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)

Tuesday, July 14, 2015

Morning Sitting

Volume 27, Number 10

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

TUESDAY, JULY 14, 2015

The House met at 10:02 a.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

Introductions by Members

S. Hamilton: I’d just like to take this opportunity, as we all do, to celebrate the people that work very hard for us in our constituency offices.

At this time I’d like the House to please make welcome my constituency assistant Kim Kendall.

Hon. R. Coleman: We are joined in the House today by Geoff Morrison. He is the manager of British Columbia operations for the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, better known as CAPP.

His work is focused on improving the economic sustainability of the upstream natural gas and oil industry and to enhance public confidence in Canadian industries as well as to observe the debate with regards to the $36 billion, 4,500-job investment that’s before the House today in British Columbia.

D. Bing: I have two visitors today from my constituency of Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows — Nadine Sands and Karen Acaster.

Would the House please make them welcome.

[1005]

Statements
(Standing Order 25B)

ANITA HAGEN

J. Darcy: I rise today to honour Anita Hagen, the former MLA for New Westminster, who passed away last month, with John, her husband of 53 years, and her sons, David and Joel, by her side.

Anita was a woman of incredible character, a beloved community leader, a politician whose integrity was admired by all. She served in this House from 1986 to ’96, including as Deputy Premier, Minister of Education and Minister of Multiculturalism and Human Rights in the Harcourt government. But her public service began years before and continued for years afterwards.

She began as a teacher in Surrey, and it wasn’t long before she was an education advocate for early childhood education and for bringing teaching assistants into the classroom. She served as a school trustee and as a passionate seniors advocate. She was instrumental in establishing Monarch Place, our city’s first transition house for women and children.

Anita had many, many proud achievements, including the creation of the Human Rights Act in B.C., but she was very modest about them. “I had wonderful people working with me,” she would say.

Anita was a role model, a trailblazer for women, a straight shooter and a wise adviser. And as my predecessor Dawn Black said, she showed that women could enter public life and not change the way they operate. She did it her own way.

A memorial service for Anita will be held September 19 at 2 p.m.at Queens Avenue United Church in New West, and her husband asked me to tell you that an Anita Hagen community service award is being established at our high school.

Anita was devoted to family and to community, and she lived by her ideals. As her son David said: “For years my parents have had J.S. Woodsworth’s Secular Grace hanging over the kitchen sink: ‘What we desire for ourselves, we wish for all.’”

Thank you, Anita. You did it your way.

ALS AWARENESS AND
FUNDRAISING CAMPAIGNS

J. Thornthwaite: There are more than 2,500 Canadians living with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, or ALS. ALS is a rapidly progressive fatal disease that attacks the nerve cells responsible for controlling voluntary muscles, causing muscle cramps, weakness, immobility, slurred speech and difficulties chewing or swallowing. More than 90 percent of all ALS cases appear randomly, with no clear risk factors, making it difficult to obtain a definitive diagnosis.

In 2014 ALS societies across North America and Britain received a boost in awareness and support thanks to the ice bucket challenge. According to Facebook, the challenge was the largest media campaign in history, with more than 17 million videos posted to social media.

The viral campaign encouraged participants to dump cold water on their heads to raise money for ALS research and to challenge others to do the same. These videos generated more than ten billion views and raised $100 million for the American ALS Association and $26 million for ALS Canada.

This year the ALS Society of B.C. is asking British Columbians to take part in another ice bucket challenge and is encouraging participants to conserve water by coming up with innovative ideas such as dumping ice cream, flower petals and cold hard cash.

Today, along with the member for Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows, I’ll be participating in the challenge with my friend Nadine Sands, whose husband Mike passed away from ALS in January.

Nadine has just written a book, Hold On, Let Go: Facing ALS with Courage and Hope, which recounts her husband's inspiring journey with the disease, and how together they found a way to savour every moment. It's a
[ Page 8932 ]
story of courage and love which shows that even though this disease can take away from you, it can’t erase who you are.

There is no cure for ALS, but the success of last year’s campaign has already led to more drugs going to clinical trials and improving the quality of life for those living with ALS. I want to encourage all British Columbians to join Nadine in participating in this year’s challenge. Together, we can help this campaign reach a global audience and find a cure for ALS.

ELAINE BRIERE

B. Ralston: Elaine Brière is a Canadian photojournalist. She travelled to East Timor in April of 1974 when it was still a colony of Portugal. She recalls the excitement there when news of the fall of the Salazar regime and anticipated independence reached the colony.

After the Indonesian invasion of December 7, 1975, her photographs of village life in East Timor appeared widely in the international press and were exhibited in Canada, the U.S.A. and Europe.

Elaine became politically active on behalf of the occupied country. She founded the East Timor Alert Network and became its national coordinator to 1986 to 1993. Her role took her across Canada, speaking about the oppression suffered by the Timorese people and pointed out Canada’s diplomatic role in sales of military equipment to Indonesia. The network grew to 12 groups across Canada from Vancouver Island to Nova Scotia.

[1010]

Elaine represented the East Timor Alert Network, funded by the Canadian Council of Churches, several times at the United Nations decolonization hearings on East Timor in New York. She arranged the visit of the first Canadian Member of Parliament, David Kilgour, to speak at those hearings in 1988.

Elaine turned to filmmaking, and her documentary film Bitter Paradise: The Sell-out of East Timor won best political documentary at the 1997 Hot Docs festival in Toronto. The film aired widely across Canada.

East Timor: Testimony, her book of photographs and essays on East Timor, was published in May of 2004.

On May 20, 2015, Elaine was awarded the Ordem de Timor-Leste by the República Democrática de Timor-Leste, along with 28 other recipients.

I ask the House to join me in recognizing Elaine Brière’s outstanding contribution to the liberation of East Timor. Her view of her global citizenship is in the best traditions of Canadian internationalism.

TICKLEBERRY’S OPERATIONS
IN OKANAGAN FALLS

L. Larson: Almost everyone who has travelled through the south Okanagan will be familiar with Tickleberry’s in Okanagan Falls. While famous for its ice cream, the first product was Tickleberry jam. In 1987 Dale and Jenette Hoy were living in the Yukon and were enjoying a wealth of wild berries, which they turned into a small jam-making business. Every fall there would be a race with the bears to see who would harvest the berries first — the Hoys to make jam or the bears to prepare their bodies for hibernation.

In 1988, while travelling through the Okanagan, they fell in love with the area and the abundance of fresh fruit available. They packed up the family and moved from Whitehorse to Okanagan Falls, changing Tickleberry’s from a part-time jam-making business to a full-time business, focusing on jams made with local fruit and attending craft fairs and markets and shows across Canada.

In 1990 they opened the ice cream parlour at the present location with the help of their three children and a devoted staff. Tickleberry’s still makes its own jams — as well as fudge, chocolates, kettle corn — and serves more than 72 flavours of ice cream.

They’re creating their own unique local flavours in their new on-site ice cream laboratory, which brings us to the next generation — siblings Aaron and Kelsey Hoy. They recently travelled to Penn State University to attend an ice cream–making course so that they could create the best hand-crafted ice cream. Some of the new flavours you can enjoy include chocolate chilled merlot, strawberry rhubarb pie and Bad Tattoo Bliss.

In May Tickleberry’s celebrated 25 years in business with a huge ice cream party with 1990 prices and very appreciative customers. I think that over the years they have employed every young person in the Okanagan Falls area. In June they opened a second shop on Skaha Beach in Penticton.

This is just one more example of the success of small business entrepreneurs in British Columbia. Congratulations, Tickleberry’s, on your 25th anniversary.

COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS
IN VANCOUVER-FAIRVIEW AREA

G. Heyman: When we think of tight-knit communities, we may think of borrowing a needed recipe ingredient from our neighbours or of backyard barbecues. What we don’t think about as often are the groups and people who create the welcoming opportunities for us to gather.

Kicking off the Fairview summer on July 4, the Riley Park community centre association hosted their annual summer festival. There are interactive displays, program information, fun activities for kids and the chance to get our bikes security engraved by local police. This year the festival focused on food security, providing a large map for kids to identify areas that are local food sources, whether markets, community gardens or fruit trees. Two hundred families, almost all from Hillcrest and Riley Park, attended.

Just two blocks from my community office a community garden blossoms, put together by the Society Promoting Environmental Conservation. Cambie Square Communal Garden is a unique effort where volunteers work the same garden boxes together while sharing skills and holding public workshops — like this past Sunday on the importance of bees. Attendees took home a new bee condo for the pollinators to help our fruit trees.

Some of our unsung heroes build community inclusion and cohesion by organizing block parties. This year marks the 15th anniversary of one of the busiest block parties I’ve enjoyed. Starting at ten in the morning with a pancake breakfast and not ending until late in the evening, the 100 block of East 18th Avenue consistently has a jam-packed day, with a special focus on kids.

Over these 15 years this block has worked together on neighbourhood improvements like creating a public sidewalk chessboard, a community bulletin board and a large book exchange. Their annual party is a celebration of their tight-knit community.

[1015]

There are many other examples I could choose to demonstrate the individuals and groups who make their Fairview neighbourhood stronger, safer and more supportive. Let me simply say to all of them: thank you for being our community builders.

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
BY McLEOD LAKE INDIAN BAND

M. Morris: Fort McLeod, now known as McLeod Lake, 140 kilometres north of Prince George, was established by Simon Fraser in 1805. The site is on the traditional territory of the McLeod Lake Indian Band, who were residents in the area at the time the fort was established. The McLeod Lake Indian Band have a long history of collaboration with the residents of McLeod Lake, which has been continually inhabited by Europeans since 1805.

Specifically, though, I’d like to highlight the McLeod Lake Indian Band’s entrepreneurial approach to economic development. Forestry is the mainstay resource in the region, and the McLeod Lake Indian Band has embraced forestry as a means to pursue economic growth. Duz Cho Logging — the English translation is “big wood” — is 100 percent owned by the McLeod Lake Indian Band and is one of the largest logging companies in the province, harvesting up to a million cubic metres of wood annually.

Under the leadership of Chief Derek Orr, the CEO, Al Humphries, and their team of resource managers, Duz Cho was the recipient of the Aboriginal Forest Products Business Leadership Award for exemplary business leadership and community involvement in 2012. And as our government understands, natural resource development, regardless of the industry, takes teamwork.

The McLeod Lake Indian Band recognizes the benefits that come from responsible resource development. Their practical, collaborative and sustainable approach to economic development stems from their long-term vision. They have their future generations in mind. Practicing sustainable economic development is one means that the McLeod Lake Indian Band works to improve their community so that present and future generations will be able to maintain their cultural, spiritual and social needs.

Oral Questions

HEALTH MINISTRY INVESTIGATION

J. Horgan: Yesterday we had the opportunity on this side of the House to question the government on the Health ministry firings, now almost three years old. The current Minister of Health has been in this position for two years now. I’m curious that he’s not curious about how this controversy could have lasted this long, how a lack of accountability could have endured two years of his reign as minister.

Yesterday he chose two pieces of information to grasp onto, and I want to explore those in more depth. One of the pieces of evidence that the minister proposed to justify a lack of accountability on behalf of the Premier and himself was that the freedom-of-information and privacy commissioner had conducted a review and discovered that flash drives had been used to move information from one place to another. But he neglected to read this element that was contained in the freedom-of-information and privacy commissioner’s report.

It goes as follows: “I am deeply concerned that 20 years after the introduction of FIPA, the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act, the ministry’s approach to privacy and security management for the personal information in its custody and control would contain such deficiencies.”

Now, I read that, not as an indictment of the eight individuals but an indictment of the leadership in the ministry. Further, his predecessor, Ms. MacDiarmid, who stood before a bank of cameras and alleged that there was an RCMP investigation underway in January of 2013, said the following: There is “no evidence that information was accessed or used for purposes other than health research.” That was his predecessor who said that.

So we have two pieces of information that perhaps the minister would like to contemplate and cogitate about before he stands. First, you alleged yesterday that the freedom-of-information and privacy commissioner had made allegations about the individuals. Not so. Secondly, you made the allegation that this research was used for nefarious purposes. Again, according to his predecessor, not so. Will the minister stand today, and for the first time in
[ Page 8934 ]
two years, be accountable for the actions of his colleagues and the government of British Columbia when they besmirched eight good citizens of British Columbia?

Hon. T. Lake: I must correct the member, who said that I said that the Privacy Commissioner had made those allegations. That’s not correct.

[1020]

What I said — and I have the report right here in front of me — was that the Privacy Commissioner confirmed that there were three incidents where data was used inappropriately. In fact, the report did go on to say that there were no mechanisms to ensure that researchers were complying with the privacy requirements as stipulated in contracts and written agreements and to ensure that ministry employees were taking appropriate privacy training and following privacy policies. As a result, ministry employees were able to download large amounts of personal health data onto unencrypted flash drives and share it with unauthorized persons.

So there were problems. No question. In fact, this report contains 11 recommendations, which the ministry accepted, and it has implemented all of those recommendations, as you would expect a ministry to do following an investigation of this particular kind.

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

J. Horgan: I can say with absolute certainty that Ramsay Hamdi; Dave Scott; and, most importantly, Rod MacIsaac were not responsible for privacy training and privacy policies for the government of British Columbia.

It is absolutely outrageous that the minister can continue to stand and hide behind the fig leaf of investigations that were contrived out of thin air to belittle and demean eight individuals. And 2½ years after the fact, you continue to deny any level of accountability for this fiasco.

Madame Speaker: Through the Chair, member.

J. Horgan: Not one scintilla of accountability. Will the minister today acknowledge that the government of British Columbia deliberately and with intent disrupted and destroyed the lives of eight individuals, used the RCMP as a prop in a political play — all for what purposes? We know not because there is no investigation that will get to the bottom of it, based on the….

Interjections.

Hon. T. Lake: I categorically reject the assertions that the member opposite is making. There is no question that there were problems in the ministry in terms of ensuring people were following proper protocol. That has been addressed through the Privacy Commissioner’s report, through a study we did with Deloitte.

All of those recommendations have been implemented, as the commissioner notes in her report. “I note in the report that during the course of this investigation, the ministry has implemented a number of significant improvements with respect to governance, policy development and physical security measures. Most importantly, it is moving towards the establishment of a highly secure environment for health research that uses personal health information.”

We’ve accepted all 11 recommendations, and we have acknowledged in this House and in public that in some cases, the public servants that managed this file had taken some actions that were inappropriate. However, we have implemented all of these recommendations.

We will ensure that we have first-class handling of privacy in terms of health care information, and we will ensure we have first-class policy in terms of human resources practices throughout this government.

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

J. Horgan: I guess the minister just can’t conjure up a molecule of empathy with respect to how eight individuals had their lives ruined and destroyed because of a witch-hunt and scapegoating by senior officials and government officials on that side of the House.

You don’t want to go there. Let’s go back to the RCMP investigation. Yesterday the minister also said that the RCMP was very interested in what was going on within the Ministry of Health. We now know no documents were ever transmitted, although I understand the comptroller general has issued a report. We haven’t seen it. Maybe the minister has seen it. Maybe the RCMP have seen it. We don’t know.

But what I do know is that last February, RCMP Sgt. Laurie White wrote the following to a colleague: “I know the people who were fired feel their reputations were damaged, and they’ve been living under a cloud. What chance is there that they will be able to clear their names? It seems to me that needs to come from either the government or the RCMP, and I realize it wasn’t the RCMP who ever said there was such an investigation.”

Who did say that there was an investigation? The Minister of Health said there was an investigation. It’s still on the minister’s website. There’s still a press release on the minister’s website that says that an RCMP investigation is being conducted, and it never happened.

[1025]

Will the minister, at a minimum, have the decency to correct the record on his website, if he’s not prepared to take accountability for the actions of his colleagues in this sordid affair?
[ Page 8935 ]

Hon. T. Lake: We have apologized for the overreaching that occurred on the part of public servants in the managing of this affair. But unlike the members opposite, we don’t actually….

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members, the Chair will hear the answer.

Hon. T. Lake: Unlike members opposite, we actually don’t condone going back and changing the date or rewriting history on Ministry of Health news releases that were put out at that particular time. We have acknowledged….

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Please take your seat.

Members.

Please continue.

Hon. T. Lake: Thank you, hon. Speaker.

We have acknowledged mistakes that were made on the part of the civil service in the managing of this affair, but we will not go back and try to rewrite history. We will learn from history.

We will learn, and that is why I have asked the Finance Committee to put this before the Ombudsperson for a full review. That is the appropriate venue, and the members opposite should have a respect for the committee. It is a bipartisan committee, members of this House. They will debate my letter to ask them to send it to the Ombudsperson. The members opposite should have the respect for that committee to allow them to debate that letter to send it to the Ombudsperson.

J. Darcy: Let’s turn to the Ombudsperson’s proposed investigation for a minute, then. It’s hard to believe, perhaps, but the Attorney General has been even less forthcoming on this whole affair than the Premier. Yesterday in this House the Attorney General refused to explain why she is trying to limit the scope of the investigation by insisting that the conduct of lawyers in her ministry is off-limits.

She didn’t answer then, so we’re going to try again today. Can the Attorney General explain why she wants to limit the scope of the proposed Ombudsperson’s investigation?

Hon. S. Anton: As has been said often, government is requesting a legislative committee to request the Ombudsperson to look into this matter. The Minister of Health has said repeatedly that he would like to have determined in public, with a public report as to what happened…. That is what the legislative committee is being asked to ask the Ombudsperson.

The scope of the reference to the Ombudsperson — the terms of reference, what the Ombudsperson looks at — will be looked at between the committee, if they choose to make that recommendation, and the Ombudsperson. That is how the terms of reference will be laid out. The Ombudsperson, with the committee, will determine what kinds of things he looks at. That is for those two parties to determine, and that is what will happen.

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

J. Darcy: I’m sorry to say, but the more that the Attorney General says on this issue, the less sense she makes. The Attorney General claims that she wants a broad investigation, as long as it doesn’t examine the conduct of government lawyers. And under the Ombudsperson Act, as the Attorney General very well knows, she has the unique powers to limit what the Ombudsperson can examine.

[1030]

My question to the Attorney General is very simple. Does she believe that the Ombudsperson should be able to investigate the conduct of staff in her ministry, yes or no?

Hon. S. Anton: The matter is before a legislative committee. There has been a request made to that legislative committee. The legislative committee is composed of members….

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members. The members will come to order.

Hon. S. Anton: The legislative committee is made up of members from this side of the House and members from the other side of the House. I think that they’re a pretty competent group. Now, perhaps the members opposite don’t have faith in the competence of their members. We certainly have faith in the competence of the government members on that committee. They are perfectly capable of working with the Ombudsperson to figure out the terms of reference so that the Ombudsperson can do his job.

That is the process, and I suggest we leave it to that process. It’s an excellent process, and I’m confident the result will be a good one.

A. Dix: Since the Attorney General is talking about competence and says: “The conduct of lawyers is not an issue in this case….” Well, appendix D of the McNeil report details no less than 30 interventions by her ministry lawyers in a short period — 30, three-zero. Her ministry
[ Page 8936 ]
advised the Premier’s communications team not to smear researchers with the taint of an RCMP investigation. Her lawyers, her ministry are an issue in this case.

To the Minister of Health, whose assertions are increasingly extraordinary…. He repeatedly has stated that his deputy minister, Stephen Brown, conducted a review from July 2013 to October 2013. That review concluded, amongst other things, that there was no longer any need for an RCMP investigation — one that the ministry had announced in the first line of a press release 14 months earlier. In fact, a government spokesperson said that they concluded: “We have given all the information that there is to the RCMP, and we are not pursuing it any further.”

Of course, the ministry forwarded no report to the RCMP at all, in spite of repeated promises to do so. In the following 12 months after the Brown report the government did not forward Mr. Brown’s conclusions to the RCMP or to the public — a public that had been repeatedly misled on this issue of the RCMP.

The minister claimed yesterday, contradicting the straightforward evidence of the RCMP, that his ministry was providing regular information to the RCMP in 2012 and 2013. If what the minister said yesterday was true, why did the minister conceal the results of the Brown review from the RCMP?

Hon. T. Lake: My deputy, Stephen Brown, did review all the material that had been gathered and then was tasked with working with ministry employees and went through a process with them. In some cases there were arrangements. There were agreements made which do have confidentiality agreements attached to them. But they came to a mutual understanding with some of those employees.

In terms of the data access, in terms of the Ministry of Health, that was where we wanted the process to go. However, as I have said in the media and I’ve said in this House, in terms of contracting practices and procurement practices, the office of the comptroller general was still examining those issues and, in fact, until April of this year was working on those issues. The RCMP had indicated an interest in seeing that report, which they received in April of 2015.

There were two streams of investigation and work going on. The Ministry of Health work, which we had said did not lead us to worry about the RCMP investigation…. However, the OCG work was continuing. The RCMP indicated continued interest in that work and, in fact, have gone through, I understand, the OCG report when it was given to them in April of 2015.

[1035]

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

A. Dix: The Ministry of Health, the Minister of Health and the Premier’s communications team smear these researchers in September 2012. They say there’s an ongoing RCMP investigation — false. The evidence from the RCMP is clear on this point.

Mr. Brown conducts a review. It concludes, according to the minister, in October of 2013. It concludes, the minister just said, that there was no need, as far as the Ministry of Health — the Ministry of Health that had smeared people on the front page of the Vancouver Sun; no more need, according to the Minister of Health — for an RCMP investigation.

November 2013. December 2013. We could go on. They had that information. This minister had that information, and he failed to inform the researchers that the Ministry of Health no longer suspected them, the RCMP that the Ministry of Health no longer suspected them, and the public that the Ministry of Health no longer suspected them. They concealed the Brown review, and he said in estimates just a month ago that this was an act of omission.

The RCMP continued to ask for information. They failed to provide the Brown review. That’s an act of commission. The RCMP closes the file in July 2014 and tells the ministry, and they still don’t tell the researchers and the public. That’s an act of commission.

The minister knew for 12 months before the Leader of the Opposition asked him in October 2014 about the RCMP review and whether he was going to forward new information to them, and he said nothing about it, an act of commission.

Wasn’t his failure to come clean an act of commission, not an act of omission? Wasn’t his failure to inform the researchers, the public and the police of his ministry’s report simply reprehensible?

Hon. T. Lake: If only there was an office, an independent office, that could look at administrative fairness when government is doing its business. If only there were an office like that, that could look into the concerns that the member has, the concerns that we’ve expressed over on this side of the House.

I think there is an office. It’s called the Ombudsperson’s office, which is why I have asked the Finance Committee to refer this to the Ombudsperson so that that can be made public and satisfy the concerns that that member….

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

Hon. T. Lake: The member, if he would stop talking for like 30 seconds so he could hear an answer, probably would get some answers from an Ombudsperson’s review. That is where this should go, through the Finance Committee to the Ombudsperson, to satisfy that member’s curiosity.
[ Page 8937 ]

REPORT BY REPRESENTATIVE FOR
CHILDREN AND YOUTH
AND SERVICES FOR YOUTH AT RISK

D. Donaldson: This spring the Representative for Children and Youth put forward an extremely troubling report into the abuse, addiction and neglect suffered by an aboriginal girl named Paige. The report showed how the Ministry of Children and Family Development failed Paige over and over during her short and tragic life, a life which ended in a drug overdose after she was cut off from care by this government.

The day after the report was released the minister acknowledged there are many other youth in Paige’s situation right now at extreme risk and promised a rapid response team for the Downtown Eastside to help these children. Two months later the rapid response team is not in place and has no start date. Why not?

[1040]

Hon. S. Cadieux: Following the release of the representative’s report, the ministry immediately began work on a number of initiatives in response to the report — the development of a rapid response unit model with input from the current service providers in the area, the city of Vancouver, health services and police. Those discussions have begun and are being guided by the key principles that the model must address.

The provincial director of child welfare is conducting a review of all of the youth in care receiving services who reside in or frequent the Downtown Eastside to ensure that they are both accessing and in contact with all of the services that they need to be.

And, Madame Speaker, for your and the member opposite’s information, we are also developing a duty-to-report awareness campaign that will target service providers as well as health professionals, police and school staff in the Downtown Eastside and across the province, and we’re conducting a review of the CFCSA to identify what amendments may be required to ensure that the director has the necessary authority to conduct case reviews of injuries or deaths for youth over the age of 19.

Madame Speaker: The member for Stikine on a supplemental.

D. Donaldson: Discussions begun but no rapid response team in place two months later. The Premier said in response to Paige’s death: “We’re beginning with this rapid response team in the Downtown Eastside.” The minister said she was implementing “a rapid response team model for youth.” More than two months have elapsed since those promises, and we still see no action from this government. Youth are at risk right now.

Was the minister wrong when she said “rapid response,” knowing that it would take months to get a team in place, or is she so out of touch with the front line of her ministry that she didn’t know? Either way, why should we or vulnerable youth or the public believe anything the minister or the Premier says on kids at risk?

Hon. S. Cadieux: The member opposite continues in his misunderstanding of both the ministry and its work in the Downtown Eastside as well as areas around the province. We have a team around the province of incredibly dedicated social workers in the Downtown Eastside that have collectively over 150 years of experience working with vulnerable youth. They are on the ground every day.

We are working to improve upon that system even further with a rapid response team model. The member may not like the language used to describe that, but in fact it does require conversations with team members beyond MCFD, including the health authorities, police, the city of Vancouver and service providers in the Downtown Eastside, looking at how better to coordinate all of the efforts of all of those people to ensure that the most vulnerable youth have access to immediate services whenever and wherever they present.

J. Rice: According to the children’s representative, there are 150 cases of children at risk like Paige was at risk, yet the government has refused to work with the representative to ensure these children get help immediately, not months from now. As the representative said: “Leaving kids in danger for months and months is not a child protection response.” So what is this minister waiting for? When will she get these children the help they need and deserve?

Hon. S. Cadieux: This member, as well, is showing the lack of understanding of the work that is underway. In fact, our office met with the representative’s office yesterday, the provincial director, to outline the work that is underway to this point, and that meeting was very successful. In fact, we are in ongoing conversations with the representative’s office to ensure that we are, in fact, addressing all of the issues raised in the report.

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

J. Rice: This is what the Representative for Children and Youth said about this government’s timelines. “I don’t know where the concept of time comes from in the Ministry of Children and Families, but it’s not rapid to respond to something five months later.”

[1045]

The B.C. Liberals know how to act quickly when it matters to them, so why is it taking so long for the B.C. Liberals to act to protect other children like Paige?
[ Page 8938 ]

Hon. S. Cadieux: The member is wrong. The response received by children or youth in the Downtown Eastside by our social work team is immediate. The work we are doing to develop a rapid response unit model is beyond the current service. It is a new addition to what we do. It is to expand upon the work we do with our partners.

As I have outlined, the work and discussions on how that will work are underway, and we expect it will be implemented in the fall.

WILDFIRE PREVENTION AND
MANAGEMENT OF INTERFACE FIRE RISKS

H. Bains: In 2004 a report into Kelowna wildfires made a key recommendation to clean up deforested areas around communities. Remember that these were the fires that caused hundreds of homes to be destroyed, hundreds of millions of dollars of property damage.

The Kelowna wildfire report made it clear that the provincial government should be taking the lead on this work, yet the Liberal government failed to do the work. As a result, only 5 percent in 11 years of the work that needed to be done is completed. B.C. is on pace for a record fire season again this year.

Robert Gray, who was the co-author of this report, continued to warn this government. In 2011 he said that the government was foot-dragging and said that the work was being done at a snail’s pace. In 2013 he suggested that the province was gambling with the odds of us having to face a large-scale, catastrophic fire event.

Again in 2014, again this month…. This government continues to ignore those warnings. People’s homes and lives are at risk because this government failed to act.

To the Minister of Forests, how does this minister explain this government’s failure to keep B.C. safe from wildfires?

Hon. S. Thomson: It gives me the opportunity to again recognize and acknowledge the great work of our wildfire management branch across the province and all of our support staff and contractors that are addressing the current situation.

In 2004 we introduced the strategic wildfire prevention initiative, the program through UBCM — $62 million in that program. This year we added $5 million to the program. That $5 million is targeted at high-risk communities.

This continues to take a collective effort through the program, in partnership with local governments, in partnership with the public, and private landowners have a responsibility. It’s a collective effort that we all need to continue to work on, and 289 community wildfire protection plans are in place in that program. The work continues, and the work will continue with that additional funding and support that we provided to the program.

[End of question period.]

R. Lee: May I ask leave to make an introduction?

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

R. Lee: In the gallery today we have a group of visitors from the Burnaby General Association of Chinese Communities. Many of them are recent immigrants. They are here today to learn how the Legislative Assembly works. They are Lucy Zheng, Junbo Feng, Ying Guo, Lan Jia, Yong Jing, Wenbo Gong, Lihua Zheng, Qiao Li, Yanchun Liu, Lihong Yang and Kenny Feng.

Would the House please join me to give them a very warm welcome.

[1050]

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: Continued second reading debate on Bill 30.

[D. Horne in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 30 — LIQUEFIED NATURAL GAS
PROJECT AGREEMENTS ACT

(continued)

D. Donaldson: I’m pleased today to rise and participate in this second reading debate on Bill 30, the Liquefied Natural Gas Project Agreements Act. It’s more commonly known as the project development agreement with Petronas, but it will apply across the board to all potential LNG deals well into the future.

I agree with the Premier that this debate presents an opportunity to talk about principles and values, even though her government decided not to allow for an independent analysis of this deal, which would have contributed importantly to the public debate.

The first principle I will discuss is that I value our natural environment. I say yes to wild salmon. I say yes to the wild salmon economy in the Skeena River. I say yes to the salmon diet that provides many in our watershed with food needed to survive. I say yes to environmental protections connected to the development that will protect our salmon, our air, our water, our land.

This agreement does not follow those principles. It includes no guaranteed environmental protections or conservation requirements. So we must conclude that the members of the government, by their support for this agreement, say no to environmental protection and say no to wild salmon.
[ Page 8939 ]
The second principle I believe in is that once we decide to exploit the natural resources we are so blessed with in this province, then it is British Columbians who should benefit first and foremost. I say yes to those closest to major projects benefiting the most from any economic spinoffs. I say yes to jobs for locals first. I say yes to local procurement.

This agreement does not uphold this principle. It includes no requirements for the use of local labour and local professional services and materials, and no apprenticeship quotas or training opportunities. The deal locks in future governments to today’s status quo on LNG taxes and royalties for more than 25 years — a quarter century. Again, we must conclude that by supporting this legislation, the members of the government, the B.C. Liberals, say no to getting a fair return for our commonly owned resources.

The third principle I believe in is that aboriginal title exists in this province. I concur with the Supreme Court of Canada on this account. I say yes to increased certainty by recognizing aboriginal title. I say yes to reconciliation with First Nations. I say yes to a mutually respectful relationship with First Nations in B.C.

This agreement does not uphold the principle of aboriginal title. The deal is signed by the province and Petronas but not with First Nations, any mention of whom is relegated to the appendix under “Other matters.” Therefore, we must assume that members on the other side, the B.C. Liberals, say no to aboriginal title and say no to reconciliation with First Nations in B.C.

I will now elaborate on these three principles during this second reading debate.

[1055]

First, this government has not done the work needed on this agreement, and the issue of aboriginal title is a glaring example. What the government has failed to understand is the nature of aboriginal title. It is a reality that exists on the ground. The Delgamuukw-Gisday’wa court action brought by the Gitxsan and Wet’suwet’en took 20 years to complete. The Supreme Court of Canada confirmed the existence of aboriginal title in western law in their 1997 decision. And last year in the William case the Supreme Court ruled that aboriginal title exists in reality on large tracts of Tsilhqot’in land.

In the Gitxsan and Wet’suwet’en governance systems the rightful aboriginal titleholders are the Hereditary Chiefs. This is different from the Indian Act–created band council system, something this government has difficulty understanding or recognizing. Band councils in Gitxsan and Wet’suwet’en territory have a federally conferred governance role on reserve lands created by the Canadian government.

The issue the B.C. Liberals fail to understand is that the pipeline that is part of the Petronas LNG project does not cross reserve land in Gitxsan territory. It crosses hereditary house group territory subject to aboriginal title. And the spokesperson for [A First Nations language was spoken], one of those Gitxsan house groups, says they’ve never been consulted, that government decisions are based on inadequate information and missing information regarding their territory and that they will never support the project without proper consultation and information.

So I’d say to the B.C. Liberals that you have a problem, and it is of your own making because this project development agreement means you are saying no to aboriginal title. The agreement doesn’t even include First Nations as signatories. They are relegated to the appendix under “Other matters,” and that is where it gets even worse. Wording in the appendix dictates there is no obligation by the province for consultation to lead to agreements with First Nations on an LNG project.

Yet before any future comprehensive deals like treaties are signed, this agreement obliges the province to first consult with Petronas. How fair is that? Imagine how that feels for a First Nation when they hear a word like “reconciliation” coming from this government, then are faced with that kind of commitment by the province.

And by the way, it’s not simply one Gitxsan house group. There are others who have erected a gate at Madii Lii to prohibit access for the Prince Rupert gas transmission project on territories in the Suskwa Valley. That direct action on the land began over a year ago. And no Wet’suwet’en hereditary chiefs have said yes to pipelines in their territories. In fact, they’ve said no to LNG-related gas pipelines across their traditional territories, which means the supply for LNG facilities in Kitimat.

This project development agreement is flawed when it comes to aboriginal title. In fact, the whole manner in which this government has approached the Gitxsan and Wet’suwet’en on the LNG agenda has been lacking in respect. The Wet’suwet’en Hereditary Chiefs were presented with a proposal by this government that linked ongoing funding for their existing child welfare programs to approval by the chiefs for LNG-related pipelines. That is despicable behaviour. They should be ashamed for that behaviour on the other side.

Just in May the Gitxsan chiefs were visited in Kispiox by this government’s highly paid LNG advocate Gordon Wilson, who told them in regards to fracking: “The water you put down the well is not drinkable water. It doesn’t start out as drinkable water.” Well, many of the chiefs and their house members have been to the northeast part of this province and saw the trucks filling up at rivers and lakes and even at the Williston reservoir, so they knew this wasn’t fully accurate or totally honest — very disrespectful, no way to build trust or reconciliation.

And then we come to the Lax Kw’alaams, whose traditional territory including Lelu Island and Flora Bank, where the Pacific NorthWest LNG plant that is the focus of this bill is proposed to be built. In May they held three community meetings to review the benefits agreement
[ Page 8940 ]
offer by Pacific NorthWest LNG. The deal was worth over $1 billion. The Lax Kw’alaams rejected it. They said this showed it is not about money but about environmental and cultural issues.

[1100]

They are not open to development proximate to Flora Bank. That’s because Flora Bank provides a one-of-a-kind service to salmon smolts migrating from the Skeena River into the open ocean. Eelgrass beds provide cover and a feeding zone for the smolts as they adapt from freshwater life to salt water — a very vulnerable time for the smolts. It is critical habitat for the Skeena salmon run that provides food and economic returns for the Lax Kw’alaams and upstream First Nations like the Gitxsan and the Wet’suwet’en as well.

The Lax Kw’alaams remain concerned that the Pacific NorthWest gas LNG facility poses significant environmental risk to the salmon. That is something the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency agreed with in halting their review of the project in June, requiring Pacific NorthWest LNG to provide more information regarding potential impacts of the facility. I might add, it was also part of the reason why the federal government refused and declined an environmental assessment certificate in the 1970s for an oil tanker terminal in the same area.

Gitxsan Hereditary Chief G’wnanuts is also very concerned about the impact this project development agreement will have on salmon returns in the Skeena. I spoke with her on July 1, on Canada Day. She likened the possible demise of salmon as another way to fulfil the cultural genocide that residential schools were unable to achieve. Think about that. That is how serious this project development agreement debate becomes when this government says no to environmental protection and conservation.

This deal locks in environmental regulations for more than 25 years, protecting the foreign-owned companies from any increase to the carbon tax specifically targeting LNG facilities and also from any change to the Greenhouse Gas Industrial Reporting and Control Act, which establishes greenhouse gas benchmarks for LNG facilities.

This is particularly troubling in light of the rising water temperatures in the Skeena system and the likelihood that this trend will continue with human-influenced climate change. Warm temperatures like we are having this spring — and those are extremely and unusually high warm temperatures in the spring and summer in the northwest — means the snow pack disappears more quickly, and there is no moderating effect when temperatures rise above 40 degrees Celsius like they did last week in the Upper Skeena.

A Gitxsan house member told me he was monitoring smolt escapement from the Slamgeesh River, a tributary to the Skeena, north of Hazelton, earlier this month. The temperature of the water was 16 degrees Celsius, something that isn’t normal until late August when the smolts have escaped and the returning salmon have spawned. Such temperatures will lead to population decline or extirpation of certain runs.

Increased greenhouse gas emissions lead to enhanced climate change that can create hotter conditions in certain parts of B.C. Future governments may want to address this with improved greenhouse gas emission standards applied to LNG production. But this project development agreement locks us in for more than a quarter century.

If future governments decide to change environmental regulations with respect to LNG facilities, then taxpayers are on the hook if it adds more cost to those companies. That’s right; compensation is required after a certain threshold, according to this project development agreement.

As Martyn Brown, the chief of staff to former Premier Gordon Campbell, recently wrote:

“Under no circumstances should we effectively consign away our ability to set LNG-specific carbon taxes or to impose new environmental regulations aimed at curbing greenhouse gas emissions that will skyrocket because of that industry. Taxpayers should not have to foot the bill for strengthening such industry-specific measures and subsidizing company profits.”

[1105]

The final principle I am going to elaborate on is the principle of getting a fair return on our resources so that B.C. residents benefit first and foremost. I’ll start with a quote.

“Some people continue to defend trickle-down theories, which assume that economic growth, encouraged by a free market, will inevitably succeed in bringing about greater justice and inclusiveness in the world. This opinion, which has never been confirmed by the facts, expresses a crude and naive trust in the goodness of those wielding economic power and in the sacralized workings of the prevailing economic system.”

That is Pope Francis, spiritual leader to 1.2 billion Catholics in the world and someone who obviously puts a lot of thought into his words. He couldn’t have had a better example of that quote than this project development agreement, a deal that perpetuates an outdated economic view.

It locks the people of this province in for 25-plus years to tax rates Petronas and its partners have dictated to this B.C. Liberal government. Any changes to the LNG income tax, the natural gas tax credit or the carbon tax specifically on LNG that will cost companies more above a certain threshold will require compensation from the B.C. taxpayer, dollar for dollar.

It needs to be remembered that the B.C. Liberals already slashed the LNG income tax in half, from 7 percent to 3.5 percent, and improved the natural gas tax credit for LNG companies, effectively decreasing it from 11 percent to 8 percent when they even caught a whiff of Petronas balking at the rates.

On top of that, we do not know the long-term royalty

[ Page 8941 ]
agreement that is part of this deal, because this government has decided to keep those details secret to the public. What we do know is that those royalty rates are also locked in for more than 20 years. This is at a time when the natural gas prices are at historic lows.

There are no local labour or procurement guarantees. According to Petronas’s own environmental assessment information, up to 70 percent of construction jobs in the late stages of the project could go to temporary foreign workers. Plus, Petronas has said it will shift engineering and design work to lower-cost centres overseas and also source materials overseas. So much for the trickle-down effect bringing about greater justice and inclusiveness.

The sad thing is it doesn’t have to be that way. Other jurisdictions believe in a more modern approach and have implemented it when it comes to LNG deals. Australia, for instance, with their Gorgon LNG project agreement and their North West Shelf LNG agreement, have provisions saying a proponent must use labour available within Western Australia and preference must be given to suppliers and service providers in Western Australia.

They also have a clause in the Gorgon deal where the proponent must pay tens of millions of dollars to ongoing conservation programs. None of these provisions or stipulations or clauses are part of the B.C. Liberals’ project development agreement we are considering at second reading today.

By not insisting upon those provisions that other jurisdictions have managed to negotiate, the B.C. Liberals say no to local jobs first, and they say no to getting a fair return on our natural gas resource.

As Martyn Brown put it: “In the end, all Petronas had to do to win was to threaten to quit. That was all it took to force the province to show its weak hand to all of the LNG players and to also allow them to effectively write their own rules for success.”

[1110]

I will conclude my second reading remarks on Bill 30, the Liquefied Natural Gas Project Agreement, with this. I say yes to wild salmon. I say yes to the wild salmon economy in the Skeena River and to the sustenance these amazing species provide. I say yes to environmental protection of our beautiful natural resources. I say yes to a fair return on the exploitation of those natural resources.

I say yes to locals benefiting first and foremost economically from what goes on in their own backyard. I say yes to local jobs first. I say yes to aboriginal rights and title. I say yes to reconciliation with First Nations in B.C. That is why I will not be supporting this project development agreement.

Hon. T. Stone: Today I am extremely proud to be standing here with my colleagues in support of Bill 30, the LNG project development agreement enabling act. This is an incredible moment in history. This LNG industry, which only three-plus years ago was a notional dream, is now coming together. It is a generational opportunity that has the potential to transform our province.

The Pacific NorthWest LNG project involves the construction of an LNG facility on Lelu Island, located in Port Edward. This investment is massive. This private sector investment is $36 billion U.S. It’s the largest capital investment in the history of British Columbia and, indeed, in Canada’s history.

The purpose of this legislation is, really, very straightforward. It’s for the province to fulfil its requirement to table legal commitments related to the project development agreement signed by the province and Pacific NorthWest LNG.

This will ensure that the proponent has project certainty, long-term certainty, that the proponent’s massive investment, $36 billion, will be treated equitably and consistently over the entire term of their agreement.

This certainty will be provided through a right to indemnification, triggered very specifically by changes in the LNG income tax, changes in the natural gas tax credit, carbon tax increases that are specific to LNG — not general carbon tax increases — and changes to key features of the Greenhouse Gas Industrial Reporting and Control Act.

The project development agreement does not provide the proponent with assurances on laws of general application, such as changes to the provincial sales tax, carbon taxes or corporate income taxes. Government will continue to have the ability, the right, to alter these taxes generally but not specific to the LNG sector.

In addition to the project development agreement, we have also made tremendous progress in developing and building this industry in British Columbia. We’ve passed the legislative framework under which the LNG proponents will operate, including an LNG taxation framework; long-term royalty agreements; measures permitting local government tax agreement with proponents; and, indeed, the Greenhouse Gas Industrial Reporting and Control Act.

Speaking of the environment, we are committed, our government is committed — we have said this over and over — to developing the cleanest LNG industry in the world. Our LNG industry is going to play a huge role, a significant role, in reducing worldwide greenhouse gas emissions.

We do have high expectations for the LNG proponents, the LNG projects, in British Columbia. They must be responsibly developed. They must be safely operated. They must represent full engagement and partnership with First Nations, and all British Columbians must benefit from the proceeds of this industry.

[1115]

working extremely hard to skill up British Columbians, to do everything we can to ensure that British Columbians are the first in line for these thousands of LNG jobs and to ensure that British Columbians have the skills required to embrace the opportunities that this industry will create.

Through the skills-for-jobs blueprint, we are re-engineering, from top to bottom, our entire education and post-secondary systems in British Columbia. We are working hard with labour, with industry, with the federal government to update occupational forecasts for the LNG sector and indeed for all industrial sectors. A huge amount of this effort is being expended to map this occupational forecasting out. We are recalibrating our apprenticeship system and working hard to ensure our training model is more responsive to labour market demand.

In fact, it’s the proponents who are so focused on being able to access as many British Columbians as possible for the thousands of jobs they are about to create that they have strongly encouraged government to undertake this re-engineering of our advanced education, our education and training systems in this province. The work that we have done on this to date is a strategic factor that will be critical to projects moving forward so that every British Columbian who wants a job, who wants to embrace an opportunity that LNG will present, will have the opportunity to do so.

Now, I thought — like, I think, many of my colleagues — that we would come back to this Legislature for this summer session, this rare summer session, that we would engage in lively debate about this bill, but at the end of the day, everyone in this House would support it. I mean, after all, the benefits are immense, and the benefits are widely shared.

Let’s look at jobs. This project will be built by British Columbians. It will be built by Canadians — thousands of them. Every British Columbian who wants to embrace an LNG opportunity will have the opportunity to do so — 4,500 construction jobs, 330 direct operational long-term jobs and 300 local spinoff jobs. Small businesses across British Columbia are going to be able to participate in these opportunities as well through LNG–Buy B.C., which will create long-term partnerships for businesses of all sizes in every community in this province to support LNG projects during the planning, the construction and the operation of this new industry.

Under the tax and royalty framework that’s in place, $8.6 billion in net new tax and royalty revenue for British Columbia is expected in just the next 15 years — so thousands of jobs and billions of dollars of tax and royalty revenue for British Columbians.

This industry and this project, as a start, will also enable a tremendous amount of capacity-building. With respect to communities, through our northwest community readiness work…. We’re going to ensure that communities across British Columbia — not just in the northwest, which represents the epicentre of the new industry, but communities right across the province — are prepared to address and meet the infrastructure, the health care, the safety, the social demands that are going to flow from these major industrial developments, including those in LNG.

In transportation, we will play a huge role. Whether it’s roads or bridges or airports and other key investments, these infrastructure investments will be critical to the success of our liquefied natural gas industry.

This last March I was pleased on behalf of government to launch B.C. on the Move, our new ten-year transportation plan. Through this plan, we will maintain and replace aging infrastructure, helping to grow the economy by supporting expanding trade in B.C.’s resources through Canada’s Asia-Pacific gateway. Now, this plan will enhance our safety, mobility, connectivity. It will allow us to keep pace with our many expanding sectors and ensure that our transportation investments remain affordable. Through B.C. on the Move, we’ll continue to support the development of the liquefied natural gas industry, and we’ll keep on working with our partners to ensure continued infrastructure investments are made to maximize the value of British Columbia’s ports.

Now, B.C. on the Move is underpinned in the first three years of the plan by $2.5 billion. Of that, government intends to invest more than $800 million in the first three years of the plan in highway and bridge rehabilitation safety improvements. We’re going to spend 50 percent more on bridge rehabilitation in those first three years than we have previously. We’re going to spend 33 percent more on road rehabilitation, particularly side roads and secondary highways — 33 percent more than we have in previous years.

[1120]

In addition, we’re going to add capacity to our network of highways. We’re going to spend $1 billion over the next three years to ensure that we’re able to meet the transport and the trade needs of a growing economy here in British Columbia.

Beyond meeting the needs of our communities, we also know that transportation is critical to getting equipment to where it is needed. Therefore, we are assessing all strategic corridors, such as Highway 16 and Highway 37, to understand what we need to do to safely move the large modules that will be used to build gas pipelines and facilities.

Part of this assessment is looking at where we can strengthen our heavy haul route network to move from handling 85,000 tonnes to handling 125,000 tonnes, which we believe will be needed. This fits with our trucking strategy, which recognizes the critical role that truckers and our provincial highway system play in supporting the actual building of the liquefied natural gas industry — the pipelines and all of the facilities.

In Kitimat we have a study underway to review the west Douglas Channel corridor. We are working with
[ Page 8943 ]
local LNG proponents, with Rio Tinto, the district of Kitimat and First Nations to determine the best routing for the road and utilities corridor. This cooperative approach will make the best use of land in difficult terrain and create a shared-use corridor, providing access for everyone.

In Prince Rupert we are planning road connections between Prince Rupert, LNG sites, First Nations communities, the airport — connecting a complex region where key facilities and local communities are located on a range of islands as well as on mainland British Columbia. We have recognized the impact and the vital opportunity for the region, and we are seeking to gather information from all local communities and from First Nations so that we can make the best decisions possible to wisely allocate funds.

Now, port infrastructure also plays a key role in B.C.’s competitive advantage since B.C. is Canada’s preferred gateway for Asian trade. Trade relationships with Asia continue to offer exciting opportunities for further growth, supporting a thriving economy here in British Columbia and a market for our LNG.

We have several priorities for action to enable efficient ports. First, we’re going to determine potential infrastructure upgrades needed to support LNG. For example, new LNG terminals are proposed for Prince Rupert, Kitimat, Squamish and Vancouver Island. The province will continue to work with First Nations, local and federal governments, ports and industry on land use planning, access and infrastructure needs for proposed LNG facilities in these locations as well as in other parts of the province. We will work with our partners to assess the need to upgrade or build new provincial infrastructure that can support LNG development and transport.

We also intend on continuing to lead a working group with representatives from industry, First Nations, local government and Transport Canada to determine the best management structure for the Port of Kitimat. We want to make sure that the Port of Kitimat is the safest, most efficient, most sustainable industrial port possible.

One final note. Not only is the ministry supporting the development of LNG in the province, but we are also strongly advocating for the use of CNG and LNG as critical fuels in the transportation sector. We now have 50 clean-burning CNG buses — 25 in Nanaimo, 25 in Kamloops — with 33 percent less emissions. We also now know that B.C. Ferries is committed to converting the two largest ferries in the system, the two Spirit-class vessels, to LNG propulsion. In addition to the dramatic reductions in emission targets that that’s going to present, we also know that that’s going to save the folks who use B.C. Ferries $12 million per year each and every year for 27 years.

Back to the LNG industry that we’re here to discuss. We are strongly committed to continuing to engage with Coast Tsimshian and other First Nations in the northwest, in the central part of the province and, indeed, in the northeast. In fact, 14 agreements have already been reached with First Nations up and down the proposed pipeline corridors. We’re also working extremely hard with the Lax Kw’alaams to address their specific concerns.

[1125]

This is all about ensuring that every single British Columbian — First Nations and non–First Nations — has the opportunity to participate in the benefits of the LNG industry: revenue-sharing; good-paying, family-supporting jobs; and environmental stewardship.

Many, many First Nations are chomping at the bit to embrace the economic development opportunities that are presented by liquefied natural gas, assuming that this industry is built in a responsible manner that respects the environment, respects communities. LNG presents an opportunity for First Nations to embrace their future as well.

I would be remiss in not also pointing out that private sector unions — the construction building trades, the International Union of Operating Engineers — in communities across this province are in support of this agreement. They’re in support of the development of the liquefied natural gas industry.

You know, there are a lot of private sector union workers, hard-working men and women, in communities across this province — in places like Merritt and other communities — that still feel betrayed by the New Democratic Party. They feel betrayed by a party that has turned their back on resource development. The NDP had a tremendous opportunity to stand up in this House in this session and to stand in support of a $36 billion private sector investment that’s going to create thousands of private sector jobs, including a lot of union jobs, in this province, and the members opposite are saying no.

The benefits that will flow from this new industry will not just resonate along the Highway 16 Corridor in northern British Columbia. These benefits will resonate in communities right across British Columbia.

I’ll give you one example. In Kamloops there is a company called Horizon North. They design, manufacture and install modular buildings for the oil and gas sector, predominantly, in British Columbia, Alberta and the north — Alaska. They have a 110,000-square-foot facility in a brand-new office building in Kamloops. Today they employ 500 employees. They believe that they are poised for dramatic employment growth in Kamloops as they embrace the opportunities that the LNG industry provides.

Now, it is fascinating to listen to the NDP twist and turn on LNG. As I said a moment ago, coming out of the last election, where large numbers of hard-working men and women of the province turned their backs on the NDP after the NDP turned their backs on them and the resource industries, one would have thought that the NDP would have stood here in this House in this session
[ Page 8944 ]
and said: “You know what? We’re going to support this new industry that has the potential to create thousands of jobs.” But the party of no — they cannot help themselves. It’s a big fat no on LNG from the NDP.

Oh sure, the NDP say they support LNG. We’ve listened to the debate here for the last day or so, and they say they don’t support this agreement, but they support LNG. A $36 billion private sector investment in British Columbia that’s going to provide thousands of jobs — British Columbians are first in line for those jobs — and it’s a big fat no from the NDP.

We hear from the members opposite that they support LNG, and we hear from some of their members that very clearly don’t support fracking. We try to point out to the members opposite that you cannot export it if you don’t extract it. I know that’s a tough one for the members opposite to understand. But if you don’t actually get the natural gas out of the ground, you can’t send it overseas. You can’t generate the types of revenues that British Columbians will come to rely upon for health care and education and other critical services in this province.

The member for North Island said this week that she fears this LNG project will set a dangerous precedent for the province of British Columbia. Oh golly, a $36 billion investment is a dangerous precedent to set. Almost $9 billion of tax revenues for British Columbians, for the hard-working people of this province, thousands of jobs for British Columbians, but: “We don’t want to set that precedent.”

[1130]

It reminds me of how in the mid-’90s the Kamloops Blazers, our beloved WHL hockey team, had won a number of Memorial Cups in a short period of time. Literally a week after the parade was finished on the last Memorial Cup, the entire coaching staff was fired. When asked, “What the heck are you doing?” the general manager replied: “We think it’s time to go in a different direction.” Well, that different direction was to miss the playoffs for about ten years.

Now, the opposition have an opportunity to, in some respects, wipe the slate clean in terms of their record, their spotty track record, of support — or the lack thereof — for the resource industry, for the thousands of British Columbians in communities across this province that work in our mines, that work in our forests, that will work in our new LNG industry. They have an opportunity to stand up and support those British Columbians, and they’re choosing not to.

The member for Vancouver-Fairview said there’s nothing in this deal worthy of support. I would beg to differ. I would suggest, if the member for Vancouver-Fairview got out of the cozy confines of Vancouver and spent a little bit of time in communities like Cranbrook and Terrace and Kitimat and Williams Lake and Quesnel and Merritt and other communities in the interior of this province, he would hear that British Columbians are puzzled at the opposition’s intransigence on this issue.

Why would you not support a project that represents such incredible potential for the future of this province? But there’s nothing in this project that he can support. He’s on the record. When this project actually is built, when the jobs are actually being created and people are actually working, those words are going to haunt him.

Just yesterday the member for North Coast got up, and she said: “We haven’t seen their long-term royalty agreement, which was passed in the miscellaneous statutes bill, Bill 23, this past spring.” And guess what. “Its contents are secret, so we don’t know what else it contains.” The royalty agreement that the member for North Coast references is locked away in that deep, dark secret place. It’s call the Ministry of Natural Gas website — once again reflecting that the members opposite have no idea what they’re talking about.

What’s even worse is they don’t appear to be keen to even read the agreements, to actually read the fine details. What an appalling lack of leadership.

The prize for the most inconsistent individual in this chamber on the resource sector and on LNG in particular without question has to go to the hon. Leader of the Opposition. Three years ago he said LNG will never happen. Last year he said we’re taking too long to develop the LNG industry. Now he says: “Oh gosh, governments, you’re moving too quickly. Why do we actually need to be here in the dog days of a summer session?”

“It will never happen.” “It’s not happening fast enough.” “It’s happening too fast.” I’m having trouble keeping up with where the Leader of the Opposition is on this industry. But I can tell you is the NDP do not support the development of the liquefied natural gas industry.

Now, the Leader of the Opposition says he’s not against LNG development, but they’re going to vote against this particular agreement. They say that they support LNG, but again, they don’t support the fracking process which is a critical element of the LNG industry.

Perhaps the most incredible assertion from the Leader of the Opposition and from the NDP members opposite is that there are no job guarantees for any British Columbians. If it was up to the members opposite, there would be no jobs for British Columbians in this industry.

[1135]

They bellow about how there need to be guarantees, specific guarantees, in this agreement. The last time that we heard that kind of talk coming from the members opposite was in the context of the jobs and timber accord, and we know how well that worked out for the province of British Columbia — zero jobs.

Then they get up, like the member for Stikine moments ago — who really should know better; this opportunity is right in his backyard — along with the member for Skeena, who spoke previously this week, and they wave around labour and contracting provisions from Western Australia. They say that the Australian contracts should
[ Page 8945 ]
be a model for British Columbia because they contain hard-coded job guarantees, that there are actually job guarantees in those Australian contracts.

Here are some examples of the language that actually exists in the Western Australia labour and contracting provisions in that agreement. It says: “…except in those cases where…it is not reasonably and economically practicable so to do, use labour available…” within Western Australia. That sounds like a guarantee. How about “using all reasonable endeavours” or “as far as it is reasonable and economically practicable to do so, use the services” of Australia professionals? “As far as practicable.” Base specifications, tenders and contracts upon Australian standards and codes, except where it is impracticable to do so. It sounds like a definite maybe. It doesn’t sound like a guarantee to me.

How about: “…give proper consideration and, where possible, preference to Western Australian suppliers” — where possible? there’s a guarantee there — “…where price, quality, delivery and service are equal to or better than that obtainable elsewhere…” or “…give proper consideration and, where possible, preference to tenders, arrangements or proposals that include Australian participation…” where price, quality, delivery and service are otherwise equal or better? Those aren’t guarantees. These members opposite, the NDP, are making this up as they go. They stand in this House, and they’re making this up.

The surest way to ensure that there are no jobs in LNG would be for the NDP to be in government today. That’s the only way that there will be no jobs in the liquefied natural gas industry in British Columbia.

The Leader of the Opposition and the members opposite also engage in a somewhat unseemly practice of, in very negative tones, referring to all these temporary foreign workers that are going to be working on all these jobs. The NDP know that this is not true. They know that British Columbians will be No. 1 in line for these jobs. They know that every single British Columbian and every Canadian that wants to work in this industry is going to have the opportunity to do so. They’re being intellectually dishonest with the people of British Columbia by suggesting otherwise.

The fact that the NDP are hanging their hat on this unwavering sense that British Columbians will not reap any benefits from jobs on this project just goes to show you how much the members opposite continue to default to politics over common sense.

The members opposite feign all this concern about the government’s ability to change the carbon tax in future years. But again, they’re not acknowledging…. If they read the agreement, they would see in there that its carbon tax is specific to the LNG industry, not carbon taxes in general, not general carbon tax policy. But they’re not going to be that precise in their articulation because they don’t support this project. They don’t support LNG.

Last but not least, the hon. Leader of the Opposition…. Probably one of the most disappointing things I’ve heard come out of his mouth was, “It wasn’t a difficult decision” to come to a place of no on LNG. Not a difficult decision? An investment that carries a private sector commitment to British Columbia of $36 billion, almost $9 billion in net new revenues to the province of British Columbia, the taxpayers of the province, over the next 15 years, thousands of jobs — but: “I’m not just going to say no; I’m going to say no quickly.”

[1140]

Then he acknowledged — the Leader of the Opposition did — that he actually hadn’t read the agreement yet. He hadn’t read the legislation yet. Yet he has jumped to the conclusion and is proud of the fact of saying: “No, this wasn’t a difficult decision — not a difficult decision at all.”

He has turned his back on resource communities. He has turned his back on the hard-working men and women of this province in communities across British Columbia. He has turned his back on what is a generational opportunity.

At the end of the day, the validation for the decision that we are making today, for the vision that we are embracing today, will come when the future generations read about these debates in the history books, are seized by our courage and vision of the times, the ability to think big, the desire to embrace optimism, the sense of purpose to get to yes. Those future generations are going to say: “Thank you very much for being bold.”

On behalf of the hard-working men and women of Kamloops–South Thompson and on behalf of my three young children, it gives me a great deal of pleasure to support this bill and to support the creation of this generational opportunity for all British Columbians.

R. Austin: It’s nice to hear the comments from the hon. Minister of Transportation. Perhaps before he leaves the House, I’ll just speak about three points that he made and perhaps correct him.

He started his speech by talking about this LNG deal starting three years ago as a notional dream. Well, let me just inform the minister that about eight years ago EOG Canada and Encana were already setting about spending tens of millions of dollars in Kitimat working on the LNG project that’s now owned by Chevron. The LNG dream has been only in the eyes of the Premier for the last three years, but it’s actually been a reality for a heck of a lot longer than that.

He also mentioned that this project guarantees the cleanest LNG in the world. We’ve had this debate around the carbon tax regime. Seventy percent of the entire route, from where the gas is extracted to where it comes to Kitimat or to Prince Rupert, is exempt from any carbon tax — hardly the cleanest, greenest LNG in the world.

He also mentioned in his speech that the private sector unions — who are, of course, supportive of the LNG industry — are indeed supportive of this project de-
[ Page 8946 ]
velopment agreement. Wrong again. They would like to see something similar to what happened with Rio Tinto Alcan, where prior to what was or has been the single largest private investment…. I think Alcan’s smelter now is probably running at $5.2 billion or $5.3 billion and is very near completion. By the way, this time last week I was there celebrating the first new metal pour in Kitimat.

What Rio Tinto Alcan does…. It sat down with all the private sector unions and developed a comprehensive project labour agreement which guaranteed jobs for British Columbians with skills and trades. This project development agreement has none of that.

Those are just three points. As the Minister of Transportation thinks that his eloquent speech, devoid of politics…. Because, of course, he wants to follow from the Premier, who said that we’ve got to set politics aside on this.

Let’s look for a second here at what was promised to British Columbians just prior to the election, when the Premier decided that LNG was going to be the thing that she would run on and convince British Columbians to re-elect her and her regime. They were pretty dramatic things — 100,000 jobs. I think we’d all like to see 100,000 jobs. There was going to be a prosperity fund, a massive prosperity fund that would have so much money going into it that we would actually become a debt-free B.C. Debt-free B.C. That’s right.

I stand here today discussing the specifics of Bill 30, the Liquefied Natural Gas Project Agreements Act, and to state very clearly that what we have here is very short of what was promised. It’s a sellout.

[1145]

In fact, I think this Premier might go down in history as the Joey Smallwood of the 21st century, because she has cut a deal here that is so far in the interests of one company and not in the interests of British Columbians, who expected to get the most value for this natural resource, this finite natural resource. It is impossible to sit here and support a deal that is essentially a giveaway.

Let me speak for a minute about two companies that have done a lot of work and spent a ton of money in my district of Kitimat — Shell and Chevron. I get to meet with them frequently and get updates. I know that the council in the district of Kitimat meets with them almost weekly.

The interesting thing about both Shell and Chevron…. They never have mentioned half the stuff that’s in here that’s been given away to Petronas, because these two companies recognize that they are there to do business in a community, to provide community benefits, whether it be housing, whether it be local jobs. This agreement doesn’t guarantee anything in terms of jobs.

The minister pooh-poohed what was in the agreements in Australia. Well, guess what? What was in the agreements in Australia is at least better than what these guys are offering here, because there’s nothing here, absolutely nothing here to guarantee jobs — nothing, nada, zilch.

Petronas is already on the public record as saying that they would like to bring at least 70 percent of the workers from outside of this country. So here we have a state-owned oil company that thinks it can come here, extract our resources and bring with them a workforce from around the world because — guess what? — they’re cheaper, they’re quicker and you can send just send them home afterwards. That is not what this government promised to British Columbians when they brought forward the whole idea of developing an LNG industry.

Let’s look at some of these details. We sat here and debated the LNG tax only a few months ago. As everyone knows, it was initially announced that it might be up to 7 percent. In the end, it was halved, and we supported that. Why? Because I think everybody on this side of the House recognized that half was probably where we were going to end up anyway. So we supported it to show our support for the burgeoning LNG industry.

What we have here in this project development agreement is stuff that is just patently ridiculous. Think about this. This government is tying in tax rates. They say: “We’re not really tying the hands of future governments, because you can change tax rates.”

But, of course, they are indemnifying this company by saying that if there are changes to major tax rates, they get to have that money put back in their pockets. That is looking after the interests of the shareholders of Petronas, the Malaysian people, not looking after the interests of British Columbians.

What government in their right mind guarantees tax rates for 25 years to an industry? Does the mining industry get that? No. Does the forestry industry get that? Does the high-tech industry get that? No — only the LNG industry and only Petronas at this point. Why? Let’s ask ourselves why.

The reason is simple. Having promised the earth, the sun and the moon to get elected, it is in the interest of the B.C. Liberal party to get a deal at any cost — at any cost no matter what. They’ll give away the store in order to ensure that for their political purposes, they can have some shovels….

Interjection.

R. Austin: Absolutely.

People in Kitimat and Terrace know that I have been supportive of the LNG industry before this gentleman was ever elected or before this gentleman even knew what LNG was, quite frankly. That’s what they know, okay? That’s what they know.

In fact, let me relate this little story. In 2006 I got interviewed by the Kitimat Sentinel. The reporter asked me what I thought of bringing in diluted bitumen as part of the northern gateway project. Then he asked me, at the
[ Page 8947 ]
time — because LNG was actually being formed in 2006 and 2007, hon. Minister — what I thought of a potential LNG industry, and I told him my opinion. I still have a copy of the title that ran. It was simplified. Journalists like to simplify it into a simple word. It was “Crude Oil No, LNG Yes.” That was in 2006-2007.

The people of Kitimat know that I have been supportive of natural gas development from very early when I was elected, which is probably the reason why I’m here today.

But this agreement is not what this government promised — nowhere clear. We have said very clearly: “Here is the bottom line. The resource must benefit British Columbians financially. It must be actually clean and green. It must be environmentally friendly.” This is not.

[1150]

It must have support of First Nations. In my neck of the words, the Haisla, the Nisga’a, the Kitselas and Kitsumkalum…. They are from very supportive of the LNG industry to fairly supportive of the LNG industry. Not so with Lax Kw’alaams. If you don’t even have the support of the local First Nations on whom you’re going to build this thing, then that is beyond disrespectful to the First Nations community.

We have seen a judgment in the Supreme Court just over a year ago that clearly outlines the relationship and the rights and title of aboriginal people. When you have a community who should be the main beneficiaries of an LNG plant, just as the Haisla and the Nisga’a and Kitsumkalum and Kitselas would be if we got one in Kitimat…. If they say no to this, that has to be respected. Otherwise, if it’s not respected, it’ll be tied up in courts for years and years to come.

We have seen this right across the province. Yet this government brings this piece of legislation into the House without even having the support of the local First Nations. There are multiple reasons why this deal, this giveaway, is not a good deal for British Columbians.

Let me speak also in terms of the environment and the concerns that people have around Lelu Island specifically. I’ve met with other proponents who have other locations up and down the coast north of Prince Rupert. They said to me that they looked at Lelu Island right at the beginning, and they ran away from it. They walked away from it. There is a record of the federal government doing an assessment in the 1970s about potential for industrial development on Lelu Island, and in the 1970s the federal environmental office said: “This is not a good location.” Was that ever shared with Petronas when they first came looking for a location?

Now that the BG Group is being absorbed by Shell, has there been any discussion as to whether the BG Group’s location, which is certainly, environmentally, much safer than Lelu Island…? Have there any discussions about what’s going to happen with that site now that the BG Group is going to be absorbed by Shell? I hardly think that Shell is going to be continuing to promote their site in Kitimat, which is a very good site, an industrial site, once the home of Methanex. Are they going to be building another one in Prince Rupert? Highly unlikely.

These are the kinds of things that should be looked at instead of just saying: “Yes, we’re going to put this on an island with this massive Flora Bank right next door.” All the salmon from one of the largest non-industrialized rivers in North America, millions of salmon, come down there every year and hang out in this eelgrass bed. Is that, environmentally, the best that this government can do? Seriously? That’s the best that this government can do? And say that we are protecting our environment?

People want jobs in my neck of the woods. But guess what. People also want to eat. They also want to protect something that’s been there for tens of thousands of years, long before Europeans came and even started to industrialize the northwest.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

They actually care about salmon. It’s not just about it being a great source of protein. It has cultural value. People come from all over the world to fish because we have salmon coming down the Skeena River and coming back to it.

Yet this project, in spite of the fact that Petronas…. Let me give some credit. In spite of the fact that Petronas and the pipeline company have made changes…. Let’s give them credit for that. Some people think that when you go and make your opposition clear in assessments and in community consultation, these big corporations do nothing with it. That’s not the case. Petronas has made major changes. The pipeline company has made major changes, over $200 million worth of extra capital going into the pipeline alone because of community consultation. So people are listened to.

But in spite of that — I’m not an expert, and I’m not a scientist — people are still very nervous about putting a plant on Lelu Island. Is that being addressed here? No, it isn’t.

What we’re being asked to do today is we are being asked to say yes. We have been supportive of the LNG industry. But now we’re being asked to just come on board and sign on and support a deal which makes it look as though the troika that runs this province — the Premier, the Natural Gas Minister and the Minister of Finance….

[1155]

Those are the three top people that run this place. You know, collectively, I think they have the negotiation skills of the Greek Prime Minister — seriously. But we are not going to take it like the poor old Greeks.

We have a resource which in years to come will be hugely valuable. We know that the energy needs of Asia over the next 25, 35, 40 years are going to grow exponentially. Even though prices are low today, we still need
[ Page 8948 ]
to get the best deal for the future of British Columbians, recognizing that this is an incredibly valuable resource.

This deal, financially, environmentally, does not provide us with the kind of deal that ensures that British Columbians are going to get the best value that they deserve. And you know what? This is, of course, just an example. This is enabling legislation. What that means is that if this deal goes ahead and it proves to be not in the best interests of British Columbia, well, it can be offered again to other companies. So we’re going to see this multiplied over and over again. If we end up with more than one LNG plant, we are not going to get the kinds of revenues….

This government promised us a prosperity fund. How are you going to get a prosperity fund when these are the kinds of revenue projections that are being made?

Let’s not forget…. The minister said we’re going to get $9 billion. Well, guess what. If you go and look at examples around the world, like in Australia where some of these projects went massively over budget, no money comes in until all the capital costs have been absorbed by these companies. If the project goes over budget…. And we’ve all seen how large-scale public projects go over budget. The northwest transmission line went from $404 million to $616 million, and that’s a tiny project.

Madame Speaker: Hon. Member, noting the hour, do you wish to reserve your right to continue?

R. Austin moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. T. Stone moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Madame Speaker: This House, at its rising, stands adjourned until 1:30 this afternoon.

The House adjourned at 11:57 a.m.

Hansard Services publishes transcripts both in print and on the Internet.
Chamber debates are broadcast on television and webcast on the Internet.
Question Period podcasts are available on the Internet.

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