2013 Legislative Session: Fifth Session, 39th Parliament
HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Monday, March 11, 2013

Morning Sitting

Volume 44, Number 1

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

MONDAY, MARCH 11, 2013

The House met at 10:02 a.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

Private Members' Statements

DREDGING THE FRASER RIVER

R. Hawes: I rise today to speak about an issue that's critically important in my riding — and, certainly, in the riding of my neighbour the member for Maple Ridge–Mission — and that's the Fraser River and the condition the Fraser River finds itself in today.

[D. Black in the chair.]

I want to start by going through a little bit of a history about the Fraser and, actually, what's going on around British Columbia with creeks, streams, even ditches throughout the province. For centuries — well, a century or near a century — we dredged the Fraser River. We kept the channel in the Fraser River in the centre or in a known spot in the river. And what went on for all of those years that we did the dredging annually….

All of the gravel that enters into the upper reaches of the Fraser washed down, and as it washed, it broke itself down into sand and washed out to the sea. In 1996 there was an unofficial moratorium declared on the Fraser River and, indeed, in creeks, streams, etc., across B.C., where there was no gravel to be removed. All dredging stopped because it was thought at the time — certainly, by a biologist from the British Columbia government, Dr. Marvin Rosenau, and working in cooperation with DFO — that removing gravel actually was harmful to fish.

So an unofficial moratorium was put in place. Through those years, I sat on the Fraser Valley regional district board, and we watched as the river began to silt in once that moratorium was put in place. We constantly requested of two levels of government, both provincial and federal, that they work with us to keep the river from silting in.

[1005]

We could see that there was now huge erosion on the banks of the river, as the channel, which previously had been kept in place, began to move back and forth and dig away at the banks on either side of the river. We began to see huge piles of silt and gravel build up from Hope right down to Mission. It made the river much more dangerous, much more unpredictable and, we believed, a great danger to flooding and to navigation.

In 2002 the then Minister of Environment, Barry Penner, sought — worked hard with the federal government — and got an agreement that we could remove gravel by scalping the top of gravel bars. The deal was that we could take out, I think, 500,000 metres for three or four years in a row. After that it was going to be, I think, 300,000 metres annually that could be removed.

Unfortunately, year after year as people got set to go in the river and do something, they would put in an application to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, and the applications would take weeks, months, to be processed. There was a Fisheries window, and almost invariably, a permit would come to remove gravel that was maybe a couple of weeks before the window closed — no time to take anything out of the river. We have always believed at the Fraser Valley regional district level that this was a deliberate attempt on the part of the DFO to make sure no gravel came out of the river.

There were a few years where gravel was taken out. It's actually quite expensive for the companies that were going to do the work. It's quite expensive for them to do all of the application process, the engineering — all of the rest of it — and then do all of the setup to get ready to do it. And if they get shut down because they've run out of time, they lose their money. Actually, in the end they stopped even applying. So no gravel has come out of the river for quite some period of time.

Now, today, the Fraser River is so silted in that, first and foremost, we believe that there's a great danger of flooding. There are studies done by DFO that say removing gravel will not change the potential for flooding. There are other studies that are done that say removing the gravel would stop the danger of flooding.

So there are studies on both sides. Both are done by engineers — one done by DFO, with the people they chose to use; the other was done…. I know that the Fraser Valley regional district has done a number of studies.

There are areas, strategic areas, where gravel should be removed. Otherwise, the danger of flooding increases. In fact, I think it was 2008 that the flood levels were so close to going over the top of the dikes that there were warnings.

The Ministry of Environment did some studies to figure out what a flood would cost. It was likely to be in the billions of dollars, actually, because if the dikes are breached, there are so many businesses and residences along the river. It all flows down from Chilliwack, right down to Richmond. It's downhill all the way. If the dikes breach, there is going to be a massive flood.

It came down to a Friday afternoon. A major storm was predicted, and it looked like that was going to cause a breach in the dikes. Happily, the storm turned at the last minute and did not hit the Fraser Valley. The river didn't top the dikes, but it came very, very close.

There are people who live along the river who every single year live in fear, great fear, that they're going to
[ Page 13428 ]
be flooded out, that the dikes are going to breach. This is every year.

Now we're getting closer to freshet for this year. Nobody knows what's going to happen. Is it going to be a big melt? Is there going to be a rainy season that goes with it that's going to cause panic again for those people who live along the river?

Frankly, it's long past time that we get to the point that we're going to get into the river and do the right thing — clean the river so that, No. 1, transportation can continue to happen and, No. 2, flood danger is reduced.

[1010]

H. Bains: I'm glad to respond to the member's statement. We all know the Fraser River plays a vital role in B.C.'s ecology, economy and our way of life in British Columbia, especially in the Lower Mainland. Being the largest river in B.C., 1,400 kilometres long, it carries close to 20 million tonnes of sediment annually into Fraser delta.

Now, maintaining it and keeping it navigable is the key to maximizing those economic benefits of our Lower Mainland and many communities around the Fraser River. So that's where dredging comes in. Dredging the lower Fraser River proves to have positive economic and environmental impacts. Since 1998, when federal government funding for dredging was halted, the Fraser River has seen an increase in sediment deposits. Failing to dredge the river and connecting waterways, notably Ladner Harbour, can have a negative impact on local economy and environment.

Responsibility for dredging the Fraser was transferred in 1998 from the federal government to Port Metro Vancouver. In December 2012 a $10 million joint commitment was announced by Port Metro Vancouver, the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans, the B.C. Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure, the corporation of Delta and the city of Richmond to dredge channels in the river.

After federal funding for dredging ceased, there have been approximately 1.2 million cubic metres of sediment deposited in local waterways. Waterways which used to have six metres of water at low tide now have less than one metre. This is according to the corporation of Delta. This negatively impacts key shipping channels that are used by commercial vessels. Floating homes are also impacted, as the vessels run aground during low tide, causing damage and safety concerns.

The impact of not dredging includes impact on B.C. fisheries, as industries decide to relocate due to the negative impact of sediment on marinas, fisheries and float home communities. This will result in loss of property taxes, reduced recreational opportunities, increased flood risks, reduced property values and economic impact on urban business, commercial and industrial activity along the Fraser River.

Dredging is successful in reducing the effects and risks of loss to the sockeye salmon habitat in the Fraser River from human activity. This is according to the Cohen Commission, 2011. As many as 650 million young salmon migrate downstream every year, and ten million spawn in the river. Again, it's according to Port Metro Vancouver.

If you look at the annual ongoing economic benefits of Ladner Harbour, 2012 numbers, it leaves a total B.C. impact on employment of 656 jobs, $19.9 million in wages, $39.2 million in GDP and $96.2 million in economic output. Ladner Harbour and the surrounding river channel generate tax revenue of $2.2 million in federal tax revenues, $990,000 in provincial tax revenues and about $744 million in municipal tax revenues. So if the harbour and Fraser River were properly dredged, it is expected that there would be further economic growth.

So who does it, and how much does it cost? That always comes to question. Currently, Port Metro Vancouver is responsible for dredging the Fraser River. Since 1998, sediment has continued to build up, as I said earlier. Port Metro Vancouver contracts out the dredging work.

The Fraser River Estuary Management Program created management guidelines for dredging in the Fraser River Estuary. Their guidelines reflect consensus by Fisheries and Oceans Canada; Environment Canada; the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection; B.C. Ministry of Environment; Environment Canada; the Fraser River Port Authority; and North Fraser Port Authority.

The Ladner Harbour and surrounding river channel would cost an estimated $8 million to dredge, with maintenance dredging occurring every five to eight years. These are, again, numbers that come from the corporation of Delta study.

[1015]

On December 17, as I said earlier, $10 million to dredge lower Fraser River channels was announced. The joint commitment was promised by the Port Metro Vancouver, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, the B.C. Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure, the corporation of Delta and the city of Richmond.

R. Hawes: It's very nice that the member for Surrey-Newton talks about the dredging that's happening in the lower part of the Fraser River, but unfortunately, it stops at Surrey. It goes to the Surrey docks. When you get up, though, past there to Maple Ridge, to Mission, to Chilliwack, there's no dredging. Nothing happens. We're the abandoned part of the province.

This is the problem, and it's not just in the Chilliwack, Mission, Abbotsford and Maple Ridge areas. There's flooding in rivers all over British Columbia, and we all know it. Every year it's reported. Every year it's about taking gravel out of the river, and DFO stops us from doing that.
[ Page 13429 ]

The member for Maple Ridge–Mission and I went up the river not long ago with several people that were experts on the river, and it was determined that we could easily open a channel today. You can't float logbooms down the river other than three months out of the year. There are tens of thousands of metres of wood on the ground, in the water actually, up in the Harrison area that they have to de-water and take out by truck. That really helps the environment.

What we need to do is get in the river and open a channel so that, first, transportation on the river that has taken place for centuries can continue to happen. But we're stopped from doing that because you have to do very costly studies — very costly studies. It doesn't take much to do it, to open the channel, and once the channel is opened, the river will begin to flush itself. But we need to open the channel. We need to keep it open year after year.

In my area, in my riding, Hatzic Prairie is underwater again right now today because the creeks are so silted in that they flood when there's a heavy rainstorm. That causes huge property damage. It causes lives to be disrupted. And frankly, no fish can spawn in a creek that is full of gravel when the gravel is higher than the surrounding landscape. That's going on in Hatzic Prairie. That's an example of what's going on in many parts of British Columbia.

It is an absolutely foolhardy, silly way of thinking to say that dredging hurts fish. It is, I believe, the opposite. Prior to 1996, when the unofficial moratorium was put in place, I'd never heard of a shortage of salmon or a problem with salmon. Since then, every year we talk about it. It's high time we get into these waterways and start cleaning them.

I'll just add one thing, and that's ditches — farmers' ditches. The critic for Agriculture from the other side should be joining with us and screaming. Farmers need to get in their ditches. They dig them to drain their fields, and the DFO, especially in the Fraser Valley, is saying: "Oh no, you can't. That becomes Fisheries' territory." You can't get into ditches even to clean them. This is a terrible situation being imposed on us from Ottawa, and it's time that we all got together and fixed it.

ON THE COAST

S. Fraser: Speaking of terrible decisions from Ottawa, I rise today to take my place in the debate on Monday morning. Last week, a week ago today, I rose in this House and spoke of a very important issue to coastal British Columbia. I was trying to raise awareness to the federal decision to close Coast Guard stations along the coast of British Columbia. I'm trying to again get non-partisan support from both sides of the House to do everything we can to fight against these very, very dangerous cuts for public safety reasons and for economic development reasons.

I spoke last week of the dangerous and unsupportable decision made by the federal government to close the Kitsilano Coast Guard station. Since then, of course, in the news we've seen lives put at risk and a very fortunate rescue, where a vessel was claimed in the Strait of Georgia, in the Salish Sea. It was a very narrow span of time, and the moons lined up just right in that situation, allowing for a rescue to occur. It could just as easily have turned into a disaster.

[1020]

Losing the Kitsilano Coast Guard station has been a major blow to public safety, mariners' safety all along the coast, and that still needs to be fought.

But I also spoke last week of another major hit to marine safety. The marine communication and traffic services strategically located in Comox and in Ucluelet, my constituency, are slated for closure next. As I mentioned last week, anyone who's been on the waters in British Columbia knows that this is a very, very bad idea — again, made by the federal government.

These sites — just to reflect the statement from last week — monitor for distress calls of vessels, everything from pleasure craft and tour boats to fully laden tankers and freighters. They're like a marine 911 service. They're for emergency calls. They also provide…. Certainly, they do the traffic control, if you will, for the entire coast, and a busy coast it is. So they're a vital safety link. They provide weather information. They know what's going on right on the water.

The very idea of closing these local stations will put more lives at risk. We need to do everything in this House to protect the lives of British Columbians, whether that's from natural disasters or whether it's from very, very bad federal decisions. We have to take this on with vigour, and we have to do it in a non-partisan way.

When I spoke of the issues in Ucluelet, which I mentioned is in my constituency — a wonderful community on the west coast of Vancouver Island — the idea that they would close down that marine communication and traffic centre…. It is on what is known as the Graveyard of the Pacific.

Now, it is called the Graveyard of the Pacific because of so many lives lost over centuries. The West Coast Trail, which many people know as a tourist attraction in the Pacific Rim National Park, actually was created just south of Ucluelet. That trail, ending in Bamfield and Huu-ay-aht territory, was actually created because there were enough shipwrecks, enough survivors making it to shore and then succumbing to the elements and dying. The trail was deemed as a necessary escape route, if you will, for those many mariners unfortunate enough to be shipwrecked — and actually surviving.

That just tells you the numbers of people that have been affected by the dangerous Graveyard of the Pacific, the west coast — overseen right now, fortunately, by the Amphitrite Point Ucluelet Coast Guard station. To shut these things down will set us back centuries in safety.
[ Page 13430 ]

The idea from the federal government is that this will somehow miraculously be taken up by two centres — only two centres for the entire coast of British Columbia — and that remote monitoring will be able to replace Ucluelet and Comox. On the Salish Sea, the Strait of Georgia, the Comox centre is the eyes and ears for that entire body of water and a massive amount of marine traffic there. Again, these are experts that have local knowledge, and it is essential.

I would like to throw a few comments from residents from Ucluelet who have seen the spectre of the closure of this centre next, following the devastating closure of the Kitsilano centre. This is from Susan Payne. She's the chamber of commerce manager. She said: "Any large loss of jobs is going to affect our economic stability because you don't have those people living, working and purchasing in the community."

In a town like Ucluelet not only is this the centre for mariners' safety; it is an essential part of the economy. There are 25 people working at that centre and their families living in the communities. This is a very important economic generator. The mayor in Tofino has made some pretty…. He's called it for what it is. He says: "It was a poor decision, in my mind, from both an economic point of view...." From a safety point of view.... And there was no consultation done with the communities on these closures.

[1025]

I would note that the idea of moving these personnel to Prince Rupert, which is being suggested, as though they can cover the entire coast from one location, just simply doesn't pass any kind of test.

We need to work together. Both sides of the House need to be working in unity with the local mayors — with Mayor Bill Irving, with Mayor John Douglas from Port Alberni. They're embarking on a major endeavour to expand their port capabilities on the west coast, and shutting down the very life-saving support is insane.

R. Cantelon: I think the first thing I'd like to do, if I may…. It's a little peripheral to the topic, but this is the second anniversary of the horrible tragedy, the tsunami in Japan. I think that our hearts go out from both sides of the House that the tragedy befell the poor Japanese people. I think it's certainly a reminder, though, and topical. I don't want to make light of it at all, but the dangers of the sea are very prominent in our minds, as the member opposite has reminded us. So we should be very wary, and we should be prepared.

I'd like to say that I do not disagree with the member opposite from Alberni–Pacific Rim that this is a bipartisan issue. We need to work together. Certainly, the Attorney General on numerous occasions had made representations regarding our objections to the closures of the base and the further compromising of marine safety.

Marine safety must be paramount in the minds of anybody on the coast and of governments, whether it be at the local level, the municipal level, the provincial level or the federal level. We do not disagree that we need to take action — strong action — to make sure that marine safety is ensured.

A good friend of mine was a pilot and made me well aware, as he took the boats out of the Alberni canal, of the risks that ships at sea can fall heir to. It's a very tricky business, and they need to be well trained. But they need the backup and the support of a modern marine safety mechanism monitored by the Coast Guard. We do not agree necessarily that this can be done by remote control. Nothing can duplicate eyes on the water — the network of fishing boats, the network of people involved in the marine industry supporting marine safety.

You can't just remotely do it from some far location. Rupert certainly is on the coast, but who knows where they might move it — maybe next to Winnipeg or some other place. It can't be done by remote control. It can't be done by just GPS. You need eyes on the water.

I was also made very well aware of the plans of the port of Port Alberni — very ambitious plans. They have plans to take in these large mega-super cargo ships that, frankly, they have trouble unloading, more than one or two, in the Port of Vancouver. This is creating an opportunity.

It's a bottleneck but an opportunity for a location such as Port Alberni, where they could act as a transshipping point. There they could — in the safety of the canal, which is certainly secure from any oceanic waters and storms — be very easily unloaded into smaller ships, into smaller carriers, barges, smaller transports and then taken not just to Vancouver but to other ports on the Island — Nanaimo and Victoria and so forth and, also, up and down the coast, to Oregon, to other spots in Washington. We could become a de-porting place for these mega cargo ships coming from Japan and from China. It's a great opportunity.

But I agree with the member opposite that we must be very diligent. If we expect to attract this kind of marine opportunity, this kind of marine traffic, then we have to have the highest standards of public and marine safety on the coast — if we're to attract these major ships coming into our waters.

Therefore, I agree with the member opposite that in a bipartisan way, we have to pursue the most stringent and the highest level of marine safety. That means keeping the bases where they are and not just keeping them but enhancing them and supporting them directly, if we're going to take advantage of these tremendous opportunities.

Certainly, anybody who's been on the water understands and appreciates the vast network — the flotilla, basically — of ships on the water that act in a coordinated way. I think, again, that the knowledge and proximity of the local waters is extremely important and is not to be compromised.

In closing, Madam Speaker, I thank you for the oppor-
[ Page 13431 ]
tunity. I would like to re-emphasize that this is a bipartisan issue and that our minister has made continual and repeated representations to the federal counterparts, recognizing that it is an issue of federal jurisdiction.

[1030]

However, that doesn't remove us from our duty to represent, in a bipartisan way, all the voices of British Columbia. This is something that needs our attention. I would agree that we need to consult locally with individuals about the impacts on community.

This is something that we certainly support and we have. On numerous occasions in this House the Attorney General has spoken about her representations to the federal government.

I see that the Leader of the Opposition is here. I know that they will add their voice to these representations to the federal government to make sure that we can do everything we can to resolve this issue. Public safety — and marine safety — is of the highest priority to the people in British Columbia on the coast.

S. Fraser: Following the rebuttal, the response, from the member for Parksville-Qualicum, I note that we seem to be on the same side with this issue. I've certainly spoken with Mayor John Douglas, from Port Alberni; Mayor Bill Irving, from Ucluelet, of course; and a new mayor, Josie Osborne, in Tofino. They all feel the same way: this is unacceptable. The closure of these Coast Guard stations must not happen.

We're already seeing the dismantling of the Coast Guard station in Kitsilano. This is a very, very dangerous decision. I would note on the second anniversary of the tsunami, as the member for Parksville-Qualicum rightly pointed out, that the only two centres to be left on all of the coast of British Columbia, in Prince Rupert and Victoria, would be within tsunami zones themselves. In the case, for this coast, of the ultimate disaster — a tsunami disaster caused by a massive quake — we may well lose all of our marine communication and traffic abilities on the coast. So this is a very, very bad idea.

Now, while I agree with the member for Parksville-Qualicum on most of his statements, he did say that the Attorney General, responsible for public safety, has been making objections. That has been ineffective. It has not worked. The member said we need to take strong action. That is what is being asked for from this side of the House. When the closure of the Kitsilano Coast Guard station, which is Canada's busiest port, was announced, the Premier did say: "It ain't over." Now that station has been dismantled. So there wasn't enough done.

In May this government turned down an offer from the opposition leader, who is sitting here today, to protest the federal decision through a unified strategy between our parties. That's what needs to be done. That's what hasn't happened. I raised this last week in a non-partisan two-minute member's statement asking again for us to take serious action. The mayors from Ucluelet, Tofino, Port Alberni and Comox — they'll all come to Ottawa on this. Let's do it. Let's not talk about it. Let's do some action. Let's stop these bad decisions in Ottawa, and let's save lives of British Columbians.

THE IMPORTANCE OF
INTERGOVERNMENTAL COOPERATION

D. Horne: I have to say on the last statement, from the last member, that was just debated, how timely the statement is that I put forward this morning: "The importance of intergovernmental cooperation."

I have to say that just before I came to the chamber this morning, I had a meeting with the consul general of Japan, the new consul general who's been here for about a month and a half. The discussion that we had this morning was surrounding, as well, the earthquake and the tsunami and the devastation they've had there, and really, the sincere thanks that Japan has offered British Columbia for the work and the cooperation that we've given over the last two years since the devastating earthquake and tsunami there — the support that we've given and the opportunities that we've provided as a result, in order to support them as they've tried to rebuild.

[1035]

Considerable work has been done, but a lot of work still needs to be done. I think that it really does highlight — as well, as the member was just talking about, the Coast Guard and the station in Vancouver — the importance of different levels of government working together for the common good of those that we all represent.

This is something that I think from time to time we do forget — that it's the same people that elect us all. Whether we run for civic government, whether we run for school board, whether we run for the provincial government or the federal level, it's the same people that are electing us all, and it's the same people that we are all representing. It seems sometimes that when we do talk with different levels of governments and the priorities are slightly different, we forget about those people that we represent and those people that send us to the places that they do to make certain that their goals and their aspirations are achieved.

I think one of the things I'd like to talk about this morning is the Evergreen line, because I think it's an example of when government works well together as well as when government doesn't work so well together. I think we've seen the gambit over time of when governments were at odds and we didn't see progress and, quite frankly, when governments came together for the common good of achieving the results that we all wanted — the Evergreen line being built — how we really in the end achieved the goal that the communities wanted, for all of the advantages that rapid transit delivers to communities.

We now have the Evergreen line being built. Construc-
[ Page 13432 ]
tion is now underway. The main contractor has now been chosen. There's been considerable work done on the line over the last number of months and year. You know, it's a progression.

I think the provincial government, and the leadership role that the provincial government showed over a number of years in completing the engineering work and completing all of the environmental assessment and that work that was required, really got us to a position where I wouldn't say that we were fast-tracked but, quite frankly, we still wouldn't be where we are today, even with the funding, if we hadn't had that work done when we did it. I think that's important.

Another good example, as we move forward with that line, is the additional station since we first had the initial plans for the project announced. We now have a Lincoln station in the town centre area of Coquitlam, the area that I represent, an area that….

I said to some of my colleagues who don't know the area I represent well that we actually have a 43-storey tower under construction. To think that when I was elected not that long ago we had a handful of towers that were around 30 storeys. We now have a 43-storey tower under construction. We now have over 20 towers over 30 storeys that are actually complete, and we have many more underway. So the growth in the town centre has just been absolutely massive and continues.

Quite frankly, having the transit line there, having the Evergreen line there, facilitates that additional growth, facilitates the ability for those people to access our transit line to get downtown, to get to the airport, to get to Surrey and to get to all of the other areas in our region where they may be employed.

Going back to the Lincoln station, I think it's a perfect example of the city of Coquitlam and the federal government working very closely together and collaboratively together to make sure that project got off the ground and make sure that station, which I think is going to be important to the community in the long run, actually got built.

This is the importance of when we do work together and when we collaborate, when we make certain that the needs of the community outweigh sort of our partisan and our different levels of government and how we view the world and how we view that things should move forward. I think that when it is really about the community and what is best for the community, we work very, very well together.

On the Evergreen line as well, there's a headline in the Vancouver Sun today that says the Evergreen line is a threat to affordable housing. This is another example of how we can, working together, actually address these issues, because on the line right now…. As the densification grows, there is concern that many of these three- and four-storey rental units that have been there for years and years — as they are redeveloped into larger towers, into more high density, that the rental housing will go away.

[1040]

One of the issues that really is a barrier in this redevelopment in making certain the rental housing stays there has to do with the federal tax act and how it's treated. The people that own these properties oftentimes sell them off to developers, rather than redeveloping it themselves. Because of the tax treatment, oftentimes they don't. And then when they do, it causes the rental housing to go away.

It's yet another example of how, working together with the different levels of government and making certain that we're not counterproductive to each other and that we're actually achieving the goals that the community wants, in the end we can be very successful. I believe this is yet another example that when we do work together, we can achieve great things.

I think that the last thing on the Evergreen line example is the property taxes in the town centre and how, basically, that was the same issue that they had in Richmond a number of years ago and that by looking at that issue, we were able to achieve it.

C. Trevena: Madam Speaker, I rise to respond, in this private members' portion of our legislative session, to the member for Coquitlam–Burke Mountain, speaking about intergovernmental cooperation. That's the title of his talk.

I was interested to see the shift in discussion from intergovernmental cooperation, very importantly, on the meeting with the consul general of Japan down to the very local issues that affect us all and the importance of the Evergreen line.

Obviously, this is going to be significant for people in his constituency and across the Lower Mainland, I believe. The possibility of having an integrated transit system really is going to be very beneficial for the community. It's been a long time coming, so I can understand why the member is very enthusiastic and using his opportunity in this private members' statement to talk about that particular intergovernmental cooperation.

But I think that it's very interesting, as well, to reflect on the lack of cooperation that we often see between the different levels of government — the member quite rightly said that we are all elected by the same people, whether it is municipal, the school board, us provincially or our federal counterparts — and the importance that we are all representing the same people and, hopefully, pushing the best interests of our constituents, whether it is at the municipal level, the transit level or at a higher level.

I think what we have seen over the last few years is a lack of cooperation in many cases. There is a sense of either conflict or, more often, what we have seen, particularly over the last few years with the present government, which is: "Let's sit back. Let's not actually do anything that's going to rock the boat with our federal counter-
[ Page 13433 ]
parts because we're happy in the situation we're in."

My colleague from Alberni–Pacific Rim, earlier on this morning, was talking about what's happening with marine safety and our marine traffic with the reduction in the Coast Guard service. We've had the debate in this Legislature about the removal of the Kitsilano Coast Guard and, really, the lack of effective action on the part of this government with their federal counterparts.

On this side of the House we were offering to go jointly to Ottawa to show that this was a bipartisan issue, that we needed to work together on behalf of everybody on the coast — all of our constituents, no matter what party. We were there, wanting to go to Ottawa and push this concern to ensure that we kept the Coast Guard safety…. First was the Kitsilano Coast Guard base and now the marine traffic precautions that my colleague was mentioning. Unfortunately, we have been rebuffed in this, and I think this reflects badly on intergovernmental cooperation.

The Attorney General wrote to her counterpart in Ottawa, and the Premier said that she would "contact folks in Ottawa to let them know that we are concerned." I think if we're talking about significant issues that are non-partisan, they do deserve a better approach, a better cooperation, non-partisan cooperation, to show that, intergovernmentally, we can be effective. We can be effective on behalf of our constituents, on behalf of the people that we represent.

Likewise, we saw last year the whole issue about funding for the RCMP and the need for cooperation there and the need for, again, a strong voice from this Legislature to Ottawa to ensure we got some cooperation from them. But again, I perceived failure.

[1045]

It was like, "We're not going to rock the boat. We don't want to upset things. We will send letters. We won't push it," even though the municipalities were saying that the lack of funding for the RCMP was going to be significant. In the end, we got the Attorney General saying that the deal was good for the municipalities and the only alternative to the contract which was foisted on them would be to establish a municipal police force, although it would be more expensive. This really doesn't speak to representing all our interests in the bigger sphere.

I think there's a lot of intergovernmental cooperation we could achieve. I'm very pleased my colleague across the floor raised this, but I would like to hear, particularly, on the Premier's relationship with the Premier of Alberta. I think this is very significant at the moment on that level of intergovernmental relationship.

D. Horne: I'd like to thank the member for North Island for her comments on my statement this morning. I think that it's important to note that, as she mentioned, the relationship that this government has enjoyed with the federal government over the last number of years actually has been very, very good. We've had some very strong dialogue. You know, a relationship and cooperation isn't necessarily about always agreeing, but having the lines of communication and having the ability to have a constructive dialogue and to understand the difficulties is very, very important.

I note many projects. A good example on the transportation side, since we were talking about transportation on the north coast and the water earlier…. There was a proposal, I believe, some years ago — over ten years ago — by Washington State Ferries to have service out of Prince Rupert, and I know that because of lack of discussion, lack of willingness to sort of have and engage in these types of discussions, that proposal didn't move forward.

Obviously, I think that would have been a significant advantage to those that live in Prince Rupert and, quite frankly, more strategically to the province overall in our ability to continue to build upon our transportation, to build upon our trade and to be able to build upon those things that build economic growth and prosperity for the province of British Columbia.

I'd like to end and talk more about local, as I have been before. One of the other issues that I think is important from our governance standpoint is to talk about some of the relationships with our school boards as well. I note that at the beginning, when I was elected, I felt it was very important to build a strong relationship with our local school board and to be able to have a very constructive dialogue and move things forward. I think that type of relationship as well has achieved many new schools in my local area.

We're now in the position where we're moving forward on the Burke Mountain elementary school in my area. We have built a number of other schools. And it's by that cooperation, by working together, that I think we've been successful in doing that and in achieving many, many new schools — expansion to Bramblewood, a brand-new Glen Elementary and many other new schools in my local area. So I see that as very positive.

I think, on another note…. Madam Speaker, you'll appreciate this — it's close to home for you as well — and that is working together on the transportation front. As I end up, as I've been talking about the Evergreen line — but also the extension of the United Boulevard. There were some federal dollars there, and all of the parties were working fairly well together. There was a little bit of a breakdown, and it didn't work out so well, but it's now moving forward.

ACCESS TO B.C.
POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION

M. Mungall: Well, it's interesting. The previous topic that we were talking about flows very well into the topic that I wanted to bring up today, and that is access to post-secondary education. I'm speaking most specifically to-
[ Page 13434 ]
day about our international students.

[1050]

I think in B.C. there's no question the extent to the benefits that international students bring to our campuses. Not only do we have campuses with an incredible diversity that enriches the learning experience for all students, whether they're from here in Canada or from Japan or Germany or Ukraine, wherever they are in the world, the fact is that they can come together here in British Columbia and learn on campuses like at Thompson Rivers University, at UBC, SFU, Douglas College. Every single campus has an international student population and an international student strategy to increase their numbers for international students.

In fact, the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada released a report, earlier in 2011, I believe, and in that report it stated that international students in Canada will only increase by about 14 percent by 2020. Regardless of various goals that exist throughout the province or throughout the country and, in particular, here in B.C., I think the point to be made here is that we have room to grow our international student population.

But no matter what plan we have to do that, the first point of entry to make it possible is visas, is for students to be able to get their visa to study abroad, here in Canada.

An important component of that, of course, to make that happen…. With the federal government being responsible for visa applications and visa offices and the provincial government being responsible primarily for post-secondary education, there needs to be some intergovernmental cooperation on this front as we make a plan for international students' access to our post-secondary institutions.

Therefore, part of that plan ought to be advocacy to maintain visa offices in places where we do see a high population of international students coming from — like Japan, which unfortunately lost their visa office that, of course, handled visas for students, just over a year ago. Well, the news came out in January that Japan wasn't the only place where there is a large international student population in Canada that lost its office — but actually, Korea as well. Korea's office was closed on January 28 of this year, putting all applications through Manila, which is the same place that's dealing with applications for Japan, Bangladesh and several other Asian countries as well.

Then, what we saw happen in the fall of this year was students getting ready to go to school for September, and they couldn't because of the delay in the processing of their student visa applications. One hundred students set for UBC alone could not get to class on time in September, not because they slept in but because they couldn't even set their foot on Canadian soil to go to school. What did UBC say? Because those visa offices had been closed, the delays that resulted prohibited these young people from starting their programs on time.

The point here is that we've already seen this type of closure negatively impact B.C.'s international student population and its plan to increase its international student population with what happened with the closure of the Japanese office. We see that this is likely going to happen again with the Korean office.

Korea is the third-largest home country for international students here in B.C. Another way to put that is it's the third-largest source country for international students here in British Columbia. So it's a very significant location, and the provincial government recognized that by having part of its trade office do outreach to students in Korea so that they knew about the opportunities here in British Columbia and would be attracted to coming to school here and doing their post-secondary education here.

The unfortunate reality is that the federal government has closed this office, the visa office, and that's going to ultimately have a negative impact on British Columbia as a whole and its desire to increase its international student population.

Coming back to this broader issue and to the previous topic of international government cooperation, now, more than ever, we need to see a strong step towards better intergovernmental cooperation on this particular issue so that we can see these visa offices reopen.

[1055]

The federal government says it's a cost measure on one hand and says it's not a cost measure on the other hand. We need to be clear. We need to know what's going on, and we need to do our very best here in British Columbia to advocate for the reopening of these offices.

The benefits have been proven time and time again. They are well documented when it comes to international education. If we're going to give international students the opportunity to access our incredible system here in British Columbia, we need to start with step 1. That's making sure that they have the documentation, the visas they need, so that come September the only reason that they might be late for class is because they slept in.

I hope that we can see a collective action in British Columbia to that end. I look forward to hearing what other members have to say on this issue.

M. Coell: I'm pleased to add some comments on international students to the member for Nelson-Creston. I heartily agree with her comments that international students bring diversity into our education system, not only in the colleges and universities but also high schools throughout British Columbia. I think, though, that one of the most important things that we can do is to create the spaces for them here.

During the first 12 years of our government I was honoured to be the Minister of Advanced Education for four of those years. What we saw was the development of
[ Page 13435 ]
spaces in all of our facilities — whether they be the trade schools, colleges, the universities, the research universities — so that the international students had places to come, as well as our own students.

That has been building. To do that, we spent approximately $2 billion on infrastructure. We were talking about international cooperation and cooperation between governments. Our federal government was very much a part of a lot of those projects that we developed on all of the campuses to create the spaces, to create the physical buildings to put those students in.

I'm going to give a couple examples where international students were valued and brought into the system. One is in nursing, where we doubled the number of spaces for nurses. Plus, we took nursing opportunities in each of the colleges and universities and increased them throughout the province so that international students would have a place to come in the province, whether they wanted to come to Vancouver or to Kelowna or to Kamloops or to Vancouver Island. And we have jobs for those people. We have jobs for our students that get out. All the graduates from Camosun and UVic in nursing, whether they be international students or our own students, all had places to work on Vancouver Island.

When we say we want to increase the spaces for doctors, for instance…. We have always relied on international doctors to come to British Columbia and to be part of our system. For decades we had not increased the number of doctors that we were training in British Columbia. So we spent approximately $200 million on facilities, developing a new medical school at UVic, a brand-new medical school at UBC, a brand-new medical school at UNBC and one in the Okanagan, where there was just dust and where now there's a small city, UBC Okanagan.

All of those facilities were built with the encouragement for our students and for international students.

I think for international students…. Again, they can come to British Columbia, and they can go to different parts of the province to train, and hopefully, they'll stay there. One of the ideas in having a medical school that was across the province is that people from the north or people from the central part of the province would train there and then stay there.

I think that we've done a lot for building the system, so the system is ready for the students. The system is ready for international students. I think it's important — and I really emphasize what the member for Nelson-Creston said — in developing relationships with the federal government so that we can have their money into our system, have their cooperation when we point out things that we think they need to do to better the system for international students and, again, for our own students.

[1100]

With 35,000 new spaces and $2 billion worth of bricks and mortar for the province, we're ready for international students. We're ready for our students. I think we can all be proud of that as we sit here today.

M. Mungall: I think it's interesting that the previous member spoke about creating spaces. I think it highlights, actually, something that's going on in post-secondary education right now that is definitely going to be having a negative impact on student spaces at post-secondary institutions.

We see that in this budget. We see a cut of 6,000 full-time-equivalents. That's a cut of student spaces in this year's budget. That coincides with a $46 million cut in this year's budget to post-secondary education. Despite the government's assurance that this will not be impacting students, of course, all presidents of all 25 public post-secondary institutions have put it in writing that that expectation is indeed unrealistic.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

Here we have some very specific examples where student spaces are being cut. Just a little while ago in the news, Douglas College had to announce that they had to cut student spaces in their adult basic education program. Camosun College has had to do the same, and so has Capilano University. That's just a few.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Some are also looking at having to cut spaces for English as a second language. The government has decided to offer free tuition, which is great, but not to the extent of the demand.

Who are the people who are accessing these programs? Well, many new Canadians to British Columbia are accessing these programs as their first entry point into post-secondary education. When we talk about student spaces, we have to look at the entire spectrum. The fact is that the current budgetary cuts and the current cuts to full-time-equivalents are actually cutting student spaces.

Most importantly — which is exactly what I brought up in my first point — before students can even consider coming to B.C.'s post-secondary institutions, they need to be able to get that visa. And as the federal government closes those visa offices, we are inhibiting international students' access to our post-secondary system.

We need to be working with the federal government to get those visa offices back open so that they can work with our trade offices in those very countries — like Korea, like Japan — and work to improve access to our post-secondary system and work to support international students coming to B.C. to enrich our post-secondary opportunities for all British Columbians, for all people accessing.

When we have that international population, we have an international focus and we have a rich diversity of
[ Page 13436 ]
cultures that always, always enhances the learning experience.

Hon. M. Polak: I call Motion 12.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, the unanimous consent of the House is required to proceed with Motion 12 without disturbing the priorities of the motions preceding it on the order paper.

Leave granted.

Private Members' Motions

MOTION 12 — HYDRAULIC FRACTURING

P. Pimm: Hon. Speaker, I'm very happy to get up and speak to this motion.

[Be it resolved that this Legislature support hydraulic fracturing in British Columbia.]

I spoke about the LNG a couple of weeks ago and how important it's going to be to our future. I just want to follow up on that and, you know, find out what the position of this government and any future government is going to be on hydraulic fracturing.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

Unconventional gas has changed the way that we do drilling, the way that we've found so much natural gas in the last few years, but hydraulic fracturing is not something that is new. It's something that has happened for years and years. In fact, in the 1950s we started drilling wells in the northeastern part of the province, and we've been fracturing those wells ever since. And it's debatable as to how many fractures have actually been done, but it's somewhere between 175,000 and 300,000, depending on which report you get to look at. Certainly, there has been an awful lot of hydraulic fracturing that has been done over the years.

[1105]

I just kind of want to go back and touch a little bit…. Right today we generate about three BCF or three billion cubic feet of natural gas. That's how much all of the northeast puts into the pipelines going south to heat your communities, to power your communities and to be part of the economic advantage of the provinces.

What we've done since 2007 to 2012 is produced about 1.2 billion cubic feet of natural gas under the new regime, the shale gas. Prior to that, we had about two BCF in the line on average. With horizontal drilling, now about 85 to 90 percent of all the drilling is going to have horizontal fracturing in it. Certainly, we are going to be producing a fairly substantial amount of natural gas.

With the LNG, the opportunities are huge. Obviously, we've got about four plants, projects that are looking like they are going to go forward at this point in time. We've got Kitimat LNG, the BG Group, LNG Canada, Pacific NorthWest — that's the Petronas and Progress Energy opportunities.

All of these plants are going to have what they call trains in each plant. Now, I know that's a little hard to understand, what that means. But I'll relate it back to…. We had two major gas plants in our region, the McMahon gas plant in Taylor and the gas plant in Fort Nelson. Each one of those plants was huge. They put about 750 million cubic feet of natural gas through those gas plants.

Each one of these trains is going to produce or have the ability to put the same amount of gas through each train as the McMahon gas plant in Taylor. That was all the gas we took from the Fort St. John area, and that was all the gas that came through that plant — very similar to what the Fort Nelson gas plant put through at the time.

If we have these four gas plants, we're going to have anywhere from one to two trains on startup that they're going to need. That means we're going to have to have somewhere between six to seven billion additional cubic feet of natural gas over the next five to seven years if, in fact, we're going to have these plants ready by 2020.

It means that we're going to have to drill. It means that we're going to have to frack, obviously, as part of that drilling process. I just want to understand where everybody is at on this as I go through. There are different areas, and at different times I've seen comments that don't really make it real clear to me.

The Energy critic. I'll just quickly…. A couple of comments from him. He says: "Yes, we've been fracking in British Columbia for a long time — a long, long time; decades, in fact — and we do it fairly well. I've been to a number of frack sites, and I'm comfortable with the technology." That's what he said in June of '12.

Then again in October of the same year, talking about a moratorium on fracking, he says: "I wouldn't rule it out if the evidence is we need to do it. But I haven't seen that evidence yet, and that's why we need to have a scientific assessment."

My question to him is: what is your scientific assessment going to actually look at? Are you going to have a moratorium on that scientific assessment until it gets done, or are you going to continue? At present we have the OGC, which is our regulator. They do a fantastic job on regulating. The industry has come out, and they have been supportive of looking at it, and I'm certain they will be in the future.

R. Fleming: Thank you to the member for putting this motion on the floor for debate this morning in private members' time.

It's interesting. I suspect there will be some points of agreement between both sides of the House this morning. But I'm sure that they will be…. Perhaps the din of debate will overshadow some of them. But really, I think
[ Page 13437 ]
there is broad recognition with regards to hydraulic fracturing that we do have a mature industry here in British Columbia.

I think also what's more important — and I put this to the government side of the House — and what we have broad agreement on in British Columbia is that the industry is important and so are our environment and our water supply. British Columbians don't believe it's a trade-off that's worth making, and they don't believe they should be put in that position as a province. We'd be making a fool's choice if we were to view this debate as between fracking and having a clean water supply in British Columbia, and we reject that viewpoint.

[1110]

I want to thank the member additionally for putting this debate on the floor of the Legislature this morning, because something happened that is significant in the United States, to the south of us, last week which I think is very instructive for British Columbians to look at. That was a deal, a legislative package of reforms that protect the environment and regulate the industry in the state of Illinois.

This was not an easy discussion or package of legislative reforms that's before the Illinois state legislature. It wasn't easily arrived at. It took months of discussion, and it took leadership in a bipartisan way from members of that state legislature to get environmental groups and the industry to sit down. But what there was there — and I think this exists in British Columbia — was an interest on behalf of industry and on behalf of environmental organizations and rural residents in the state of Illinois to sit down and have that discussion.

One side wanted to prove that its industry best practices were safe and that they were looking at the concerns that the other side had. Rural residents of Illinois and environmentalists wanted to make sure that their lifestyle would not be destroyed, that the investments they'd made in their farms and businesses would not end and that their land and water wouldn't become polluted. You know what? They got to a place where they now have comprehensive legislation that will make Illinois the best-regulated state in the United States. They will continue to have a natural gas industry in that state.

In British Columbia we want to have a natural gas industry for decades to come. It's an important fuel to transition British Columbia and the world to a low-carbon economy. We need to make sure that the social licence to fracture gas and to ship gas and to use gas in this province is supported by First Nations people, by residents in the areas where the shale gas plays exist and by our potential customers who will want to buy B.C. gas internationally.

That's what we need to be doing in this province, and we see no leadership of that sort or acknowledgment of the very real and legitimate concerns that British Columbians have from the other side of the House, from the government side.

We have a plan on this side of the House that we have advanced that has four specific actions. One of them is to begin immediately by appointing an expert panel to look at all of the various environmental and social licence concerns around fracking. There are so many luminary British Columbians who could bring an objective lens and a scientific background to this task. I'm sure the government and the opposition might be able to agree on a common list of who should do that.

That is work that needs to be done, because going forward, the concerns are not going to go away about water in British Columbia, whether it's wasted, whether it's disposed of safely — all of those things. So we'd better get a handle on it and have an independent, objective outcome from that review.

That, by the way, is something the natural gas industry supports as well. They know that it's not going to be the public taking their word. They know they need to work with residents and environmentalists and government to give those kinds of assurances that British Columbians demand.

The second thing we need to do is look at a better water licensing regime. For a government that brags that it wants a one-window and one-process system to land management, they now have two different permitting agencies for water use in the same watershed. They have companies that are circumventing the environmental assessment regulations for their withdrawals by getting under the 10,000-cubic-metre daily threshold. They will have two or three pipelines in the same watershed.

Talk about cumulative effects. That's not going to stand the test of time. That's a regulatory gap that needs to be examined and potentially filled with something better. The water stewardship branch of the Ministry of Environment might be a better place to put both licensing and permitting in one place, which will make it easier for industry to understand.

Madam Speaker, there are other reforms. This is an important debate, and I thank you for the time this morning to speak to this issue.

J. Rustad: I'm very pleased to actually rise on this motion today and talk about this, because this is really talking about a lot of the economic future of British Columbia.

British Columbia's economy, of course, is vast. It has many different things. But the natural gas sector is a critical component to our future. It's a critical component to government revenue. It's a critical component in terms of jobs, and, of course, of the potential for a prosperity fund and, ultimately, elimination of our debt.

What concerns me, which is why I'm so happy that this motion is brought forward, are statements like this. "Quebec has a moratorium on shale gas exploration extraction. It's a model worth following." Thomas Mulcair, from the Telegraph-Journal, December 9, 2011.
[ Page 13438 ]

[1115]

Of course, Thomas Mulcair is their supreme leader of the NDP across the nation. All of them are members of the federal party, and that's what they brought forward.

The other concern I want to bring forward is this. Here's another quote. "I think that we need to stop fracking, hold that level where it is until we do those studies and then decide what a safe way to proceed is." That's George Heyman from October 18, 2012. Of course, he is their candidate in Vancouver-Fairview.

It's clear that their side seems to like this idea of doing a study, maybe putting the brakes on the industry. Or maybe not putting the brakes on the industry. I see that the member for Juan de Fuca is shaking his head around putting the brakes on, even though he adds fuel to the fire with his quote that was mentioned earlier.

The point is this. The industry has had — what? — $56 billion in capital in natural gas in the sector since 2001. If there is uncertainty that is brought forward, even if it's for a year or two while studies are done, while who knows what may come of it — whether it's just another one of those things that they say, like on the Enbridge pipeline, "Look, let's do our own study, but we're not going to allow it to go ahead" — that kind of uncertainty says to the industry: We better not put a lot more money into this at this stage until it's done.

That is a window, then, of lost opportunity on our LNG. It's that kind of uncertainty that, quite frankly, we can't have in this province and we shouldn't have in this province. We've had 175 to 300,000 fracks in B.C. with not one single problem. We have 600 metres of steel encasement and concrete to make sure that there is no potential for anything to come back into our water supply, which is taken from anywhere from…. Eight metres to maybe down 150 metres is what, typically, you would go after for domestic supply.

They're drilling saline water from 1,000 metres below surface, pumping that up and using that to help with their water supply. They're developing liquid nitrogen as an alternative to help minimize the amount of water that they're using. The point of all of this is that uncertainty is what could potentially kill the opportunity of a lifetime that we have here in British Columbia.

That is why I'm happy that this motion comes forward and why I'd say this. If the opposition is not interested in putting on a moratorium, if they support fracking, don't get up and speak, and let's vote. Let's just vote now. That way, they can stand on record and show their support. But Madam Speaker, you know as well as I do that they won't. They'll weasel around this in their talking. They'll have their ways of trying to say that…. They're one foot on one side of the fence, one foot on the other side, saying: "Well, we're worried about the fracking, but you know, we're okay with it going ahead."

That's the kind of uncertainty that killed the mining industry under the NDP in the '90s, and that is the kind of indecision that hurt our forest industry in the 1990s, and it's the kind of indecision that we cannot afford on May 14 coming forward. So I'm happy….

Thank you very much for bringing this motion forward. We should be supporting fracking, yes. We should be doing science around it. But at the same time, we need to make sure that we support this industry going forward and that we have the opportunity of a lifetime to make a real difference for our children and for the province of British Columbia.

M. Elmore: I'm very pleased to rise and speak on the motion before the House, recognizing that B.C. has a longstanding natural gas industry. It's an important component, a big part of B.C.'s economy and certainly will play an important role in the future. I think both sides of the House are in agreement with that.

The case I want to put forward is that we're seeing a lack of leadership from the government that is putting in danger and jeopardizing the future success of the industry. There were references of….

It's a bit of a curious debate in terms of the role of fracking in the industry. I don't know if we're now going to be debating the…. Are we going to debate going back to the horse and buggy versus cars and internal combustion engines? I don't think that's the debate. The point is that we need leadership in this industry, and there are important concerns that many organizations, environmental groups, communities, farmers and landowners have raised.

[1120]

We need to address those concerns, bring them into the process, and ensure that all stakeholders have input to raise their concerns and also that industry is seen. They also want to be part of the process in creating that social licence that was referenced in terms of ensuring that the industry continues to be successful.

That's why the NDP has advocated a four-point action plan to deal with these concerns and to take the industry into the future as we are looking to transition to a sustainable low-carbon economy and recognizing the need for responsible development of our energy sources and of our great, vast reserves of natural gas that we have.

The four-point action plan addresses, I think, the inaction and the lack of leadership of the provincial government. The first, as stated, was the need for a comprehensive review, an ongoing review to engage all the stakeholders who have concerns, who have interests so that they are able to have their concerns addressed — to consult with First Nations, with citizens in the area, with communities and local governments as well as industry and environmental groups to work together.

Additionally, an important point is to integrate concerns around climate action and the impacts of greenhouse gas emissions. This is one area that is not adequately addressed in terms of the industry. You can take the point on the one hand that it's easier just not to deal with those
[ Page 13439 ]
concerns, but the reality is that it's a pressing concern in British Columbia. It's a legitimate concern.

British Columbians have stated that they are very concerned about climate action, and there is a need to integrate in a comprehensive way the greenhouse gas emissions that are generated in part of our natural gas industry. We need to address that.

As well, there has to be a better job done in terms of managing water resources and the use of water. The current system in place is not doing an adequate job. There needs to be a review to ensure that our water resources are being adequately managed.

We've seen inaction by the government, the B.C. Liberal government, and it has been disappointing that the water sustainability act — which was promised and would have been a step in the right direction to respond to current and future pressures on water and really put B.C. in a leadership position in water stewardship — hasn't been enacted. There is an outstanding concern around water management.

Finally, there is a need to address legitimate concerns of landowners and farmers in the region who gain their livelihood working the land and obviously have legitimate questions in terms of managing how land issues come into play when they interact with the natural gas sector. So there needs to be funding — and that's one of our goals — to support the Farmers' Advocacy Office to ensure that landowners and farm owners have a role to play.

M. Dalton: I stand in support of this motion: "Be it resolved that this Legislature support hydraulic fracturing in British Columbia." I was just listening to the member for Vancouver-Kensington. What I was hearing was, you know, a little initial, "Yeah, we'll support it," but then all I heard was: "We need to review; we have concerns." It sounds like brakes. That's what I'm hearing — brakes from the NDP side.

Fracking is an integral part of natural gas extraction, and natural gas is a core aspect, foundational, for British Columbia's economy. Since 2001 there has been $56 billion in capital invested by the petroleum sector in the industry, and just last year alone there was three-quarters of a billion dollars that was put into general revenues. That's actually down from $2½ billion at the peak. So there's a real need to move forward.

[1125]

This is not just an industry that is way up in the north; it impacts us here locally. No matter where you live in British Columbia, it impacts and benefits our health care, our education system, our infrastructure. Those are the essential revenues, and we all benefit. If we choke this industry through all our concerns and all these reviews — those are important, as far as our environment — then we will all suffer.

My concern, certainly, is with the NDP's ambivalent position on fracking: study it more, foot-dragging. The fact of the matter is that there has been fracking for five decades or more in British Columbia, and we're world leaders. The NDP position worries me. It's similar to their position on resource extraction in general.

It was mentioned — mining. Last year we had $650 million in mining exploration. That's $650 million just in exploration alone, versus the last year that the NDP was in, when it was $25 million. As a matter of fact, last year, just in mining exploration, it equalled the total amount of money that was invested in exploration for the whole period that the NDP was in. Why do I mention this? It's because it applies to resource extraction. It's the same philosophy. It's the philosophy that we're speaking of.

We are dependent upon access to natural gas for both the product and the power source. We have a tremendous, tremendous opportunity with LNG facilities in the northwest. We need to seize this opportunity, and it takes energy. I say that both figuratively and literally. We've got competition with Australia, with Qatar, with China, with Russia. We need to move forward quickly — not put the brakes on, but put the gas on.

There are thousands of jobs, both in construction and long-term, with natural gas and the LNG. There are many people that work here. In the constituency that I represent, when I go door to door and I'm in the community, I meet people that actually have their jobs up north. Then they come back, and they pay their mortgage. It could be up north in Fort McMurray, Alberta or in Fort St. John. They pay local taxes. They benefit, and we all benefit. I met one lady. She's a flag lady, and she said she makes $100,000 to $150,000 alone, just in her position. There are opportunities.

My son was just accepted for law school here in Victoria, and he works up north. In the past two-and-a-half years he has been up north, and he has actually saved enough money to pay for it. I'm very glad for him, and I'm very glad for me.

So there are opportunities we're speaking of. We're talking about the future of British Columbia. It's not just pie in the sky. It's something that we need to take action on and not delay more and more. That seems to be the vision I'm hearing from over there.

Up north they have had their challenges, whether it be in Kitimat or in Prince Rupert. They've had economic challenges. This is a tremendous opportunity, having LNG facilities. But LNG facilities don't just happen. They need, obviously, natural gas. And natural gas doesn't happen unless it has…. In British Columbia, our main source for that is through fracking.

You know, it's fine for the opposition to say: "We're for LNG, but we have a problem with fracking." It's like saying: "We're for fishing, but we're against nets." Or: "We're for forestry, but we don't want trees cut." Or for hydroelectric power: "We just don't want dams built or run-of-the-river projects." So it's a tremendous disconnect. I'm in support of this.
[ Page 13440 ]

D. Donaldson: I'm happy to rise today to speak to this motion, and I appreciate the member for Peace River North introducing it. It's on fracking. Perhaps he didn't get the message through to a couple of his colleagues on the other side. They seem to want to talk about mining. I have to tell them that fracking is not part of mining, so there's a basic understanding that seems to be lost there.

It's an important topic, because the Premier has not addressed northern B.C. residents' concerns regarding community and environmental impacts related to the proposed massive expansion of natural gas production. People are worried, and it's no wonder they're worried. There's no trust in this government when it comes to environmental monitoring, when it comes to the ability to have an inventory on the land base, when it comes to even knowing or being able to judge their efforts in biodiversity.

[1130]

These are all what the Auditor General has pointed out in reports in the last year and a half. We need a rational discussion for the public trust to be restored and for industry to have some certainty.

We have some suggestions for that, and I'll try to get to those in the short time I have here. In 2012, 86 percent of the 476 wells drilled in the northeast used fracking. There are some very good rules around that. Metal casing pipe needs to be used. Cementing around the casing is used to ensure the isolation of fracking fluid from groundwater.

I met recently, with some colleagues on this side of the House, with politicians and administrators from the Northern Rockies municipal district, and they pointed out that these regulations are very high standards — compared, for instance, to the United States, where some of the cementing around the casings is not required.

Of course, unlike some other jurisdictions, the drilling in the northeast for natural gas, the fracking, is many kilometres below the surface, and the aquifers, generally, in the northeast are only 18 to 150 metres below the surface. The importance of natural gas to the economy is not lost on this side of the House, and we recognize how important that is.

Fracking has been used in the province for a long time and for many years. But the expansion is what is at issue here, and the public trust around that expansion. We need to ensure that that public trust is there, so we have some suggestions in order for that to be achieved. One of them is to appoint an expert panel to conduct a broad public review of fracking, including public hearings and consultations with First Nations, local communities, industry, environmental groups and citizens.

What might this panel hear once convened? Part of what they might hear is that the inspections in the oil and gas sector by the Oil and Gas Commission last year were reduced by 15 percent compared to the year before. That does nothing for public trust.

If these public hearings that we're suggesting and this public panel that we suggest are convened, they also might hear that last year there were 800 instances of non-compliance that the Oil and Gas Commission found in the oil and gas sector. A lot of these had to do with non-reporting of water volumes under the Water Act, and many of them had to do with increased water demand and contamination issues. It's what was investigated most frequently.

You know, the questions remain around that information and what the 800 incidences are and what the companies are which are responsible and the details of the violations. The Oil and Gas Commission will not release that kind of information, and that's what the public panel might be hearing from — people who come to bear testimony in front of it.

Other ministries do. The Minister of Environment releases these kind of details. WorkSafe B.C., a Crown corporation, releases these kinds of details. It's all about increasing public trust. This expert panel could do that and bring more certainty not only to communities and First Nations but to the industry as well.

We also are suggesting immediate changes to protect B.C.'s water resources. We know that fracking uses an incredible amount of water. I've visited the northeast. I've seen the trucks lined up at the Peace River 24-7. I've seen the standpipes in every farmer's field to provide water for the fracking industry.

What we've seen from the Liberal government is foot-dragging on the introduction of the water sustainability act, something that they said they would do. We only have one chance to get this right. I say we do it through the suggestions I've said.

R. Hawes: It's my pleasure to stand and join in this debate. Of course, I'm speaking in favour of the motion. It's an interesting debate. When I listen to the members on the opposite side, what I'm hearing is: "Let's really, basically, stop the industry. Let's take a good look, but we'll stop them when we take a good look." I'm hearing the member for Victoria–Swan Lake say: "You know, it's a choice — water or fracking." Water or fracking? That's not the choice.

[1135]

I think it has been said here this morning that the industry has been fracking for perhaps 50 years without, really, any serious incident. It's done well in British Columbia. In fact, in the States…. It was mentioned about Illinois earlier, but even the members of the opposite side say that the regulation here is much more strenuous than it is in parts of the United States.

The industry has been fracking without serious incident for 50 years. But I think the key here is that the confidence of the sector that will invest in the drilling that takes place, which is extremely expensive…. They don't do that unless they have a pretty solid idea that they have a future and that they can get a return on their
[ Page 13441 ]
investment.

Some years ago there were actually records set in leases that were let to the industry in the northeast sector. Now they're working those. They're working those leases. They're drilling, and the only reason that they would drill is because there is a need. They see the need for the resource in the future.

Recently there was some of the upper-level management from Alliance Pipeline, which has a pipeline that runs through to the United States, through Chicago. It's a gas pipeline. They were here. They're not doing any drilling in the northeast sector. But in talking to them, they said: "Nobody would drill if there wasn't a need. It's just too expensive." So if there's a need, we really need to fill that need. That's No. 1.

Number 2, when we start talking, as the previous member did, about public panels…. Well, to be honest, I know very little about the science of hydraulic fracturing, as I'm sure 95 percent of the people sitting in this Legislature and probably 95 percent of the public know nothing about. To consult with people and get their ideas that really aren't based on science — I don't think that that's really going to advance anything.

The industry, though, is very much in favour of having an independent scientific examination of their industry. The reason is because they know that if it is scientific, the result is going to say that there's absolutely no harm to the environment done by what they're doing, the way that they're conducting their business today.

What really wouldn't work would be to get all of the environmental community, who are always up in arms anyway, to get the public involved and, more importantly, to get the NDP involved. The NDP, as we have already seen, given the Enbridge situation…. Let's have a public debate, but the answer, no matter what happens from that debate, will be no. We all know that, and they've been saying that for months.

If we really want to create uncertainty in the industry, if we really want to stop investment in the northeast part of this province, let the NDP, then, get into a place where they can call for this public inquiry that will stop the industry, will stop investment, will kill jobs and, really, will return the northeast sector back to where it was in the part of the 1990s, certainly some of the 1970s, where there was really tough, tough times, tough to get jobs there.

Hydraulic fracturing is actually a good thing for us to be doing. The actual fracturing is done, I believe, at a depth of 2 kilometres, perhaps, below the surface — very, very deep, well away from any water tables that could get contaminated. As I think the members have recognized, the cementing that's done is done in a way that doesn't allow the leakage back and the contamination of water tables.

We are doing the right thing in British Columbia today, and a scientific review would reveal that. If we want to include the environmental community, the public and the NDP, that's when we'll shut down the industry.

R. Austin: I'm delighted to take my place in this motion with regards to fracking, and I'd like to follow on from some of the comments from the member for Abbotsford-Mission. He was mentioning there the 1990s, and I think it's very interesting that in the 1990s it was the regulatory regime. It was the Oil and Gas Commission. It was the system that the NDP put in place that actually has led to the boom in the oil and gas industry that has served us well over the last 12 years in bringing extra revenue and in creating jobs.

[1140]

Now, as the MLA who represents Kitimat and an important part of the northwest that has the potential for new LNG expansion, I think it's important for me to stand up and express what I'm hearing in the community. Naturally, after the kind of economic decline that the northwest has gone through over the last 12 years under this government, they are very encouraged at the sign that there is potential for new LNG facilities in Kitimat.

Even though it's an industrial town, designed, of course, around an aluminum smelter…. People there are used to industry. They are used to heavy industry. But here's the interesting thing about people who live in the area. They also understand the importance of environmental protection in spite of the fact that they have a very important industry.

They are looking forward to the idea, the notion, that perhaps in the years to come a big decision will be made that might include an LNG plant in Kitimat. But they also want to make sure, as citizens who care about the world that they live in, about what happens at the other end of that pipe. So let's get to fracking.

As many people have discussed in this motion, we have moved from conventional gas to unconventional gas, which means to shale gas finds. I believe my colleague mentioned that about 85 percent of all of our gas that is shipped across British Columbia now comes from unconventional gas, thus requiring hydraulic fracturing.

Here are some of the issues that people in my community want to know are taken care of. They want to ensure that the water that is used for fracking doesn't come and seep into any people's drinking water or affect those who are farming in the northeast. They want to make sure that the amount of water that's used is appropriate.

I think that's something that we have in common with the governing side. It's my understanding that over the last two or three years they spoke very, very frequently about upgrading the Water Act — a sustainable Water Act. Unfortunately, they talked about it but never did it. I think it's an important part of looking into the hydraulic fracturing process to ensure that we do update all of this legislation in regards to how we use our water and who gets to benefit from it. It is a public resource.
[ Page 13442 ]

Secondly, of course, people in my neck of the woods want to ensure that the chemicals that are used in the fracturing process are available for everybody to see. People have mentioned that it's important to have social licence.

I was at the LNG conference a week last Monday in Vancouver. There were several panels. One of the things that was pointed out was that the Oil and Gas Commission here in British Columbia has taken a lead in ensuring that all of the information in terms of what kinds of chemicals are used in the fracturing process is, in fact, on their website.

Well, the majority of British Columbians are still asking these questions, perhaps because they're not even aware that some of this has already been taken upon themselves by the Oil and Gas Commission. So we need to make sure that British Columbians are aware of these facts.

That is why we have said that it's very important to have an expert panel come out and look at every single aspect of hydraulic fracturing. We need to have the confidence. People in British Columbia need to have a confidence so that when they hear statements which may seem outrageous or statements that look at other regions of the world which have a completely different geology than the northeast and then they go: "Oh my goodness, if that's happening in France, maybe we're going to have earthquakes here in the northeast…."

Well, no. We have a very different geology here, but people need to know that. If we can have a panel that looks at every single aspect of hydraulic fracturing — that looks at the water use, at the chemicals, at the geology and also looks at the effect it has on our greenhouse gas emissions…. If we can have a panel of experts — not politicians; real people who understand these issues — and have inclusion from First Nations, from communities, that is the way for the industry to get absolute certainty and to know that it's moving in a way that British Columbians will continue to support.

As people on both sides of this House will agree, it is extremely important, as an industry that is bringing large amounts of revenue to the coffers here in British Columbia, that we support that.

J. Les: I'm very happy this morning to briefly participate in this debate, which I think is very, very important for the future of the province of British Columbia.

[1145]

As I sat and listened to the debate this morning, the only conclusion I could come to was that the opposition's position on this issue is very fractured. They seem to imply from time to time that, yes, they're in favour — some, obviously, less so. But the common thread through all of that is the usual NDP position of: "Yes, but…."

This is an opportunity for British Columbia where we need to move forward. This is an industry that in British Columbia can readily be considered to be a mature industry. We've been doing this for four or five decades in British Columbia. What is being proposed here is a significant expansion of this industry for the benefit not only for British Columbians today but certainly for British Columbians in the future.

The questions that I hear members opposite raise are simply to imply that there are large public policy questions still to be addressed, when in fact, they already have been addressed. The member from Terrace and Kitimat just pointed out that, in fact, a lot of those answers are already publicly available. The implication that is often left by members opposite that those questions haven't even been addressed, never mind the information made publicly available, serves only one purpose. That is to slow everything down.

Slowing down at this point in developing this opportunity only means that others who are moving ahead very, very quickly as well are going to grasp that opportunity and gain the benefit from it. So it's important that we move forward. We simply cannot kowtow to the likes of Thomas Mulcair and others who lean very strongly to shutting down any expansion of this industry.

This industry, just to remind British Columbians one more time, has enormous potential for this province. The extent of that potential, of course, we won't know for quite a number of years. But even if only a percentage of that potential is realized, many, many billions of additional revenue will flow to British Columbia's coffers, which will mean that we actually will have a serious opportunity to reduce and, eventually, eliminate the provincial debt.

That is something I'm very interested in. That is a legacy that we can leave to our children and grandchildren that we ought not to sniff at or talk about with the disdain that I often hear emanating from members opposite. This is a serious opportunity, one that we need to grasp.

Not only should we be focused on the LNG side of things, but we also need to see how we can expand the use of natural gas in our own domestic economy. In my neck of the woods, in the Fraser Valley, a lot of milk is produced. It is all picked up by tankers today that are powered by liquefied natural gas.

I think there are other huge opportunities there. Our B.C. Ferries, the trains that roll through British Columbia, the transit systems that we have in place could all easily be powered by natural gas, with the resulting improvement in air emissions and also the improvement to the bottom-line operations of these different enterprises.

Whether it's for domestic use or export, I think liquefied natural gas, as well as compressed natural gas, has a real future in British Columbia. I, frankly, am dismayed from time to time when I hear the level of discourse from members opposite. It is one of waving it off and not treating it seriously. It is a tone of disdain, which I think is unwelcome and unfortunate.
[ Page 13443 ]

This is a serious opportunity. We ought to be working strongly and collectively to make sure that British Columbia gains the maximum possible advantage for the generations to come.

J. Horgan: As always, I'm pleased to join the debate on Monday morning. As some of the speakers prior to me have said, there are many points of agreement, and there is a broad recognition of the importance of the sector.

I think the sad part about debate like today is that some of the members on the opposite side just can't help themselves. Partisanship is so close to the surface. Good thing we're not fracking for that, because there would be some groundwater that would be affected by it if we were looking for partisanship.

Instead, I think I'd like to focus my remarks on those issues that bring us together. I know I'm going to be followed by my friend from Peace River South, and I'm confident he'll do the same thing.

[1150]

The oil and gas sector has been, as many members have spoken — certainly, the member for Peace River North — a part of the B.C. economy for 50 years, and it's not going anywhere anytime soon.

I've had the good fortune as Energy critic to visit the area many, many times. I've sat down with ranchers at their kitchen tables. I've been at frac sites. I've been in gas facilities. I've flown over the fields in helicopters. I've inspected pipes. I've done a good deal of work in this area, and I'm quite confident that the challenges that the industry has are mostly about transparency. The challenge the industry has is acquiring social licence to continue on.

I would ask any member of this House or anyone in the gallery today to go home and google hydraulic fracturing and see what comes up. You'll be spending days and days wading through opinion, wading through disastrous practices in other jurisdictions, but you won't find any examples of those issues in the north.

What troubles me when we have these discussions…. I heard the member for Nechako Lakes talking about uncertainty. There's no uncertainty on this question. The NDP established the Oil and Gas Commission. The NDP put in place the regulatory regime that has benefited all British Columbians over the past 15 years. It's not a partisan question unless you make it a partisan question.

My good friend from Chilliwack, again, can't resist the opportunity to make mischief rather than making good public policy. That's a challenge.

What have we proposed? I've sat down with the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers. I've sat down with all of the players that are coming forward with proposals for liquefied natural gas. I've talked to producers upstream, downstream. I've talked to the First Nations, whether they be represented by Treaty 8 or the leadership of the Fort Nelson First Nation. My colleague from Victoria–Swan Lake and I sat down with those First Nations.

We've gone to look at industrial innovation. We've gone to look at Westport terminals, Westport technologies. Change is afoot. Just like there's going to be a change in government on the 14th of May, there also will be a change in how we approach natural gas.

We have a four-point plan. It's pretty basic. We've already touched on two of those points. We're going to be looking at a scientific panel to assess, for the public interest and for the good of the industry, what's going on in northeastern B.C. We're going to look at the Water Act. We would have bolstered the Farmers Advocacy Office, but regrettably, on the 28th of February it closed its doors. It closed its doors because its independence was yanked back by this government.

Fourthly and most importantly — and it seems to be lost on the member for Kamloops–North Thompson — we have to address our greenhouse gas emissions. We cannot look at the expansion proposed without it having a deleterious impact on the objectives and goals that were signed-on by that side of the House and supported by this side of the House.

If we're going to do that in a reasonable and rational way, we need to talk about it — not as adversaries, not in in a partisan way, but in the public interest. That's what we've been advocating on this side of the House for years. If only the members on that side of the House would put down their partisan cudgels and start talking about what's in the best interest of the people of B.C.

B. Lekstrom: I want to thank the member for putting the motion forward and the previous members who've spoken on this.

To be very clear, I think that we do a tremendous job in regulating the oil and gas industry in British Columbia. Do I think we can, each and every day, try and improve on what we've done the day before? Yes — not just on that issue but on every issue we deal with in government.

I've heard a lot of discussion — some factual, some not so factual — this morning. Fracking has been part of our landscape for the last 50 years in British Columbia — or longer, actually. We have never had a case of cross-contamination of fresh water in British Columbia, and that should be pointed out.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Now, that's not to say that…. When I hear people saying, "Look, we need a study; we need a scientific study or a public study," I'm not opposed to that. I have no problems, whatsoever, nor do I believe industry has any problem with that, because I know they recognize how good a job they do.

We not only do a great job in British Columbia, but we actually do such a good job that we have other countries from around the world coming to see how we regulate
[ Page 13444 ]
the industry and what we're doing. We can learn from them, just as they can learn from us, but it's something we should be proud of.

I've heard members on the other side of the House talk about the issue of information and public information. I think that is the foundation to maintaining the social licence for the industry to operate.

[1155]

Now, when we talk about that…. As I said, I think we're leaders today in the environmental development of this resource. It is a resource that drives the economic well-being of our province. It's part of what allows us to deliver the programs that we so much enjoy.

Obviously, I live in the area. I live in Dawson Creek; it has been home. I've watched the development increase in the South Peace, in the Montney play particularly.

We hear a lot about water, and water is an issue that I think there's a lot of misinformation out there about. We will need about 15 million cubic metres of water each year in the Montney play to do our work up there, to extract that resource. About 65 percent is projected to come from surface water. Out of all of the surface water, that's about 0.06 percent of the water that is runoff that we need for fracking — a pretty small amount of water.

Do I recognize the fact that people may have concerns because they probably don't have the amount of information that others may have? I accept that. I think it's industry's job, government's job, local government's job — all of us combined, regardless of whether you are in government or in opposition — to share the factual information and make sure we all understand an industry that's helping drive our economic well-being, helping drive the social fabric of this province which allows us to live in the best place in the world.

We all have a very limited amount of time to speak on this, but I do have to say — and I've heard it from one of my members before — I think we have heated agreement on this. I think what I've heard from the members is that we recognize this is an important industry. We recognize that this industry has to continue to operate if we're going to realize the economic well-being of our province and the future of our province.

But I'm also hearing that there are some things that have to take place. If that means educating the public, if that means working together, not only am I standing here saying I accept that, but I believe industry is wholeheartedly behind that as well. It's something we would love to showcase to the rest of the world, about how well we do it.

I'll close. I know my time is very near and nearing an end.

Water. I want to just highlight a partnership between Shell and the city of Dawson Creek. We hear a lot about water. We are becoming more and more efficient with the way we use our water. It is the gold of the future, without question. We actually use a reclaimed source, our sewage water in Dawson Creek, which then goes through an additional treatment. Shell then transports that water out and utilizes it for fracking. That's just one of the many new technologies that are available when it comes to the issue of how we frack in British Columbia.

Not only do I support fracking, not only do I think that we can showcase how well it's done…. Do I think we can improve? I hope we can. Every day we'd better hope we can do that in everything we do, as I say many times. But overall, I think we should be extremely proud of our oil and gas industry here in British Columbia. I think we can showcase, as I said, to the world how well we do it, and I think the rest of the world will be adapting the regulatory regime that we have.

I want to close with this. The Oil and Gas Commission is one of the best regulatory bodies we have, world-renowned for how good they are, and each and every day they do a great job on behalf of all of us.

B. Lekstrom moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. M. Polak moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 this afternoon.

The House adjourned at 11:58 a.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

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

TV channel guide • Broadcast schedule

Copyright © 2013: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada