going to oppose
[ Page 8929 ]
this $36 billion project, this new industry for our province, because they can’t get their political you-know-what together in their own caucus.

I’m happy to say that I’m a B.C. Liberal, that we have the leader we have and that we are saying yes to the LNG industry.

Hon. B. Bennett moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Standing Order 35
(Speaker’s Ruling)

REQUEST TO DEBATE A MATTER OF
URGENT PUBLIC IMPORTANCE —
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE
TO CLIMATE CHANGE

Madame Speaker: Hon. Members, earlier today the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head sought leave under Standing Order 35 to move adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a matter of urgent public importance. In support of his application, the member specifically noted that this summer sitting of the House provides a unique and urgent opportunity to have a debate in order to inform the province’s contribution to an international conference on climate change in December and upcoming government policy announcements.

The Government House Leader responded to this submission. In his remarks, he noted that Standing Order 35 requires that an urgency of debate must be evident and also that the Chair must consider whether other parliamentary opportunities for debate exist. I thank both members, as well as the Opposition House Leader, for their helpful comments in this regard.

The Journals of this House reveal many Speakers’ decisions which present the essential criteria consistently applied to Standing Order 35 applications. These include the requirement to ensure that, because a successful application of Standing Order 35 overtakes all other business of the House, there is no other reasonable opportunity for debate.

In this instance, I have reviewed Hansard for the present session and noted members have taken opportunities to express their views regarding the government’s position on climate change policy during budget debate, Address in Reply, estimates of the Ministry of Environment and the Ministry of Agriculture.

The question is the necessity for an urgent debate. The member must present compelling reasons that the House must suspend all other business for an emergency debate. The proposed matter for discussion must relate to a genuine and immediate emergency, calling for immediate and urgent debate on a clear and definite matter, such that the ordinary business of the House would be set aside. The words “urgent public importance” in Standing Order 35 suggest a sudden or unexpected occurrence.

The issue of leadership on climate change impacts, raised by the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head, is of great importance. However, I must rule that the matter fails to qualify under Standing Order 35.

Hon. T. Lake 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 6:25 p.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

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.

TV channel guide • Broadcast schedule

Copyright © 2015: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada