2014 Legislative Session: Third Session, 40th Parliament
HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Monday, October 27, 2014

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 16, Number 5

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

MONDAY, OCTOBER 27, 2014

The House met at 1:36 p.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

J. Yap: Madame Speaker, on your behalf, I have two special guests to introduce: Richard Mole, president and chief executive officer; and Mehmood Alibhai, director of national policy and market access for Boehringer Ingelheim Canada, a pharmaceutical group of companies.

These gentlemen were your guests today, Madame Speaker, and I would like the House to give them a warm welcome.

J. Kwan: Today in the gallery are some very special guests who want to succeed in B.C.’s economy and want to send a message that ELL matters. They are Avisa Abbasi, Beryl Cao, Bonnie Bo Liu, Dwijesh Das, Jie Wei, Julie Vodchenko, Mahtab Bodaghabadi and Monica Costa. They are also joined by another 360 students at the convention centre, and these students are from Vancouver Community College, Camosun, Douglas College and Thompson Rivers University. I ask the House to please make them welcome.

Hon. T. Lake: This afternoon I have two people that I would love to introduce. Joining us in the House this afternoon are Michael and Donna Hillman. Michael serves on the board of Fraser Health Authority, which obviously takes a lot of time. We thank him for his service. Prior to that Michael was involved in several major projects in the province’s history, including the Olympic bid, Expo 86, the SkyTrain project and the Victoria Commonwealth Games in 1994.

Donna has been spending her retirement after working for Telus volunteering for the Girl Guides and now completing her term as area commissioner for the west coast area that includes Vancouver, Richmond, South Delta, Burnaby and New Westminster, as well as time on Camp Olive. I would ask the House to please join me in welcoming Michael and Donna Hillman today.

H. Bains: Part of the delegation…. There are other students who are trying to make us understand the importance of ELL programs. They include Bernadette Atanacio, Eduardo Gonzalez, Hector Gonzalez, Yulia Makarova, Jose Ela Mbomio Mangue, Jianguo Zhang, Li Li and Ma Cecilia Sibonga. Please help welcome them to this House.

[1340]

Tributes

ROSS GORMAN

Hon. S. Thomson: On October 17 the province and our community in the forest industry lost a real pioneer of the industry. Ross Gorman, with Gorman forest products, passed away at the age of 93 after a fall in his office. The amazing thing about that story is that at 93 he was still going into the office every day.

This was a man who left such a legacy to our province and to our community and to the forest industry. He started the mill. He and his brother John were farmers. They got frozen out one year and decided they needed to find something else to do. They started buying trim ends from a local sawmill and constructing fruit boxes. From that, they built a business employing 1,200 people, with operations in Revelstoke, in Canoe, in Oroville, in Lumby and in West Kelowna, on the original homesite and the original farmstead where they settled.

He was a people person. He was loved by his employees, loved by the community and contributed so much back. It was really interesting. A huge community turnout for his service, and his son-in-law Nick spoke about the fact that they had a private family burial service for him, and he was buried in pine boards from Gorman’s lumber, cedar from the Downie mill and plywood from the Canoe operation, constructed by the employees and finger-jointed.

They were an operation that focused on quality and innovation. Just a tremendous family man, a real gentleman in the industry who contributed so much to industry associations. The forest sector will really miss him, the community will miss him, and the province will miss him.

I’d ask the House to pass on our condolences to his wife, Eunice, and all of his children, his grandchildren and his great-grandchildren. A great pioneer in the industry and a great contributor to the province of British Columbia.

Introductions by Members

L. Krog: Notwithstanding she’s been several times before, she hasn’t lost her enthusiasm for question period. I’d like the House to welcome a member of my executive, a bright grade 12 student in the French immersion program at Nanaimo District Secondary, Avery Valerio.

D. Plecas: Today in the gallery we have Patrick Giesbrecht. He’s an Abbotsford civic leader, the past president of the chamber of commerce there. He’s currently a member of the board for the B.C. Chamber of Commerce. Today he’s in the gallery with his brother Brad and his nephew Liam. Would the House please make them feel welcome.
[ Page 4926 ]

M. Elmore: I’m very pleased to welcome many students, instructors and advocates from colleges across B.C. who know the importance of ELL courses to immigrants who come in with skills and want to contribute to and participate fully in our economy and become full citizens in British Columbia. I’d like to welcome Juliette Gort, Keri Zhang, Nyan Hamaraoof, Remmy Mpitarusuma, Ruo Hong Yang, Seyyed Dadgar, and Wen Liu — “Ellie.” I’d ask everyone to please make them welcome.

Tributes

ROD LOVE

Hon. M. de Jong: The passing of Rod Love earlier today represents something of a passing of an era in our country. Most members will know that Mr. Love served as chief of staff to Premier Ralph Klein during the years that he was Premier of Alberta. They were eventful years, and he certainly left an imprint on our neighbouring province to the east.

But he was also involved in many of the initiatives that brought our two provinces together. Many members here will have come to know Mr. Love. He certainly had a powerful personality and did not suffer from a lack of opinion. He made a great contribution of late. He had been involved in a number of projects that had brought him to British Columbia on a regular basis.

I know that all members of this chamber will want to pay tribute to something of a political giant in Alberta and someone who made a very positive and long-lasting contribution to public affairs, not just in Alberta but in Canada.

Introductions by Members

J. Darcy: It gives me great pleasure to also welcome some of the folks who are here today to speak out for English language learners, a number of students and faculty members from Douglas College in New Westminster.

[1345]

I’d like to especially welcome Jenelle Davies, who spoke today to people gathered outside and who is with the Douglas College student union and the Canadian Federation of Students. Welcome to this House.

Hon. S. Cadieux: I have a number of people in the gallery today from my ministry, from the provincial office for the early years. Tessa Graham is the executive lead; Emily Horton is director of project management. Jan White is the director of stakeholder engagement, and Danielle Smith is the director of aboriginal stakeholder engagement — both their first time working in government. Welcome. Sally Reid, policy analyst, is also a co-op student, and Greg Viscoe is program assistant. If the House would please make them welcome to their first-ever visit to question period.

S. Simpson: I have a few introductions to make today, and I’d like to start with Fred Beasley. Fred Beasley is a young man from my constituency who has a keen interest in politics and how politics works. That’s brought him to Victoria, where he is studying political science currently at the University of Victoria and had the opportunity to come down and see how we work here.

As I said, Fred was active in my last campaign and — who knows? — maybe one day he’ll find himself in this place in a different way.

I also want to join with my colleagues in recognizing a number of our guests who are here to talk about English language training, about their ability and challenges and their fear that they’re going to lose the opportunity for themselves and for future British Columbians to be able to, in fact, learn language skills.

Nhung Nguyen, Pinar Alkac-Sik, Tam Bui, Yangjin Lee, Emi Fodor, Fawzya Elmokayed, Florence Ng Lee and Jane Zhang — please make them welcome, and I apologize if I butchered your names.

J. Shin: It feels like only yesterday that I first landed in Canada knowing not a single word in English except “Hi.” Evidently, I’ve picked up more vocabulary since, and that’s thanks to all the teachers and the policies that really empower the English-language-learning programs and services to be accessible to families like mine.

It is my absolute pleasure to join my colleagues in welcoming today over 300 new and settling Canadians who care about English training, some of whom are with us in the precinct. Would the House please welcome Marzieh Khadijegan Ghaleh, Morez Mostafavi-Fini, Qing Yun Wu, Mandana Shojaat, Shirin Kiani, Wenying Zhu, Ya Fei Zhao and Katherine Odgers.

Statements
(Standing Order 25B)

CHINESE FEDERATION OF
COMMERCE CANADA

J. Yap: According to B.C. Statistics, about 10,000 immigrants landed in British Columbia during the second quarter of 2014. Of these 10,000, 700 are investors, 24 entrepreneurs, and more than half are immigrants from China.

It’s very important for our province to provide resources and support to businessmen and -women to undertake entrepreneurial activities in B.C. I’m very glad that the Chinese Federation of Commerce Canada, or CFCC, has been carrying out this mission for 25 years.

CFCC was set up by a group of passionate business leaders who immigrated to Canada many years ago. CFCC is a non-profit and non-political organization which aims at encouraging and assisting its members to establish businesses or investment programs in Canada
[ Page 4927 ]
and, thereafter, to promote their products and services to Canadian society.

More than 80 percent of its members are small businesses. CFCC works to support these businesses by providing skills development, networking and marketing opportunities and resources to address the full business life cycle. In addition to supporting its members, CFCC has also set up a scholarship fund at SFU to encourage and support students.

On October 18 the Attorney General, the member for Burnaby North and myself attended the 25th anniversary dinner of CFCC. Besides a milestone celebration, this event also raised funds for the 2381 B.C. Regiment (Irish Fusiliers) Royal Canadian Army Cadet Corps.

I’m proud to recognize CFCC’s contribution to the development of our economy, society and community throughout the past 25 years.

[1350]

I especially would like to thank CFCC’s president, Mr. Joseph Hui, and the national board chairman, Mr. Pius Chan, for their diligence and contributions towards making our economy and communities stronger and more prosperous.

HORNSBY MAMMOTH HISTORIC
STEAM LOGGING EQUIPMENT

C. Trevena: The north Island is celebrating its industrial heritage in some style. A couple of years ago Woss once again became home to the 113 locomotive, part of the region’s logging history, and now Coal Harbour has the Hornsby Mammoth.

Even though at the moment the Hornsby is rusting, it is an amazing piece of machinery. It’s a steam crawler and one of the very first tracked vehicles ever built. It weighs 40 tonnes, and the track itself is taller than a person. While the Hornsby company made four other caterpillar machines, this was the only one driven by steam.

The Hornsby Mammoth was shipped from England in 1910, first being put to work in the Yukon. At the time caterpillar treads were experimental but seen as a way to haul coal to the goldfields through Yukon’s harsh climate. A few years later it ended up on the Island, where it worked in logging camps around Holberg and Port Alice before finding itself left, as logging equipment so often is, abandoned in the bush.

The Hornsby’s path took it to the regional Seven Hills golf course before being taken to Alberta for a steam show ten years ago, but it wasn’t brought back. Finally, the community of Coal Harbour and the regional district of Mount Waddington tracked it down and had it returned. Now the community is hoping its home will become even more permanent.

During the Second World War there was an RCAF base in Coal Harbour. The community club wants to refurbish what was the officers’ mess to house the Hornsby Mammoth and build a regional museum. In fact, one wall has already been removed and the concrete pad poured, but the Mammoth isn’t in place yet because there’s a lot of work and fundraising still needing to be done. With its whaling, logging and fishing past, there’d be lots to attract people, and the Hornsby Mammoth could definitely pull in many steam engine buffs and others.

Meanwhile, as a little piece of history, the Hornsby company ended up selling the patent to the chain tracks to what was to become the Caterpillar tractor company.

PARTICIPATION IN SUMMER READING
PROGRAMS BY NORTH SHORE STUDENTS

R. Sultan: Here’s the new reality: our youth are spending their time texting and playing mindless video games, right? Wrong. They’re actually reading books.

Your local public library and the B.C. Library Association, funded by the Ministry of Education’s library branch and the Royal Bank of Canada foundation, sponsor summer reading clubs with an enrolment provincewide of over 85,000.

In West Vancouver youth librarian Shannon Ozirny’s club has about 1,500 kids, ages preschool to 12. Several West Vancouver schools report participation rates of 25 percent, and West Bay Elementary heads the list, at 34 percent. Youth librarians Alison Campbell of North Vancouver District Library and Kate Longley of North Vancouver City Library report similar participation rates.

What are the club rules? Simple. You have to read at least 15 minutes a day for 50 days. Reading logs are handed back each September showing books of their own choice, ranging from Thomas the Tank Engine, my favourite, to the Red Pyramid, all about Egyptian mythology. If you can’t read, your parents are allowed to read to you.

I’ve been honoured to collect reading logbooks and hang beribboned Olympic-style gold medals around the necks of hundreds of these youngsters in West Vancouver, a non-stop parental photo op that any politician would die for.

Get ready, world. Here they come. Go read a book.

ENGLISH-LANGUAGE-LEARNING PROGRAMS

J. Kwan: Every year we welcome thousands of immigrants from all over the world to British Columbia. In fact, we’re now reliant on immigrants to bring their education, their training and their experience, in addition to their hopes and dreams for a new and better life in British Columbia.

Almost 30 percent of British Columbians had an immigrant language as their mother tongue. Our immigrants come with the desire and determination to work and want nothing more than to contribute to the cultural, social, economic and political fabric of this country. For
[ Page 4928 ]
many immigrants, the one major barrier to maximizing their success is learning English.

[1355]

For decades — in fact, 40 years for Vancouver Community College — our colleges and universities have been the place where thousands of immigrants have received their language training. Almost two-thirds of immigrants aged 25 to 44 come with a university degree, but they need that extra boost of more general ELL courses to become proficient in their areas and, also, courses like communication for engineering and technology.

Of the hundreds of students taking college preparatory English at VCC, 95 percent plan to go on to further education. The courses at colleges like Camosun College are professionally delivered and carefully planned to allow students pathways or ladders to successful careers. The courses are tremendously well subscribed, with students lining up in the dark at 3 a.m. or 4 a.m. in the morning. There are wait-lists of hundreds seeking to improve their English.

We need to and we want to welcome skilled immigrants, in thousands, who willingly come to our shores with those skills. Adult education, including ELL, is the path. It’s the doorway to success for immigrants, and it is in all of our best interests to put a welcome mat at their door. ELL matters.

FOSTER AND ADOPTIVE FAMILIES

J. Thornthwaite: I think we can all agree that today’s children hold the promise for our future. Unfortunately, some of those children face incredible challenges — challenges like abuse, neglect, medical difficulties or a family tragedy. Thankfully, here in British Columbia we have some 3,200 foster families who open their homes to roughly 5,900 vulnerable children and youth who have no other place to turn.

Many of those youth go on to be adopted. In fact, 39 percent of all kids in care are eventually adopted by their foster family. Overall, adoptive families have provided forever homes for nearly 1,250 children in the past five years. We are working hard to increase the number of home studies being done so that more families can be approved to adopt or permanently care for children and youth.

Foster and adoptive families give kids a safe and loving environment. These caring citizens come from all walks of life and live in communities all over the province. While their individual circumstances may vary, they all share a common goal of making a positive difference in the life of a young British Columbian.

As we approach the junction between October, Foster Family Month, and November, Adoption Awareness Month, we have the opportunity to reflect on the great service these families perform for our society. Foster and adoptive families are a shining example of how to turn compassion into action. If you have love in your heart and space in your home, we ask that you take the time to consider whether fostering or adoption might be right for you.

On behalf of government, I’d like to offer my deepest appreciation to all of those who have answered the call and to those ready to step forward and help today’s children realize the promise of a brighter tomorrow.

HOSPITAL EMPLOYEES UNION

G. Heyman: On October 17, I was honoured to attend the Hospital Employees Union Vancouver General Hospital local’s 70th anniversary celebration. On October 13, 1944, Canada’s Trades and Labor Congress chartered Local 180 at VGH, later known as the Hospital Employees Union. HEU is B.C.’s oldest and largest health care union, started with just 300 members at VGH and now representing over 46,000.

At the founding, workers chose a model that crossed traditional craft lines to include everyone. Members now provide both direct and indirect care services in all areas of our health care system as well as community social services, First Nations health agencies and contracted services like food, security and cleaning.

In 1944 health care workers were subject to very low wages, long hours, few breaks, no sick leave and no protection from unfair firings. By 1970 HEU had fully embraced the fight to end gender-based wage discrimination. Through a human rights complaint on behalf of ten members at VGH, the union was able to win wage hikes. In 1992 pay equity contract language was negotiated, a huge win for HEU members — indeed, an important victory for all B.C. workers. Ending wage disparity is a struggle that continues, and victories must be renewed, as the HEU knows too well.

[1400]

In 2005 the VGH local was central in rallying first-agreement bargaining support for 1,100 newly organized Sodexo employees performing contracted work, demonstrating their intent to maintain solidarity and strength among all health care workers. Their determination to maintain fairness and respect in the workplace and to fight for quality patient care in a public health care system remains as strong as ever.

Point of Order
(Speaker’s Ruling)

Madame Speaker: Hon. Members, on Thursday, October 23, the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head rose on a point of order. His question focused on whether a member speaking to a main motion who then moves a second reading amendment can regain the floor after the defeat of his or her amendment to resume speaking on the main motion on any remaining or banked time.
[ Page 4929 ]

I can confirm that earlier this calendar year one member spoke to a main motion, moved a hoist amendment, which was debated and rejected by the House, and then resumed his speech on the main motion for a few more minutes before yielding the floor.

This instance was not a common application in British Columbia or other jurisdictions. A review of records as far back as 2001 found no other instances of what appears to be members speaking twice to the main question.

Standing Order 42 confirms that a member can speak only once to a question, but our rules do not provide the required clarity on whether a member may bank time to continue main motion remarks after the disposal of an amendment.

When procedural questions arise, our standards refer us to British practice. Erskine May’s Parliamentary Practice, 21st edition, notes: “A member who moves an amendment cannot speak again upon the main question after the amendment has been withdrawn or otherwise disposed of since he has already spoken while the main question was before the House.” It’s found on page 370.

Beauchesne’s Parliamentary Rules and Forms, sixth edition, an authoritative Canadian text, repeats the practice set out in May.

These sources confirm that a member moving an amendment at second reading stage cannot resume debate on the main motion following the disposal of the amendment. To do so, in essence, is permitting the member to speak twice to the same question. Of course, the member who has spoken to the main motion and moved an amendment has opportunities to speak to any additional amendments that are subsequently proposed by other members.

In closing, I thank all members for their attention and thank the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head for raising the question.

Oral Questions

FUNDING AND SUPPORT FOR
ENGLISH-LANGUAGE-LEARNING PROGRAMS

J. Horgan: Many skills and many people will be needed to build the B.C. economy now and in the years to come. A fundamental tool for all new Canadians and new immigrants to this country will be their ability to speak English, but at the end of this school year thousands of B.C. students will be cut off from their English language programs as a result of this government’s inaction. At the end of this fiscal year, as a result of federal cutbacks, students in British Columbia will not have access to these programs to help build a better, stronger life for themselves, for their communities and for this province.

My question is to the Minister of Advanced Education. Why is it that this government has known for two years that the federal government has vacated the field of English language training, and they’ve done nothing — nothing — to fix it?

Hon. A. Virk: Well, thank you to the Leader of the Opposition for the question. I must be clear that the issue that gives rise to the situation we have is a result, indeed, of the federal government changing the delivery model of English language training — which we, on this side of the House, publicly opposed since 2012.

I must say that the Leader of the Opposition is incorrect. English as a second language — or ELL, as it’s known now — is being offered in a variety of locations across British Columbia. In light of the federal government’s change in the model by which they deliver ESL, $17 million in transitional funding was offered to institutions across British Columbia to ensure that they made the necessary adjustments to the new delivery model.

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

J. Horgan: I know it comes as a surprise to us on this side of the House — and I suspect it’s going to be a surprise to the minister responsible at the federal level — to hear that the province of British Columbia opposed this. I’ll just read what that minister said less than a year ago on CBC radio.

[1405]

That minister said: “We’ve actually done it with the agreement of the province of British Columbia. I’ve been working very closely with” — he makes reference to the member for Prince George–Valemount — “on this transition. She supports it. The Premier supports it. The government endorses it.” That’s the end of the quote from the federal minister.

I’m pleased to hear that the Minister of Advanced Education has decided now to vigorously oppose it, but we’re down to a few more months left, and 9,000 students will have access to their English language programs cut off come April 1.

Regardless of whether the minister is correct or incorrect on whether they opposed it or supported it, my question is back to him. Why is there no plan in place to ensure that the young people of British Columbia, and those largely have post-secondary education already…? Why are we not, in British Columbia, giving the tools they need to succeed in their communities and in their workplaces and to build this province? Why isn’t the province doing something about that?

Hon. A. Virk: Thanks to the member opposite for the question. Once again the Leader of the Opposition is incorrect. I have a document — perhaps I can table it afterwards — a letter dated July 10, 2012 from the then Minister of Jobs, Pat Bell, at the time. I’ll paraphrase a portion of the letter. “I am disappointed with the de-
[ Page 4930 ]
cision, as British Columbia has successfully delivered a groundbreaking and internationally recognized program for over ten years, recognizing the need for locally responsive settlement services.”

This side of the House opposed the way the federal government was providing ESL. This document will be tabled afterwards. The Leader of the Opposition should get his facts correct.

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

J. Horgan: It’s rich for that member to say “get his facts correct” about something that happened a few years ago. I recall questions from the member for Vancouver–Point Grey that had some pretty serious facts in them that weren’t remembered by that member, even though he was directly responsible for them.

I’m pleased to hear that the departed Pat Bell had something to say about it, but we haven’t heard much from the government since then. Again, I go back to the federal minister, who less than a year ago said: “We’ve actually done it with the provincial government’s agreement.”

Again to the minister responsible: can he guarantee the people of B.C. that the government of British Columbia…? Rather than focusing all of their energy on temporary foreign workers, who get a ticket home when they come to this country, why won’t he and his colleagues instead build B.C. with immigrants who have access to citizenship, who have access to the tools they need to build lives for themselves, build lives in their communities?

Will he guarantee today that there will be as many spaces for English language training in April as there are today? Can he do that?

Hon. A. Virk: Once again, must I remind the Leader of the Opposition that this government funded a number of post-secondary institutions across British Columbia to the tune of $17.2 million of provincial money to provide transitional — transitional — funding to make sure these institutions could work to a model that was sustainable in the long term?

J. Kwan: The minister should know that transitional money will end come December for VCC — $8 million short for VCC, coming this December. That means the end of the ELL programming for the students. Almost two-thirds of the immigrants aged between 25 and 44 come with a university degree. The way and the pathway for them to succeed is to get access to ELL programs, which they will not be able to get come this December.

Vancouver Community College has been providing ELL programs for 40 years. It is the largest and the oldest ELL provider in the province.

[1410]

VCC will have no choice but to close its doors to nearly half of the 9,000 students in this province if this minister does not agree to provide the $17 million necessary to keep the ELL programs going beyond December.

As someone who claims that he understands the importance of this program, will the minister tell the students — the 40 students that are here in this gallery today and the other 360 at the trade and convention centre who are watching question period today…? Will the minister tell the anxious students that he will not turn his back on them and that the immigrant community will get the support that they deserve?

Hon. A. Virk: It’s appropriate that I clarify the facts for the member opposite and clarify some of the facts as presented that were simply not correct. The federal government has changed the model by which English as a second language is being delivered. They are not providing flow-through funding to the majority of universities — although, I may note, and the member may already know this, four institutions across British Columbia have obtained funding from the federal government to continue to provide ESL.

In addition to that, there are over 35 not-for-profit organizations delivering ESL in over 80 locations across British Columbia. So ESL will continue to be provided, just by a different provider.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Hon. Members, the Chair needs to hear the answer and the question.

J. Kwan: The minister knows as well as I do that the federal money actually provides for the ELSA program or the LINC program, which is at a different level of English as a second language for the immigrant community. It is not going to bring the students to the level that they need to get into the employment level that they’re seeking right now with the public post-secondary education institutions. The minister knows that.

When my father came to Canada, he didn’t speak a word of English. He went to VCC and enrolled in the ELL program. Because of that, our family was financially independent and did not have to rely on government assistance. That’s the pathway that some 9,000 students want today.

I hope the minister agrees that everyone, including the immigrant community, should have the opportunity to succeed. Those thousands of jobs that the minister talks about that they want people to get access to — the immigrant community needs ELL to be able to get access to those job opportunities.

Provinces like Ontario and Alberta pay for these programs themselves. Will the minister tell the students that
[ Page 4931 ]
he will step in, join these provinces and support the immigrant community by committing to fund the $17 million that is necessary to continue to fund ELL programs ongoing?

Hon. A. Virk: This country and this province were built by generations of immigrants, whether it’s a first generation like myself…. English is my second language as well. This province and this country will continue to be built by immigrants, whether they are immigrants or they’re coming with skills that can help our economy. Clearly, that side of the House certainly doesn’t support new immigrants with skills coming into this province, but this side does.

Interjections.

Hon. A. Virk: There you go. Hit a sore point.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

Please take your seat.

Please continue.

Hon. A. Virk: This side of the House will continue to support new Canadians as they come to Canada to build a new life and to build this country.

H. Bains: This minister and everyone from that side should know that thousands of immigrants benefited from this program to be successful — not only for their personal success but also to contribute to the economy of this province and of this country.

[1415]

They are agreeing with the federal government to cut the program, and it’s not going to happen anymore now. That opportunity is gone now for the future students.

I will go, then, and talk about some of those students and immigrants. Jennifer Menendez came to Canada from El Salvador in 2007 with a degree in science and communications, with limited English language understanding, no support network and with little or no money. Through Camosun College she was able to get the language training she needed to get a good job.

This was what she had to say when she learned about cuts to this program: “Just picture yourself in a whole different country, with little or no money, where your language is not much use. What would you do if you have many skills to put to use but the language is your barrier?”

To the minister, if Jennifer Menendez lived in Ontario today, her provincial government would ensure she had access to English language programs. Why won’t British Columbia do the same thing?

Hon. A. Virk: The member for Surrey-Newton certainly will continue to misrepresent the facts even when presented with the dates and the exact quotations of the fact that this government opposed the changes to the system.

The member for Surrey-Newton also will continue to provide incorrect information to all those valuable new immigrants that come to Canada. The federal government has changed the model by which they deliver ESL. ESL is continuing to be provided in over 80 locations across the province, and over 35 not-for-profit organizations are going to continue to provide ESL all across B.C.

Madame Speaker: The member for Surrey-Newton on a supplemental.

H. Bains: The facts — 2013, December 12, the federal minister responsible, Chris Alexander, on CBC radio said this: “We have actually done it with the agreement of the provincial government. I have been working very closely with” — the Minister of Jobs, he mentioned here — “on this transition. She supports it. The Premier supports it. The government endorses it.” Those are the facts, Minister. Read them.

Not only did they stay mum when they were cutting this program; they supported it. Those are the facts. This is from the federal government minister.

It was Camosun College here in Victoria that helped Jennifer get the language skills that she needed. Camosun is the second-largest English-language-learning provider in B.C. Because of this government’s deal with the federal government, Camosun will be losing $2.4 million.

Will the minister stand here today and explain why he agreed to allow these programs cut?

Hon. A. Virk: The member for Surrey-Newton certainly has well-scripted notes and is unable to even change the script when presented with the evidence contrary to what he’s suggesting.

The federal minister was incorrect.

Interjections.

Hon. A. Virk: The federal minister was incorrect. This government has never endorsed the changes in the program. This government has not endorsed this program.

J. Shin: Mr. Paul Yu was a sea captain back in China, with a degree in business administration. Today Paul is a British Columbian eagerly pursuing his dreams to become a marine superintendent or perhaps even start his own business one day. His first step to doing that is studying English at Camosun. Paul says it’s at Camosun he gets the professional language training he needs to not only become a better-adapted citizen in his new home country of Canada, but he gets the necessary prerequisite he needs for his specialized career program.
[ Page 4932 ]

[1420]

So it is disheartening to see Paul here in the precinct, along with 300 others today — away from their families, on their own time and dime — to fight for access to vital English training that people like my parents and I, myself, depended on. There are over 2,200 students and 100 faculty at VCC alone — many of whom are my colleagues and students — who will be devastated by this government’s inaction.

My question: will the Minister of Advanced Education please explain how it is possible that this government can always find money for their friends, like ex-Liberal MLA Mr. Ben Stewart — $2,400 for his Chinese lessons — yet continue to tell 9,000 British Columbians like Mr. Paul Yu: “Tough luck”?

Hon. A. Virk: Well, there is certainly no shortage of federal programs that the member opposite would suggest the province of B.C. and the taxpayers of B.C. should pay for. There is no shortage of federal programs that the members opposite…. They can grow money on their magic NDP money tree and suggest that British Columbia residents should be paying for them. This side of the House….

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

Hon. A. Virk: Madame Speaker, this side of the House is absolutely committed, and you’ve heard it a number of times before, to growing a strong economy. That side of the House continues to oppose it. In fact, it took the leadership of the member from Oak Bay to lead all these individuals here to oppose LNG. That’s what this side stands for.

M. Elmore: The B.C. Liberals and this minister are turning their backs on immigrants and English language learners. They’ve got money for a former Liberal MLA, Ben Stewart — $2,400 for private Chinese lessons — and they’re telling 9,000 British Columbians they don’t have access to English language courses.

The loss of these programs is not just a loss to people who want to build their lives in Canada; it’s a loss to all of us. Our province is a better place because of these programs. They have meant that people with the skills our province needs have been able to realize their goals and contribute to B.C.’s workplaces.

The responsibility for restoring these programs rests at this minister’s feet. Will the minister take action and save these programs?

Hon. A. Virk: The members opposite certainly may know this, but perhaps I’ll give them that information: the province certainly has more of a limited role in settlement services after the federal government assumed responsibility for settlement services for most newcomers as of April 1, 2014.

The province has committed $4 million in funding to ensure that newcomers not eligible for federal immigration services can continue to access services. This side is committed to ensure that new immigrants get the full support to ensure they become productive British Columbians.

S. Simpson: It’s remarkable that this Minister of Advanced Education will tell you that the province has thrown their hands up and is providing no support for thousands and thousands of people who need language skills and that if they’re lucky, maybe they can find a non-profit to help them out. That’s what this minister calls leadership.

The Liberal government has been trying to clean up the mess they made in 2002 when they botched skills training in this province. They now have a plan to do that.

[1425]

However, what we now know is that literally thousands and thousands of British Columbians, because of a lack of English language skills, will not be able to take advantage of that training and those opportunities. There should be an investment in those people, in their future and in their families, but it’s not going to happen because of this government and its lack of responsibility on this.

The federal minister has said publicly that the province not only condones these cuts; they, in fact, have supported them. I know the Minister of Advanced Education is fully engaged in this issue of training. But how does the minister reconcile the end of English language programs with the skills-training initiatives that are supposed to be moving forward, and how does he tell those thousands of people who need language training that they can participate in those programs and that he’s not shutting the door on them?

Hon. A. Virk: I’ve corrected the misinformation provided by several of the members, and they continue on this same line that we on this side of the House did not support the federal government’s move to a new model.

I will certainly be tabling the letter suggesting the same. In fact on December 13, on page A17 of a certain newspaper, I’m quoted as saying that at the time that the federal government proposed the changes, the minister did not endorse the federal changes whatsoever. This is — I don’t know — three or four or five times that the members opposite have misrepresented the facts.

We acknowledge that immigrants play such an important part in building our province. We certainly would have preferred the previous system, but we are committed to ensure that ESL…. We’re going to work with our institutions to ensure that it’s sustainable as we move forward.
[ Page 4933 ]

M. Farnworth: To the member across the way, I don’t have to cue outrage. It’s thousands of students outside this chamber who are losing their access to English-as-a-second-language, English language learning. They’re the ones who are outraged.

My question is to the minister. The minister has stood in this House, and he’s said that he’s really pleased that immigrants are part of our economy and that he wants them to build a strong British Columbia economy. Well, the only way that’s going to happen is by immigrants being able to make full use of the skills and the attributes that they bring to this country. Key to that is being able to speak English.

Those students don’t care whether the minister supported it two years ago or doesn’t support it now. What they want is to see a program reinstated.

What’s really interesting is that Ontario managed to step up and fill the gap. Alberta saw that the program needed to be fixed, and they’ve stepped up and filled the gap. The trouble is that British Columbia, which probably has more people requiring English language learning than those two provinces, has not been able to step up and fill the gap.

My question to the minister is simple. Why is British Columbia unable to do what Alberta and Ontario have been able to do?

Hon. A. Virk: New immigrants to British Columbia and to Canada are indeed vulnerable. It’s unfortunate that the member across continues to fearmonger, to mislead, to misrepresent. English-second-language training, as I noted a number of times, has been available — it’s a federal responsibility — at over 80 locations provided by over 35 not-for-profit organizations across the province.

ESL is available. Part of that funding went to four post-secondary institutions as well, so ESL, contrary to the misinformation being provided continuously by these members, continues to be provided across B.C.

[1430]

GOVERNMENT ACTION
ON POVERTY REDUCTION

M. Mungall: Saskatchewan just announced they will be joining eight other Canadians provinces and countless local governments with a legislated poverty reduction plan. Saskatchewan has the second-lowest poverty rate in the country.

For the last 13 years B.C. has had the highest poverty rate in the country, yet this government stubbornly refuses to legislate a comprehensive poverty reduction plan with targets and timelines. This is something our Representative for Children and Youth has called for, something British Columbians want across the province.

My question is to the Minister of Children and Family Development. Will she commit today to joining the rest of Canada with a real poverty reduction plan?

Hon. S. Cadieux: The reality is that a real child poverty reduction plan is an economic development plan, and that’s something we have on this side of the House. Between 1990 and 2000, families living in poverty increased by 42 percent. However, since 2003….

Interjection.

Hon. S. Cadieux: Yes, because since 2003, Member, child poverty in British Columbia has gone down by 41 percent.

There are only two ways to address poverty. The first is to create jobs for parents so that they can support their families, and the second is to provide targeted supports in a number of areas to help people who are living on low incomes. We are doing both, and we will continue to do so.

M. Mungall: Well, for 13 years this province has had the worst rate of overall poverty in the country and for ten years the worst rate of child poverty in the country, and this government’s only response is “Get a job”? Meanwhile, they cut the very programs that people need to get the jobs — we heard about it today with the English-language-learning programs — or the health supports for those who can’t get work. Those get cut by this government too.

Will the minister step out of her ideology and step into reality and announce a poverty reduction plan for this province?

Hon. S. Cadieux: The child poverty rate in British Columbia is higher than anyone would like it to be. There is no question. But it is at its second-lowest point in two decades.

Across the country there are a variety of approaches taken. Having a legislated poverty plan, as we have recently observed in Ontario, is no guarantee of success because, in fact, their child poverty rates have increased.

We believe that assisting families who are living in poverty through programs like child care subsidies, through over $3½ billion invested in social housing programs, through increasing….

Interjections.

Hon. S. Cadieux: I’m hearing from the members opposite that they don’t care about social housing programs. I think that’s atrocious, because the programs and services that this government has introduced over the last number of years…

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Order. Order.
[ Page 4934 ]

Hon. S. Cadieux: …have lifted more than 69,000 children out of poverty in this province. We’re going to continue to keep working.

[End of question period.]

Point of Privilege

Hon. M. de Jong: Late last week I reserved the right to raise a matter of privilege, and rather than have these things hang out there, I thought I would advance the reason for so doing at the time. It related to remarks made during question period by the Leader of the Opposition.

[1435]

I want to say at the outset that I am not suggesting that the hon. Leader of the Opposition set out to purposely mislead the House. I know he is concerned about ensuring that the record be accurate. I notice that his comments were repeated by the member for Nanaimo.

He pointed out that at the time the Oil and Gas Commission was established in the 1990s by the NDP government, the Liberals voted against it. And then shortly thereafter, the member for Nanaimo pointed out: “Those are the folks who in the ’90s voted against the Oil and Gas Commission…. Again, I come back to the Oil and Gas Commission. I mean, all those wonderful B.C. Liberals voted against that.”

Now, I deplore this constant going back to the 1990s. [Laughter.] Members know that. But I was one of those members that happened to be here at the time. I went back, and I checked the record. Lo and behold, it turns out that the arguments advanced by the government of the day, the NDP government of the day, were so persuasive that the opposition of the day chose to side with the government and support them.

If the member needs me to provide him with the references, I’ll provide that. Or he could ask the then acting Government House Leader who sits to his immediate right and called the bill in committee stage and second reading. But I know both members will simply want to confirm the facts and then adjust the record accordingly.

M. Farnworth: Hon. Speaker, I know to guide you in your deliberations on this particular matter, you’ve heard the presentation from the Government House Leader. From this side of the House, I’d like to offer up, I think, an argument that is often used by the current government and the current House Leader on the issue, and that….

Interjection.

M. Farnworth: Don’t take my line. [Laughter.]

That is that there may not have been a standing division and that they can claim that they did not vote and that they voted in favour. But the fact of the matter is that the funding for the Oil and Gas Commission was in the budget, and they voted against the budget.

Tabling Documents

Hon. S. Anton: I have two reports to be tabled: the report of the Public Guardian and Trustee of British Columbia, Annual Report 2013-2014; and the report of the B.C. Ferry Commission, Annual Report for the Fiscal Year Ending March 31, 2014.

Point of Privilege
(Reservation of Right)

J. Kwan: Given that this is my first opportunity, I rise to reserve the right to raise a matter of privilege.

Tabling Documents

Hon. A. Virk: I wish to table the document aforementioned.

R. Fleming: I’d like to seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

R. Fleming: Joining us in the precinct this afternoon are representatives from the Camosun College Student Society and the University of Victoria Students Society. I’d like the House to please make welcome Greg Atkinson, Mackenzie Zouboules, Kayleigh Erickson, Ben Johnson and Tristan Ryan.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: Committee stage debate on Bill 3.

[1440]

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 3 — CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY
(STONE AND TIMBER) SETTLEMENT ACT

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole on Bill 3; D. Horne in the chair.

The committee met at 2:42 p.m.

On section 1 (continued).

The Chair: Shall section 1 pass? So ordered.

Member for Surrey-Newton on section 2.

H. Bains: Section 2. But my understanding is that we are still on section 1.
[ Page 4935 ]

The Chair: All right.

H. Bains: There are certain….

The Chair: Section 1 we’ve just passed, but we’ll go back to section 1 if that’s the member’s wish.

H. Bains: I would ask my colleague from Nanaimo to continue on with the definitions side.

L. Krog: It’s so nice to be tossed the old football in the field.

With respect to the current…. The definition says “current action” and makes reference to the specific proceeding that’s outstanding now. Is the minister aware of any other proceedings that might impact on stone and timber rights arising out of any of those railway settlements?

Hon. S. Thomson: Just before I respond, I would like to introduce the staff that are with me here today. I neglected to do that on Thursday.

[1445]

With me is Richard Grieve, who’s the director of strategic initiatives in the legislation branch — was in our ministry, now in the Ministry of Natural Gas Development. Unfortunately, we’ve lost him over to there. Their gain, our loss. Brian Fardoe is the senior policy and land use adviser for strategic initiatives in our legislation branch. I’d like to thank them for being here.

It’s interesting. After watching a little bit of football on the weekend, I think I just saw an audible called at the line of scrimmage. Just to respond to the specific question, there is a 2006 legal claim that was put into abeyance, which we’re now taking steps to dismiss as part of the settlement agreement. Both CPR and the province have agreed that that will be dismissed, and I’m not aware of any other actions.

L. Krog: I’m curious then. The bill makes reference only to the action that was commenced in 2013 and doesn’t make reference to the action that the minister just described. I’m just curious to know why the bill doesn’t deal with both actions — and if the minister could also explain to the House the substance of the 2006 action. I mean, we get the point in the 2013 action. But what’s the substance of the 2006 action as well?

Hon. S. Thomson: The 2006 action was a petition by the province on a single sub-lot in Kamloops challenging the CPR ownership or reservation on that lot.

Because it was a provincial action, it’s not referenced specifically in this legislation. In the settlement action we’ve agreed to withdraw that, and the lot itself is listed in the schedule to the legislation in the settlement agreement. That removes any reservations that were on that property, so it’s not necessary to reference the specific claim. The settlement agreement, and the fact that the province has agreed to withdraw that and petitioned the court to do that, means that it didn’t need to be specifically referenced.

L. Krog: This will be my last question. I take it, then, that that action — we’ll call it the Kamloops action, the 2006 petition, the proceeding by way of petition — was done really as sort of a test case for the government in trying to determine the legality of the claims of CPR overall. Is that a fair thing to say?

Hon. S. Thomson: I’m advised that’s a fair comment.

H. Bains: I want to go back. I know it was debated extensively the previous day by my colleague and other members on this side, but there’s one question that I may want to raise again along the line there.

[1450]

As we know, there were two types of private land owners — the ones who only received the surface rights and the others who paid a higher price to acquire not only the surface rights but the timber and stone rights.

The question is: how is it fair to those who paid the full price? Those who did not pay the full price, because they only paid for the surface rights, now automatically — because this bill extinguishes the CPR stone and timber rights — will be given the full rights, both timber and stone rights, without actually paying for it. My question is: how is it fair between those two groups? One paid the full price. Others paid a very small price because they only acquired the surface rights.

Hon. S. Thomson: We did canvass this point extensively in the earlier stages of the committee stage debate on this. Those individuals who purchased the timber and stone or who paid to have timber and stone reservations quieted on their title did so because they wanted certainty at the time. They wanted to not have any question about the values or their ability to either harvest timber or to look at potential stone values on those properties.

We talked about the challenges of trying to evaluate all of that, value it, given the unique nature of the reservations, in terms of what timber it applied to and what it didn’t apply to on the properties. As was pointed out, some of the timber on those properties would be subject to the reservation, and some of it might not be, depending on what had happened on that property in terms of previous activities, fire activity or anything.

The whole challenge, in terms of the complexity of it…. It was viewed that in order to provide certainty to all, both to private owners and to the Crown, the settlement agreement to remove the reservations, quiet those reservations over top or behind those titles was the step to be taken.

[1455]

That was viewed as the most appropriate step to take in order to provide that certainty to all, which will now allow either Crown or private land owners to be able to utilize their properties, the values on their properties, in the most appropriate way.

H. Bains: I think maybe I’ll ask the minister this question. How many of those private land owners are there who paid the full price?

Hon. S. Thomson: Over the time, there were 70 transactions over 4,400 hectares.

H. Bains: Perhaps the minister could also tell us…. Out of the 68,000 hectares that we are talking about here that were in private hands, 70 paid for full rights. My understanding, speaking to the minister and to the briefing, is that it involves about 4,400 hectares from CP and about 700 from Crown. Can the minister clarify?

I just want to make sure that the minister gets the right question. Out of the 70, how many of them….? Or perhaps you can tell us in hectares. How much of that transaction took place from the Crown land, and how much was from CPR?

Hon. S. Thomson: As I indicated, on the private land it was 70 over 4,400 hectares. On the Crown land there were five sales of the reservations by CP for over 570 hectares. Those were primarily to small logging operators in selling the timber reservation.

H. Bains: Can the minister tell us if any of those transactions took place after 2000?

[1500]

Hon. S. Thomson: Again, those were from the period after 2000 and up to 2014. As we’ve noted, in 2006 that process was challenged. Because of the uncertainty and the lack of clarity around ownership of those reservations, that’s when the process really started.

Then we, with subsequent legal action, came to the position, as I pointed out on Thursday, that they were selling an interest or selling a reservation that they did own. It was viewed that the settlement process was the most efficient way to provide the certainty to all, rather than go through a long and complex process of legal challenge, with a claim, as I pointed out, of over $40 million against the province in that claim. To provide the certainty to all, that was the settlement agreement reached. The agreement to quiet all historical reservations, whether on title or whether behind the title, was the step taken.

What we wanted to do was get to a point where, for both Crown and for private land owners, they had that certainty so that they could utilize the resources on their property without the uncertainty of CPR coming in and selling those reservations to somebody else, or of the Crown not being able to realize the values for timber and stone that would be on Crown property, particularly on the timber side of it when there is the question around exactly which timber it applied to and which it didn’t apply to.

As we pointed out in debate last week, in balance of all of the issues around this, a settlement approach, a settlement agreement in order to achieve that certainty, to be able to quiet all of that, was the step taken.

H. Bains: I guess I’m just trying to figure out here, at least for those who paid the full price for full rights — stone rights and timber rights — whether those are five who purchased those rights on Crown land and 70 who purchased those rights on CPR lands, and whether any of the transactions took place after CP initiated their lawsuit or discussion with the government, where they notified the government that they would be exerting their right to timber and stone rights.

As for that lawsuit in 2013, as mentioned, everything that they mentioned, whether that discussion took place somewhere in 2000, 2006…. Did any of this transaction take place after the initial discussion that CPR had with the government or brought to the government’s attention — that they intended to exert their rights, which they probably had forgotten or didn’t exert previous to that?

[1505]

Hon. S. Thomson: Following the court filing in 2013, there was one small sale on Crown land that was to resolve a situation with regards to access on a communication tower, the TMO mobile, which needed to move forward, and five small transactions on private property from private land owners — all very small.

The situation with respect to those owners, I think…. I can’t speak specifically to what the motivation was for each of those owners, but they saw a situation where the CPR was asserting their rights of ownership. They may have had opportunities that they wanted to move forward on, wanted to get the certainty on their own individual properties, not knowing what the outcome of a long, protracted court proceeding would have been. They were looking for individual certainty for…. It could be a number of reasons.

So there were five small ones since that date.

H. Bains: I’ll talk about this one transaction on Crown land and the other five on private CP land, but I want to go back. My understanding, reading the Blues — the minister can correct me — is that this discussion started in early 2000. Then the minister clarified that 2006 was the actual year when extensive discussions took place along this line, which led to a court case in 2013.

If the discussion was started in 2006, one can argue that if you continued to sell those rights after the discussions took place…. Now you know full well that CPR is
[ Page 4937 ]
exerting its rights, and you’re still charging people who wanted to purchase those rights full price for timber rights and stone rights. But in the meantime, you’re defending that the CPR — in your initial response to the 2013, even previous to that — may not have a case. But you still continue with the transaction where at least one since 2013, on Crown land, was required to pay full price to acquire stone and timber rights.

Don’t you think that at least that one owner would have a case and a good argument to this government: “Look, you didn’t tell us you would be settling this case”? Whereas others who had only surface rights will, as a result of your settlement, acquire full rights to timber and stone without paying any extra, in the meantime, you’re charging at least one person a full price for stone and timber.

[1510]

I think that’s something that they may argue — that you were fully aware that these discussions were taking place. You are still charging them full price for the all of the rights. So I think that’s….

How could you explain to that individual who paid in good faith, but the government didn’t advise them at that time that “We would be settling this case sometime” or “We’ll be fighting…”? Were they given the option to “Continue on, don’t pay for the full prices, or we will make you whole in the event that we settle”?

Hon. S. Thomson: First of all, it’s important to point out that the province was not selling the rights. From the approach of the questioning, it appears as though the member opposite is saying that we sold those rights, or the province did. That’s not the case. We didn’t. It was CP that was selling their reservations on what they assert was their property, either the reserved timber or the reserved stone with the historical reservations that were in the case.

There was awareness that there were discussions underway. But as I pointed out, for those individuals who on their property may have wanted to advance their interests — wanted to ensure that they had quiet title to their properties, wanted to move forward with some economic activity, whether it be timber or other values — and because they, in a number of those properties, would have known that they had an amount of private timber that may have been theirs to move forward on, they didn’t want those reservations sold to somebody else and be able to have somebody else access those values.

They made that conscious decision at that point to purchase those reservations sold by CPR, not by the province, to provide the certainty. Not knowing the outcome of all of this, they wanted to, in a sense, get that certainty in advance of whatever might come out of that.

Nobody knew at that time whether there would be a settlement. Nobody knew at that time that we would be, potentially, bringing in legislation to do it. It’s a little bit like, and I think the member…. You make your decisions at the time. You don’t know what tax legislation is or may not be. You look at all your circumstances at the time and make your decisions.

They did it for, I presume, a variety of reasons. I don’t know each individual owner’s motivation, at the time, to do that. Again, those were individual steps they took. Those reservations were sold by CPR, not by the province.

[1515]

H. Bains: I think I will leave it here. But I want to state that if I was one of those owners, I would feel that you have created two classes of those owners. One was required to pay a higher price because they were purchasing timber rights and stone rights, along with the surface rights, not knowing that the government would come in one day and settle on their behalf with CPR and have CPR’s rights extinguished.

By virtue of that action, they will now own full rights — meaning the timber and stone rights, along with the surface rights — which they never paid for. Indirectly, the government is paying for those rights on behalf of those who never paid for stone and timber rights. Indirectly, you can say that you’re not doing that. I know that you would say: “We are only extinguishing those rights as if those rights never existed.” But the fact remains, in reality, that they only purchased surface rights.

Now, by virtue of this bill, they will be granted full rights. That’s what they are getting as a result of the government action, at a cost of $19 million in taxpayer money, whereas the other group of owners paid for the rights — not only the surface but the timber and stone rights. So there are two categories of ownership being created.

My question here would be: did the government, during negotiations or during the process of this settlement, think about…? These people actually paid the full price for all of the rights, and others didn’t. Others will be benefiting who never paid, as per the action of this government. Maybe we should make those who were required to pay for the timber rights and for the stone rights…. Make them whole or at least bring all owners to the same level somehow and then cut the deal.

Did the government consider: how do we deal with that issue so that we don’t leave two categories of owners here? One will feel that they are unfairly treated. Others, as a windfall of this decision, will be benefiting.

Hon. S. Thomson: I thank the member opposite for the question. This point was put forward during the committee stage debate last week. As I pointed out, we did consider…. One of the considerations in the process was the province assuming the ownership of those reservations, rather than simply just extinguishing those reservations.

But when we looked at the administrative complexity,
[ Page 4938 ]
the challenges around inventory of the values, how to appropriately assess those values on all of those 10,000 properties, it was determined that the settlement would be to simply extinguish the rights and provide that level of certainty for all. We recognize that there were properties….

[1520]

Again, I need to point out that in terms of purchasing out those reservations, it would have been in relation to the timber and the stone values, not all surface rights. It’s the historical reservations that are part of the settlement. We looked back and used the principle that said those decisions were made at the time by those individual landowners for a variety of reasons. To try to recognize each of the different circumstances would have been virtually impossible.

We also looked at the fact that there were many people who paid property transactions over the time and paid market value for those properties, assuming that they had the reservations on those properties. They paid full market value for the properties, assuming they had the timber and stone and that there wasn’t a reservation on those properties, because they didn’t know about them. They weren’t registered.

In the end, taking all those factors into consideration — the administrative complexity, the fact that a process to have the province assume the ownership and then try to adjust for all of that through our owning those reservations would have been virtually impossible to do — the decision was to avoid the legal process. To quiet the reservations, whether it’s directly on title or sitting behind the title, was a step that provided the most certainty to all.

H. Bains: Let me put it another way. This settlement is 145,000 hectares of Crown land and 68,000 hectares of private land. Therefore, there is a settlement for 213,000 hectares and the cost of $19 million to settle the lawsuit.

Did the government consider…? The argument made during negotiations was that part of the 68,000 — there are 4,400 or another 700 from the Crown — at least for those 75 landowners who already had paid the full price for service and timber and stone rights….

Was the settlement 213,000 hectares minus the land owned by these owners who already paid for the timber and stone rights? Was that taken into consideration? Had that been taken into consideration, would that have been less than $19 million then?

Hon. S. Thomson: As we pointed out last week, the settlement claim was in relation to CPR’s claim against the province on the Crown land and for historical timber that may or may not have been harvested. The reservations, the values on those properties — that was the basis of the claim. That was the value that we talked about.

That process, in order to settle the claim against the province on the Crown land, was the key focus of the settlement. But when it came down to final settlement conditions, what we said was that we can settle this on the Crown land portion, but we also want added to this settlement the quieting, or the extinguishment, of all timber and stone reservations on private properties to provide that certainty to all of the private land owners.

[1525]

That was an additional step that the province asked for in the settlement negotiations to prevent any future action against private land owners, to not have the ongoing requirement where private land owners would want to extinguish those historic reservations and would have to negotiate or buy those reservations, to not leave them at risk of CPR coming for future action against them if they had undertaken any activities on those private lands over time.

Where the line between what were the private timber values and what was actually owned by CP as part of the historical reservation…. That was added as an additional condition on the part of the province in order to reach the settlement agreement.

H. Bains: The court case S134003, May 30, 2013 — I think that was discussed last week. It talked about a defendant. One of them is Her Majesty the Queen in Right of British Columbia, and then there’s the address. It goes on to say: “John Does, one to 100, whose numbers and identities are unknown to CPR, are current or former owners of lands in British Columbia who disposed of trees or stone owned by CPR without CPR consent as described herein.”

Then it goes on to the next one. The other defendants are ABC contractors, one to 100 — a similar language used here as for what I mentioned about the individual one to 100 John Does. They are going after three different groups: government, individuals and those contractors.

The settlement, I would gather, is based on the lawsuit that was filed and that I just mentioned. The question still is: at the end of the day, it was negotiated out of court, right? So when you were negotiating, they had their original position — $40 million, I understand, was mentioned last week — but that was based on the entire package of 213,000 hectares — 145,000 Crown and 68,000 private lands. Is that not correct?

Hon. S. Thomson: Just to clarify for the member opposite, the suit against the province was on Crown land. It did name a number of John Does in the process. Those would’ve been people who may have harvested timber on their properties. It certainly doesn’t relate to all of the 68,000 hectares of private land that are part of the extinguishment of the reservations. It would also relate to small companies that may have harvested timber on Crown land under agreement.

[1530]

Again, the settlement of the suit was because of the
[ Page 4939 ]
claim against the province, and for all the reasons we outlined last week around the legal costs, the liability and the view that CP, through their assertions and through the historical records, did own these historical reservations. That was the balance. What we achieved in the settlement agreement by adding all of the private properties into the settlement agreement and getting full extinguishment of all the historic reservations was to provide certainty not only for the Crown, not only for the people that would have potentially been named.

They didn’t go after any of those individuals. They weren’t served or anything. They were just included in the claim and the full range — the 10,000 titles that are part of the private land that had those historical reservations either on title or quietly behind the title.

H. Bains: So that we are clear, when we’re talking about 145,000 acres…. Historically, according to the court document, only 50 percent of that was forfeited by the private purchasers or successors in title to the Crown for non-payment of property taxes. Were they going after the government only for half of 145,000 acres? According to this court document, that’s the land that came back as a result of the failure to pay property taxes, and it returned back to the Crown. It was only to deal with 72,000 hectares. Or was it 445,000 hectares?

My understanding is that the remainder of the 7,500 remained in private hands, and 72,000 came back to the Crown because they failed to pay taxes.

[1535]

Hon. S. Thomson: Our figures are that there are 145,000 hectares of Crown land that have the reservations — those came back to the Crown, historically, through forfeiture by individuals — and 68,000 hectares of private land. That’s the basis of the settlement. That’s the basis under which the rights and reservations were extinguished.

H. Bains: Hon. Chair, I will read you the paragraph. Maybe the minister and the staff can then provide us with how…. The minister’s answer is a little different than what this court case…. I’m still on the same court case, S134003, May 30, 2013, page 4, paragraph 12. I will read:

“Approximately 50 percent of the 145,000 acres of tree and stone reservation lands were forfeited by their private purchasers or successors in title to HMTQ for non-payment of property taxes — or in a small number of cases, otherwise acquired by HMTQ…”

HMTQ, as you know, refers to Her Majesty the Queen.

“…thereby transferring surface title of these lands to HMTQ — Crown lands with CPR tree and stone reservation. The remainder of the tree and stone reservation land remained in private title — private lands with CPR tree and stone reservations.”

CPR still maintains the stone and tree reservations, but half of the 145,000 remained in private lands.

“Particulars of the Crown lands with CPR tree and stone reservation and private lands with CPR tree and stone reservation are known to HMTQ.”

So they’re making their case. According to this case, there are only 50 percent that came back as the proceeds of forfeiture because of failure to pay taxes, and the other half remained in private lands.

I think that’s where my confusion is. Did we settle for the entire 145,000? The question is why, because otherwise, in private lands…. The Crown only retained the rights or acquired the rights, or they were transferred to them, because of taxes not being paid. There were only about 72½ thousand acres, probably, that the Crown actually owned out of those 145,000. Maybe the minister could clarify that.

[1540]

Hon. S. Thomson: The numbers. The CPR became the successor to the historic railways in 1956. As you know, they began asserting ownership on that around the year 2000. They had sold some reservations to third parties, as has been pointed out. They claimed ownership of timber and stone reservations of approximately 213,000 hectares of Crown and private land.

Of the 213,000 of claimed reservations, a portion was for timber and stone. A portion was stone only. When we went through the settlement process, in terms of settling it with respect to Crown land, with getting the additional protection and certainty for private land, for dealing with a number of other transactions….

There were 4,000 hectares of railway land in 14 district lots where CP questioned the validity of the historical tax forfeitures in the province against third-party purchasers who had not fully paid the historic railway for the land. The land, potentially, was still owned by the railway. The province estimated the value of that issue alone at about $10 million, which is about 5 percent of the estimated $300 million value of that disputed land.

What’s important to recognize here is that there was the claim against the province specifically, but what we achieved in the settlement agreement was both the quieting of the historical reservations and the settlement of some additional potential risks and liability to the province around land during historical forfeiture processes — 14 district lots, some of them with significant value. Significant legal costs in those proceedings, and also a risk, potentially, that if we had been unsuccessful, the province would have had liability for CP costs.

[1545]

When we added all of that potential risk and liability and value together, the timber values on those lands…. Stone values, as I pointed out on Thursday, are very, very hard to value because stone doesn’t include the base minerals. As I pointed out, it’s the historical building stone. It would have been a very, very difficult process to evaluate all of that, but it has value.

On balance, all of those factors taken into consideration, we’ve reached the settlement to put all of these issues behind us and provide the certainty to both the Crown
[ Page 4940 ]
and private land owners.

As we also pointed out, there were some comments in second reading around First Nations consultation in all of this process. I think it’s important to put on the record here and advise that this is actually, by settling all of this, beneficial from a First Nations perspective, particularly on those Crown lands.

It now means that when we’re going forward in looking at accommodation agreements, treaty settlement processes with First Nations like the Ktunaxa in the Kootenays and things like that, we now know we have Crown land that doesn’t have those historical reservations on them, that they’re clear both from a Crown and a private land perspective.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

H. Bains: I think the crux of this whole dispute, as I understand it, is that the CPR is alleging in that court case that they owned timber rights and stone rights on the lands that we have discussed here, with 50 percent of 145,000 plus 68,000. Their claim is that the Crown and private individuals and contractors removed timber and stone without their permission. That’s the crux. They are saying that they own those rights, and government issues — what’s the word that they use? — the timber marks to individuals or to companies on land where CPR still owned those rights without their permission.

Did anyone do any calculations of what would be the total value that the Crown and individuals have actually taken from those lands where CPR held rights? What was the total value that CPR is alleging that the Crown and individuals took without their permission?

[1550]

Hon. S. Thomson: It’s important to recognize that there are a whole number of factors that went into the calculation of the settlement value.

First of all, over time there had been timber-harvesting activities on both Crown and private land that potentially harvested CPR timber — if you accept the assertion, which we have, that they own that timber. There was that part of it. We didn’t go through and do a detailed valuation of all of that. It means going back and determining, in those cases, which was CPR and which wasn’t, which might have been Crown timber or which might have been private timber that’s not under the reservations on each of those individual properties. There was that factor.

There was the factor that on all of those 10,000 private properties and Crown land there is existing timber that subsequent to the settlement agreement was owned by CP Rail. In addition, we factored in all the potential legal costs, both Crown and — with the view if we carried the process unsuccessfully — the responsibility for some portion of CP legal costs and the CPR interests in the validity around historically forfeited land to the province, which was added into the settlement agreement, bringing all of the private land into the final settlement and providing all of that certainty.

When we factored all of those together, value in the mediated settlement process was determined. It was viewed as being a fair settlement in order to provide that certainty.

The settlement process was determined, putting to rest a long history of uncertainty for something that was done years and years ago in terms of the original grants — CPR becoming the successor to those rights, the fact that they existed, the fact that some people didn’t even know they existed, didn’t know they were on their property and may have taken action to prevent any future action against those private land owners, in particular, for action against the province. That, all packaged together, was determined to be the best steps.

The legislation that we’re debating here — still in section 1 — and that we’re bringing forward here confirms the settlement. The settlement is there. Potentially, we could have just accepted the settlement, removed the court action which we’d agreed to, which was in abeyance and which we’ve applied to the court to remove. It could have been left at that.

But we felt that to provide the greatest degree of certainty, we also needed to bring legislation in which confirmed the settlement and also confirmed that there is no basis for future actions against any individuals or private land owners who may or may not have taken certain actions on their property. We wanted to have the greatest surety and assurances in the settlement.

H. Bains: I agree with the minister. The issue has to be resolved. The lawsuit is there, and it has to be resolved — no doubt. That is the right thing to do under all of the circumstances.

Again, the taxpayers who are watching are seeing that $19 million of taxpayer money is being used here to settle this. There has to be some basis for that. I know the minister is trying his best to explain the background and the reasons. But they’re asking: “How do you come up with those numbers?” CP can’t just pick a number and government try to negotiate halfway.

[1555]

They must justify it based on some logic, based on some documentation, based on some calculations done — how much timber was, according to them, stolen or stone quarried or other material taken without their consent. I think that’s the whole purpose. They must have some calculations done to convince the government and the Crown: “This is how much we have lost over the years, and here is the documentation to back up our argument.”

I’m just trying to ask those questions so that the taxpayers can actually see that, yes, there is a base for those numbers. Now, $40 million was mentioned by CPR. They bring the lawsuit against the government and others.
[ Page 4941 ]
They allege that that’s how much they lost over the years. How do they justify $40 million? They must have some mechanism to go by — how much timber was used.

Perhaps I could go back, which should be a little easier for the minister to answer. One of the allegations from CPR before this case was settled was that the Crown allowed or they allocated timber to private entities to come in and harvest on Crown land, which they alleged the government had no right to because CP still owned those reservations on timber and stone. The government issued licences for private contractors to come in and harvest, so government must know how much revenue government actually collected over the years from these 145,000 acres of that are in dispute here.

[1600]

Hon. S. Thomson: In order to provide some clarity here, firstly, a detailed look back over all the history of how much timber on Crown lands was potentially harvested, where the province provided the authority for the harvest, tenures, licences — all of those processes.

We know that a portion of that would have been Crown timber and a portion would have been timber that had the reservation on it. It would have been CPR timber. But to go back and do all of that evaluation would have taken a great deal of time and effort in order to determine the exact valuation.

We knew we were at risk in the process, as part of it, for compensation for that. That was one part of the consideration for the settlement. The second part was that we know there are, in the very conservative estimates, about 2.7 million cubic metres of reserved timber on the Crown lands and an amount on private lands.

That wasn’t taken into consideration because, as I said, the evaluation was done based on the claim against the province. The private property extinguishment and rights was added into the settlement by the province in terms of achieving that additional value — over $10 million estimated in terms of the lots, about 4,000 hectares of railway land and district lots where the CPR questioned the validity of that under provincial tax forfeiture. We didn’t want to go into a long….

It would have taken a great deal of costs, potentially further legal costs and everything, to resolve that against third-party purchasers who had not paid the historic railway for the land. In other words, there could have been an argument advanced that the land was still owned by the railway.

When we look at the significant legal costs that would be involved in the process — continued legal costs around the court declaration on the sublot that we mentioned, a saving to the province in discontinuing that — all of those were packaged together to determine the value. CPR, obviously, if they’d continued to pursue the case, would have made the argument around maximum compensation. If it had proceeded, it would have taken a lot of work to value all of that.

[1605]

All packaged together, in our view, a reasonable settlement was achieved — a reasonable value for taxpayers, in the process — to provide the certainty both to the Crown and the private land owners so that we can move on with certainty on the land base for economic development for the Crown as we move forward with timber harvesting, potential stone reservations on those properties.

The private land owners can now, knowing that they have ownership or value of all of the timber…. They don’t have to worry about whether CPR is going to claim that and come against them. They don’t have to worry whether CPR might sell that reservation to somebody else. If it was offered to that landowner and he decided he didn’t want to take it up, then CPR could have said: “Well, we have some value here. We’re going to provide that to somebody else.” To remove that uncertainty for those private owners, to free up the land for potential, clear it with no encumbrances on it as far as future relations with First Nations….

All packaged together, we feel we’ve achieved a reasonable value for the province in the settlement.

H. Bains: Let me ask a question from a different angle. Now that there’s a settlement, CP will get $19 million. The private land owners will get the full title on their land. The government-owned or government portion of that settlement, 145,000 acres — now the government owns those rights. I should say that the reservation is removed on that 145,000 acres. It’s the same thing with the private owners.

I still haven’t got the answer to whether it’s 50 percent of 145,000 or whether it’s 145,000. That’s what I asked. In either case, let me ask if the minister put any value to stone and timber rights to the portion of the Crown part of the 145,000 acres so that we could see who’s getting what.

CP is getting 19,000, as said earlier. Private owners are having the reservation rights removed from their land. Now they own the land with full rights. The Crown now also owns their land with full rights, with all the reservations removed. There has to be benefit to all of them.

What is the benefit to the taxpayers — it’s costing them $19 million — of selling this? You gave all the other explanations and the reasons. But as far as the equity that we now, as government, have acquired on the portion of land that was Crown land — I think we still could use 145,000 acres…. What is the total value of the equity that we have acquired as a result of this settlement, as government?

[1610]

Hon. S. Thomson: While we didn’t do a detailed evaluation of the timber on Crown land — it would have been very extensive in terms of what was Crown, what was CPR and the nature of all of the timber supply on all of
[ Page 4942 ]
those properties — conservatively, the estimate was that the value was around $10 million.

In addition to that value — which is timber that is there and that is now not subject to the reservations — plus all of the potential risk around any harvesting that had taken place over all of that time frame, that historical time period, plus the certainty for private land owners, plus the issue around the disputed lands under the forfeiture process…. Again, that added significant value to what was negotiated — for their cooperation in that process.

All of that added together in the process to avoid that long, complex legal process, to ensure that the province owned the timber on the Crown lands and to remove the risk against both the province and private land owners for previous activities. As I pointed out, we took all of that — values and conservative estimates — to come to the settlement without going through a detailed analysis on every piece of property, on every area subject to the claim.

Again, in our view and the view of the process with the professionals — and a professional mediator in the process — it was viewed as a fair settlement.

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

H. Bains: The question to the minister would be…. We could have gone back to the definition of stone reservation. So 2(1) says: “All stone reservation interests held by CPR are extinguished.” Then you go back and take a look at the definition, and it says: “an interest in stone, including, without limitation, valuable or marketable stone, in, on or under the railway land.”

What does that mean when they talk about stone? Does that include minerals or anything under the ground?

[1615]

Hon. S. Thomson: The stone reservation results from the agreement between the historical railway company and the third party, where that third party received the land but the railway retained rights and access to the stone.

What they talked about in the terms of the transfer were “valuable and marketable stone.” These were the terms. They’re used, but they’re not defined. It’s believed that stone does not include base or precious minerals, which were not granted to railways under the original Crown grants, or sand or gravel, which is differential from stone in the Crown grants.

As I talked about last Thursday, it’s that construction or building stone that was important at that time in terms of economic development and moving forward with the construction of towns. The member for Nanaimo talked about Fernie — the historical building with stone in Fernie. Probably much of that stone came from some of those historical reservations, but it doesn’t include base or precious minerals.

It is undefined. That was one of the challenges in determining a valuation in all of that. Timber — we know what timber is in the process. Stone is a little more grey.

H. Bains: Thank you for that answer.

The next one, when we move on. Still under definitions, it talks about: “(b) interests incidental to the interest referred to in paragraph (a), including, without limitation, interests respecting the following: (i) ingress to and egress from the railway land….” Can the minister explain what that means?

Hon. S. Thomson: In the drafting…. If you look in section 1, “‘interest’ includes a claim, estate, right or title.” That, combined with the definition of “stone reservation,” where you talk about interests incidental to the interest, ingress and egress from the railway land, right to extract or carry away stone….

What we wanted to do in the definitions and in the stone reservation and then referencing it to section 2, which we’re dealing with, and extinguishing all of those…. We wanted to cover all of the potential circumstances that may have been there. So whether it was the stone itself or whether it had been a right that might have been granted to access some property for some reason, we wanted to capture it all.

That’s the basis of the definition, and section 2 is simply extinguishing all of those stone reservation interests.

H. Bains: I think the question, then, is: with the language here, is the minister sure that with any of those private land owners that are covered by this settlement, you have determined that none of them could come back and challenge the minister or this settlement in any way?

Hon. S. Thomson: Yes, we’re confident that’s the case.

Section 2 approved.

On section 3.

H. Bains: Again, the questions are about…. This one talks about extinguishment of timber reservation interests.

[1620]

With this, I guess it applies — as far as the benefits are concerned, as I earlier said — to the Crown land and to the private land. Did anyone do any calculations about the private lands by virtue of this settlement? Now they own the full rights to timber and stone rights. What would it do to the value of their lands, and if there’s any value taken into consideration, how much are they benefiting from it?
[ Page 4943 ]

Hon. S. Thomson: Again, as pointed out, section 3 is the section that extinguishes all of those interests, both on Crown and private land.

In discussions with the assessment authority and others, there wasn’t a difference in valuation between land that had the timber reservations on and land that didn’t. In fact, in many cases the landowners didn’t know the reservations were in place.

So in order to provide that additional certainty, when we were coming down to the stages of the settlement, we wanted to add that into the process to protect those landowners. First of all, to protect them against any potential claims for actions that had been taken on those properties in the past, where they may have harvested Crown or CPR timber — some Crown, some CPR…. We also wanted to provide that certainty to them going forward.

There will be individual circumstances, depending on the nature of the timber on that property, where a person could argue now that “I’ve got some additional value, in that….” If he knew there was a reservation in place and it was impacting it, in some way, now to have that certainty…. Obviously, having certainty and the lack of encumbrances on your property is a comfort and is a value to that landowner, particularly in estate provisions and all of those sort of things.

But we didn’t do a detailed valuation of it all. The value in the settlement was the value to the Crown. This was additional value that the province achieved in the settlement.

H. Bains: If he used the numbers that were earlier used for Crown land….

The Chair: Member, through the Chair.

H. Bains: Thank you, hon. Chair.

If you used the numbers that were talked about earlier, the estimation was $10 million of the equity that the government now will hold in the government portion of the plot — 145,000 acres. But the settlement talked about $19 million. At the same time, the private land owners, if they, up until now…. Many of them, the minister said, knew — others didn’t — whether there was some reservation on their property.

Now they know that there are no reservations, and now they own the full rights. Certainly, the value of their piece of property is now higher than it was before the settlement. So obviously, they’re benefiting from it materially and, now, legally.

[1625]

I think that’s something that needs to be out there so that they know that what the government has done is benefiting them as far as their property values are concerned.

As the Crown side of 145,000 acres, their timber and stone rights also have value. I was just wondering if the minister or anybody calculated that into this settlement. How much, actually, are they benefiting, as far as the escalation of their property value by virtue of all the reservations removed?

Hon. S. Thomson: As I pointed out, we didn’t do the specific, detailed valuation. When you look back over the history on this, the majority of people who purchased these private properties, I think, purchased under the assumption and paid on the basis that they assumed that they were paying for all of the value on that property, not knowing that there was a reservation in place. The greatest majority of these landowners, unless it was somewhere where it was specifically on title, would not have known that these historical reservations existed.

In terms of providing additional value to them, in many cases they’ve already paid for that value in what they paid for properties, historically over time, based on assessed values and assessment of the properties when they’re looking at a private sale, seller to purchaser.

We didn’t do a specific valuation. As I said earlier, it was additional value that we wanted to include in the settlement to provide that certainty for all. The settlement could have been just simply to settle the claim against the province, which we didn’t feel was in the best long-term interests of the province. So that additional portion was added into the settlement agreement.

Again, this section simply is the section that extinguishes those rights. In the same way that we did with the stone reservation, we made sure that we covered all the potential bases, as it prevented any future potential claim against any of those private property owners and the Crown.

H. Bains: These two sections, sections 2 and 3. The way I read it — and I would like to ask the minister for confirmation — is that when we are saying in this that all stone or timber reservation interests by the CPR are extinguished, not only are they extinguished going forward from the date of the settlement, but they are extinguished as if they never existed. Therefore, the CPR or any other interested party or aggrieved party can never come back and say: “We once owned rights. Therefore, going backward or retroactively, we still own some interests, and we need to settle that.”

Is that the reason it is said here that it “must be read as if the stone reservation had not been included in the historic grant of railway land”? This means when the railway land was granted, between 1892 and 1908, it will be read now as if they’d never had the reservation rights, as far as the timber rights are concerned or the stone rights are concerned. It should be read as if it had never existed.

[1630]

Hon. S. Thomson: That’s correct.

Section 3 approved.

On section 4.
[ Page 4944 ]

H. Bains: Here are, again, a number of definitions or meanings: “‘owner’ has the same meaning as in the Land Title Act; ‘registrar’ has the same meaning as in the Land Title Act.”

Then it goes on to say:

“Despite any enactment, if a stone reservation interest or timber reservation interest (a) is extinguished under section 2 (1) or 3 (1), as applicable, and (b) remains registered under the Land Title Act in favour of a historic railway company or CPR, or any other person, against a title to railway land, the registrar, on application by a person who is an owner in respect of the railway land, may cancel the registration of the stone reservation interest or timber reservation interest.”

It has to be through action of a person for this registration to be cancelled, in the event that it shows somewhere in the paperwork, I guess.

Can the minister explain what the purpose of this paragraph here is? I’ll read it again: “…the registrar, on application by a person who is an owner in respect of the railway land, may cancel the registration of the stone reservation interest or timber reservation interest.” What does that mean?

Hon. S. Thomson: This section is here in order to allow individuals to clean up the title and provides the authority for the registrar, on application, to do that, to remove that from the title.

Section 2 and section 3, which we have dealt with, clearly extinguish those historical reservations. The landowner can rely on those two provisions to know that his title is clear. But if he wants the additional process of having it actually specifically removed from the title if it isn’t there, he can apply, and this section provides the authority for the registrar to remove that. He can rely on sections 2 and 3 of the bill to know that those historical rights no longer exist, and that reservation can be removed.

Section 4 approved.

On section 5.

H. Bains: This section talks about, in subsection (1): “The payment of compensation by the government to CPR under the settlement agreement constitutes full and final settlement of all claims by CPR against any person, whether or not the person is named or described in the current action, in relation to any of the following matters,” and then it goes on to list those matters.

My question to the minister is…. This talk about “full and final settlement of all claims by CPR against any person” — I get that, but where does the government come in here? Where does the Crown come in here? Is that covered under any other section?

Hon. S. Thomson: The Crown is considered a person for purposes of this section.

[1635]

Section 5 approved.

On section 6.

H. Bains: The validation section, section 6: “In this section: ‘effective date’ means the date this section comes into force.” I take it that when this bill is passed, is that the effective date? What would be the effective date if you just read the way the wording is? What’s the real effective date, if the minister could give us, in real terms, a real date?

Hon. S. Thomson: The definition is the date in which the…. The effective date is the section when this comes into force by regulation. That effective date will coincide with the extinguishment of the reservations. This will ensure that the validation has the full legal effect in respect of the reservations.

H. Bains: So when this bill is passed and it’s finalized here in this House…. I think what I’m trying to get at is that we’re saying it comes into effect upon this section coming into force. Does that require additional action by the minister? How do you bring this into force?

Hon. S. Thomson: The process that we…. The third reading, royal assent of it…. It’ll be brought into force…. An OIC would be needed to take it forward to bring it into force by regulation, and that would be the effective date. That will extinguish all those rights going forward. It’ll also validate, by the provisions of legislation, any action taken previously.

H. Bains: Just to clarify. So the date this bill gets the royal assent here — is that the date? Or will it require another process, through regulations, where the minister will proceed and finalize, and that will be the date to bring it into force?

Hon. S. Thomson: As I pointed out, there is royal assent. Then there is a process of regulations, so that’s an additional step in the process. The reason that that is the case is to make sure that all the final legal documents — the settlement agreement, everything — are finalized before we enact it by regulation. But it is a step that we will do as quickly as possible with the passage of the legislation.

[1640]

H. Bains: What would be the estimated time frame after the royal assent?

Hon. S. Thomson: The timing with respect to royal assent will be determined by the House Leader in terms of bringing the Lieutenant-Governor in for assent. We’ll be doing the work to prepare the regulation during that time frame so that we’re ready, as soon as that process is
[ Page 4945 ]
completed, to move forward with the OIC. I don’t control the agenda to move things on for OIC, but I expect, given that the legislation has passed and the settlement agreement is in place, that that will follow quickly after royal assent.

Sections 6 and 7 approved.

On section 8.

H. Bains: It talks about: “For certainty, sections 5 (2) and 7 do not apply to a claim, action or proceeding by CPR or the government to enforce or determine a right or obligation under the settlement agreement.” Can the minister explain what does that actually…? How is that going to play out?

Hon. S. Thomson: This relates back to those two sections, which are very clear in the fact that…. It extinguishes the rights. It validates past actions. This section, “Enforcement of settlement agreement,” provides the additional certainty that this does not prevent either of the parties from claim against either of the parties if they fail to live up to the settlement agreement.

If, for some reason, under the terms of the settlement, a party doesn’t live up to the terms of the settlement, then action can be taken. That’s appropriate to have that provision in there. But it relates to the settlement agreement itself, not to the historical rights or the extinguishment of the reservations.

H. Bains: The minister knows that I’m not a lawyer, but this thing…. If you read, it says, “For certainty, sections 5 (2),” which talks about settlement and extinguishment of claims, “and 7” — same thing. The way I read it, it says: “For certainty, sections 5 (2) and 7 do not apply to a claim, action or proceeding by CPR or the government to enforce or determine a right or obligation under the settlement agreement.”

The way I read it, it seems to me we’re saying that the claim that existed by CPR…. This does not apply to it. On the other hand, we are saying that the rights are extinguished as a part of the settlement. But here we are saying that it does not apply to a claim, action or proceeding by CPR. I mean, we had a proceeding and a claim by CPR, and that’s why this settlement is here before us. That’s why this bill is here. It seems to be saying that those sections do not apply.

[1645]

The section that talks about extinguishment of rights by CPR — how does this section fit with the previous section’s intent?

Hon. S. Thomson: The member opposite will know that I’m also not a lawyer. But I appreciate the question. What this section does is this relates strictly to the settlement agreement itself, not to the provisions of extinguishment under those other provisions.

The settlement agreement lays out certain steps that the parties must take: quick claim, those various steps that are incorporated in the settlement agreement. What this means is that if either of the parties don’t live up to the terms of the settlement agreement that was reached in exchange for the payment of compensation, then action could be taken against either of those parties.

You could use a very theoretical example. If we passed the legislation — took all the steps and everything like that — the settlement agreement was in place, and then the province decided we weren’t going to pay, then this would allow CP to take action against the province. Or if we paid and CP didn’t take the steps to quit the claim and things that are part of that settlement agreement, then we would be able to take action.

It refers to this settlement agreement, not to the extinguishment of the historical rights.

Sections 8 and 9 approved.

On section 10.

H. Bains: This section talks about retroactive effect. “This Act is retroactive to the extent necessary to give full force and effect to its provisions and must not be construed as lacking retroactive effect in relation to any matter because it makes no specific reference to that matter.”

But once we…. Earlier we said that the CPR’s reservation rights are extinguished. So what’s the purpose of this section here? It becomes retroactive anyway because now it must be read as if those reservation rights never existed. I mean, that’s what we talked about earlier, and we read through the section earlier.

I understand it may be some legal requirement, but I’m just trying to understand. When you’re extinguishing the rights, you’re not buying those rights; you’re extinguishing as if they never existed. So what’s the purpose of this section?

Hon. S. Thomson: The member opposite is right. This is a legislation that extinguishes historical rights retroactively as though they never existed. This clause is a standard provision that provides additional certainty, used to ensure that the provisions of the act that need to apply in the past do so. It’s additional certainty.

I see the member opposite consulting with his colleague, who is a lawyer, on this. But I’m advised that this is a standard provision when you have an act that has retroactive provisions, just to give that additional clarity and certainty.

Section 10 approved.

On section 11.
[ Page 4946 ]

H. Bains: “Regulations to amend Schedule. The Lieutenant Governor in Council may, by regulation, do one or more of the following: (a) prescribe additional railway lands by adding items to the Schedule.” Can the minister explain what that means: “prescribe additional railway lands by adding items to the Schedule”?

[1650]

Hon. S. Thomson: This section provides the government with regulation-making authority to amend the schedule of district lots that are schedule-attached to this — for two years after the date this section comes into force.

This will ensure that all historical lands are captured by the legislation, if there was some property that came forward that was identified as being subject to this and that wasn’t captured in the schedule. We think we have all the lands captured in the schedule, but this provides that provision. In the event that there is a landowner that comes forward and says, “My piece of property is not in the schedule, and I want it added,” this provides us the reg authority to do so.

H. Bains: To clarify, after this bill is passed and receives royal assent and is brought into force, from that point the government, through the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, has two years from that date to amend the schedule — to add, in the event that some land or lots are left out, which may not have been captured going through the process. The enforcement date that is listed in “Validation,” section 6 — is it two years from that date to add any land that may have been left out?

Hon. S. Thomson: Yes. Given that that validation section comes into force with the passage of the regulation that would follow the passage of the legislation, that would be the effective date. It would be two years from that effective date.

H. Bains: Any idea, Minister, if, since the discussion and negotiations, any other land or lots have been identified? Do you know if there might be more? Or is this just to protect ourselves as government — to make sure that in case something is left out, you could add it within those two years?

Hon. S. Thomson: We’re not aware of any. Nothing has come forward since the legislation was introduced. We’re pretty confident that we have all of the lands identified. This is just extra protection for both the government and, particularly, the private owners who may come forward.

CPR would agree. This is part of the settlement agreement, so there would be no argument about adding any to it if they’re identified. In order to be able to ensure that we provide that extinguishment behind title when it may not be registered on that title, we just wanted to make sure that we had that time frame to be able to do that. So it’s just additional protection, but we’re pretty confident that we have all of it identified.

H. Bains: Has the government anything in mind, in particular, to make the private land owners aware that this has happened and that they have two years to come forward? Is there going to be a process of letting them know? Or it’s up to them to find out, and if they don’t find out, they’re out of luck? Is there, I will say, the responsibility of the government to let everyone who potentially could be included in this settlement know?

Hon. S. Thomson: We’ve been working to get the legislation through. That has obviously brought some attention to it. We don’t have a full communication plan developed, but obviously, we would undertake general communication around this to make sure that it’s generally made aware.

[1655]

That would probably involve a press release, some communication in local newspapers and media outlets in those areas and any other communication that we might be able to do — so some general communication. As I said, we’re pretty confident we have it all. But again, we want to provide that two years in case something comes forward and for some general communication.

H. Bains: My question would be why the government went the route of actually listing these lots, rather than negotiating a blanket agreement with wording such as “every lot that CPR may have reservation rights on and that falls under the category that we have earlier described.”

Wouldn’t that have been like a blanket coverage so that in the future anybody that CPR tried to go after would have the protection under the bill, rather than having them individually listed here? In the event that a few of them were left out or they didn’t find out within two years, then, again, they’re subject to some lawsuit by CPR.

Hon. S. Thomson: This is a blanket way of doing it in terms of the extinguishment. What we’ve listed is the outer boundaries, the 115 district lots that were part of the original grants. We haven’t gone down and identified each individual property within all of those outer boundaries.

What we’ve done with the schedule is define the outer boundaries of all of the grants. That’s why we’re confident that the legislation and the provisions have captured all of the properties. But in the event that something was just outside one of those defined boundaries for some reason, historically we wanted to make sure we provided that additional provision. But we haven’t gone down to list each individual property. It is a broader schedule.

H. Bains: That would be my exact question. If you want to put outside boundaries, within those boundaries
[ Page 4947 ]
that CPR was exerting their rights, and bring a lawsuit, would you not simply say that all of those lands mentioned by CPR are covered under this settlement, rather than individually listing, in each of the districts, lot 24, 25, for example? Item 24, district lot 327 in the land district of Kootenay….

I’m just trying to figure out…. You probably wanted to have blanket coverage within which every piece of property is covered, rather than individually listing them and then, by mistake or because we didn’t know, you leave out something. Even after two years, somebody wakes up. “Hey, by the way, I should be part of that, and I’m not.”

What was the rationale in doing this rather than having blanket coverage?

[1700]

Hon. S. Thomson: Getting back to the definition where we talk about the reservations and applying them to “‘railway land’ means any land (a) that was granted by the government to a historic railway company, and (b) that was, at the time of the grant….”

In order to reference back to the definition that says “‘railway land’ means any land…” you have to describe that land. It means any, but it would be ruled as too vague if you didn’t define the bounds of the lands. That’s why the schedule of the 115 district lots was attached as a schedule. That’s where the province granted the unencumbered Crown land to the historical railways between 1892 and 1908. That establishes the maximum area of railway land within those historical railways which created the timber and the stone reservations.

Sections 11 to 13 inclusive approved.

Schedule approved.

Title approved.

Hon. S. Thomson: I move that the committee rise and report that Bill 3 is complete without amendments.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 5:03 p.m.

The House resumed; Madame Speaker in the chair.

Report and
Third Reading of Bills

BILL 3 — CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY
(STONE AND TIMBER) SETTLEMENT ACT

Bill 3, Canadian Pacific Railway (Stone and Timber) Settlement Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. T. Stone: I now call continued second reading of Bill 2, Greenhouse Gas Industrial Reporting and Control Act.

[1705]

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 2 — GREENHOUSE GAS INDUSTRIAL
REPORTING AND CONTROL ACT

(continued)

L. Throness: It’s a pleasure to be here today to speak to Bill 2, the Greenhouse Gas Industrial Reporting and Control Act, which is part of the larger vision for LNG that we have for our province. It’s a very exciting thing, and, of course, I want to speak in support of this bill.

But I want to explain my support of this bill, which combats global warming, particularly when I’m not naturally inclined to believe in the science of global warming. I think I represent many of my constituents as well. Although I’m not convinced of human-caused or so-called anthropogenic global warming, I wouldn’t call myself a denier either. I’m more of an agnostic on the question.

The very use of language like “skepticism” and “belief” and “denial” and “agnosticism,” which are widely used around the world, to me is telling. These are words that we use of faith matters rather than settled issues of science. It suggests to me that the science is not yet settled. After all, we don’t really discuss or argue about whether one plus one makes two or whether water is made up of hydrogen and oxygen. Those kinds of things are beyond debate. But this, obviously, is not beyond debate.

I think what makes me skeptical about the global warming debate is the passion, the rhetoric, the political pressure, the repression of opposing viewpoints, the accusations and condemnations and apocalyptic pronouncements that seem, to me, to substitute for hard scientific reality. I don’t like to give in to that kind of thing.

What also gives me pause about the science of global warming is the ongoing debate within the scientific community itself. For example, the latest news at the end of September was from two scientists from Alabama who compiled NASA satellite data to conclude that the Earth’s temperature hasn’t increased for the last 18 years. That, to me, is a problem for global warming.

A few years ago there was a scandal involving the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. In 2009 and again in 2011 there were hundreds of thousands of e-mails and other documents that were hacked from a server in East Anglia, in England. They were made public, and they seemed to show that senior scientists who influence public policy on a global scale were pushing the bounds of scientific evidence and politicizing that issue.
[ Page 4948 ]

We have conclusions that the Earth has a fever, the seas are rising, and the skies are falling. Every extreme weather event, whether it’s too hot or too cold, is considered to be evidence for global warming. It all becomes very apocalyptic and panicky and driven by fear. To me, that’s not very convincing, so I remain skeptical.

But I have every confidence in the scientific process. I’m happy to be convinced, but I think it will take some time for that to happen, as we continue to gather data around the world. The question for us here in this House is: what do we do in the interim while we’re gathering that data, while we’re continuing the scientific work?

I’m certainly convinced, for example, that regional warming is taking place. I remember an elderly man, in the mid-’80s, telling me that when he was a boy, he used to take sleigh rides up and down East Hastings Street in Vancouver. That doesn’t happen anymore. Vancouver is warmer than it used to be.

As a child, I grew up in Fort St. John, and there used to be weeks on end where it would 30 and 40 degrees below zero Fahrenheit. That doesn’t happen so often anymore. Even in my own lifetime, in western Canada, the region has grown warmer. That, I would say, is an indication of regional warming.

Given that I’m somewhat of a skeptic, why would I support this bill? I need to explain my support for it to this House and to many of my constituents, who would oppose support for a bill that wants to combat global warming. There are three reasons why I’m supporting it.

The first is that the science may be true. The science may be accurate. The science may be not settled yet, but there are some indications, for sure, that the effect is real, whether or not it is caused by human activity. While we’re waiting for the science to firm up, perhaps there’s something that we ought to do, with this one condition: that we ought to follow a no-regrets policy.

What do I mean by that? If warming turns out to be regional, rather than global; if the effect is short term, rather than long term; if it turns out that we could not have changed the effect anyway, we should adopt a no-regrets policy now. The steps we should take should be careful steps, steps that won’t prove to have been wasted time and energy and money if it so happens that climate change turns out not to be global, not to be long term, not to be changeable.

[1710]

The second reason I’m in support of this bill is that we in the B.C. Liberal Party are a coalition. We have a diversity of views across the political spectrum. In a coalition, both sides of the coalition take some water with their wine, and I’m a good coalition partner. I’m happy to compromise on an issue that, to me, is not a fundamental issue of principle. That’s why I’m willing to live with a carbon tax and also with the idea of reducing greenhouse gases.

The third reason is, I think, the most important reason. There is a place where both global warming skeptics and those who are completely convinced of human-caused climate change can meet, where we can find common ground. That is on the issue of clean air. We all want to enjoy clean air. We all want to fight pollution. We all want a cleaner environment. Everyone can agree on that.

That is the effect that this bill will have. That is the third reason why I will support this bill.

I want to point out here that greenhouse gases do not only include carbon dioxide. They include any gas that absorbs the sun’s rays to contribute to the greenhouse effect. I want to quote the existing Greenhouse Gas Reduction Targets Act, where it defines a greenhouse gas. This is what it says: “‘greenhouse gas’ means any or all of carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, sulphur hexafluoride and any other substance prescribed by regulation.”

This is a description of gases that pollute the atmosphere, and I am happy to find ways to reduce them, even while making use of our great and abundant natural resource of natural gas.

About a decade ago there was a terrible row in my riding over the building of SE2, which was a proposed natural gas cogeneration facility just across the border, in Sumas. My predecessor, Barry Penner, did a great job, along with many others, in a valiant struggle against this plant. There were about 25,000 letters written to the National Energy Board against the plant. They didn’t want the airshed of the Fraser Valley to be compromised.

Finally, they were successful. The plant was not built. Air pollution would have resulted from the burning of natural gas. Even though natural gas is the cleanest of all fossil fuels, the use of natural gas, admittedly, produces pollution. The very existence of this bill acknowledges that.

I’m perfectly happy to support the bill, because its effect will be to reduce the intensity of pollution caused by the production and burning of natural gas across this province. The key here, as we develop this industry, is to require greenhouse gas emission reductions without scaring away investment in the first place so that companies don’t even consider coming here — and, once they invest, without bringing our economy grinding to a halt through targets that are too stringent and regulation that is too comprehensive and bureaucracy that is too punishing.

We want to develop an industry as well as a clean industry. This bill is, I think, successful in supplying a mechanism by which we’ll be able to attract industry while at the same time requiring levels of emissions that will create the cleanest LNG plants in the world.

I want here to address the issue of our provincial targets for the reduction of greenhouse gases versus the global reduction of greenhouse gases. The use of more LNG, particularly in China, will result in cleaner air around the world. This is a great thing. By getting involved in this industry, we’re going to be doing the en-
[ Page 4949 ]
tire world a favour by helping China to replace coal with LNG.

The NDP, I think, should be applauding this government’s initiative. I find it — as I find so many other of their policies — completely inexplicable that they are opposing this bill. They are putting on ideological blinkers over this issue, looking at B.C. but refusing to look at the bigger picture: the rest of the planet that will benefit from our great policy of LNG.

Our government could be bureaucratic bean counters. We could stick our heads in the sand and only worry about the impact of greenhouse gases on this province alone. We could ignore the rest of the world, but that would be to hide our eyes from the hundreds of millions of people in the cities of China who live and work in conditions that would be intolerable in this country.

To me, the development of our industry here, while tackling the problem of air pollution head on, is a demonstration of care for our own people and our own economy, which will benefit hugely from this industry, but it will also benefit the global situation. To refuse to exploit our resource because it produces greenhouse gases would be to stifle an incredibly valuable and useful industry at home while denying the world the benefit of that industry, so I fully support it and the way that we have chosen to reduce our GHGs.

[1715]

However, I would point out that in seeking to reduce them, our liquefaction plants will be the cleanest in the world. We intentionally chose targets that are the most stringent in the world. We do believe that because of the mechanism we’ve chosen, we will actually meet our overall global greenhouse gas targets even far into the future.

The mechanism this act lays out to reduce greenhouse gases — and I would term it pollution — is to set in place a system of offsets and to create a technology fund. We’ve decided not to establish a cap-and-trade system, and I applaud this. I think that’s good news.

Not only is a cap-and-trade system administratively very complex; the real problem with a cap-and-trade system is that it arbitrarily sets an upper limit on emissions without caring about how much it costs to reach that target, how much it costs industry to reduce emissions to those levels. The idea would be that we would set those caps lower and lower year by year, but this means that industry could actually be drummed out of the province, out of the marketplace, by the zeal of those who set those emissions.

The offsets that we’ve chosen to set in place will work this way. If a company doesn’t reach the required clean air targets, it would be required to purchase an offsetting reduction in pollution. I can think of marvellous ways to do that all over B.C.

There are many options for this kind of funding — for instance, to reduce emissions of the upstream production of natural gas, which would contribute to clean air in B.C.’s north. However, I’m a resident of the Lower Mainland. I live in the southern part of B.C. I’m hoping that some of the offset funds will come to the Fraser Valley, where I live with about three or four million others who are crowded into a small plain that’s bounded by mountains, which tend to trap air pollution.

These are projects that could be undertaken right here in the Lower Mainland that would help to reduce the consumption of natural gas or to convert away from dirtier fuels to make the air cleaner for the majority of British Columbians.

For example, I’d like to see some kind of assistance for greenhouse operators in the Lower Mainland, many of whom are in my riding. One of their largest costs is the cost of burning natural gas to heat their greenhouses. There may be investments that could be made to reduce these costs, such as building cogeneration facilities or partnering with unrelated businesses that produce excess heat that is not presently used.

I’ve been thinking in particular of a farm in my riding which uses waste from animals in a way that produces excess heat that is not used right now. We could help them find ways to use that heat without burning more natural gas.

Now, I don’t think that offset funds should be used only to fund reductions or efficiencies in the use of natural gas, either. We could also reduce the use of other fuels, like gasoline or diesel, through offset projects. We could also promote the further use of clean electricity. I would remind the House that B.C. already has the sixth-lowest electricity costs in North America and that it’s clean energy because of the abundance of hydroelectricity in B.C. We could take advantage of that wonderful resource and those low prices to use that advantage for our economy.

The cost of transition to electricity can be difficult to bear. Here are some specific ideas of offsets that could be purchased by large companies that don’t meet the legislated requirements for greenhouse gas reductions. Offsets could be used to help convert cars to natural gas in the Lower Mainland, to build more fuelling infrastructure. They could also pay to convert more diesel trucks to LNG and to build LNG refuelling stations, to make them more viable. We’d be using our own homegrown conversion industry, which already exists, while reducing emissions and transitioning to a cheaper fuel all at the same time.

Offsets could help to make it more attractive and economical to purchase electric cars, to install more charging stations, to make them viable. I think we should be looking more closely at geothermal energy, which has great potential to provide uninterrupted, constant, reliable heat, while avoiding many of the environmental problems of other forms of the generation of electricity.

Offsets could supply more electric power for ship-to-shore arrangements so that ships wouldn’t have to idle while in port, using their diesel engines. Federal and
[ Page 4950 ]
provincial governments have already gotten together to provide ship-to-shore arrangements for cruise ships. This kind of thing we could extend.

Offsets could provide funds that might help to establish more rapid transit. I’m thinking here, of course, of my own riding out in Chilliwack, where there’s precious little rapid transit between there and parts west — Abbotsford and Vancouver.

[1720]

Offsets could also help to subsidize solar panels for home use so that we would burn less natural gas for home heating — and even act as recharging stations for electric vehicles.

These are just some ideas. Some of them may be viable, and some of them may not be viable. But they’re ideas. What we have to avoid are situations like that which arose a year ago, in which the Auditor General studied some of the offsets that were part of carbon-neutral government and suggested that two major projects were really not doing the job of offsetting emissions.

Of course, the government disagreed with the facts in this report, and I don’t want to argue the facts, but the accusation alone could shake the confidence of taxpayers in the program. So we want to bend over in this new program. We want to bend over backwards to make sure that our offsets are incremental, which means that they wouldn’t have happened anyway, even without offset funds.

We want to make sure that projects are credible and practical and effective, that they are fully documented, that they are accountable to the public for real results. We need to do this in order to retain public confidence in our offset program and assure taxpayers that all of these funds are being spent wisely and effectively.

Now, there’s also a technology fund that will be established through this bill. Contributions to that fund could generate technologies that would more effectively remove effluents as they are generated, such as the pollutants that the burning of natural gas produces, or they could do things like make better batteries so that electric cars would be more attractive to purchase, or enable us to build more efficient water-driven turbines that would produce electricity at lower costs.

There are always a host of opportunities for research. These kinds of things are always oversubscribed. The key here, again, is to get the best bang for our buck, tackling projects that have a good chance of success so that research funds are not wasted.

In particular, I think we should research ways that will work to make the LNG industry in B.C. leaner and more competitive, more efficient, so that we will help to ensure the viability of this industry a generation into the future.

Now, we’re setting in place the system, but I want to point out, as I’ve done before, that this industry comes at virtually no cost to the taxpayer. We haven’t broken our budget. We haven’t risked a lot in order to bring LNG to B.C. We’re not risking huge sums of money so that if LNG doesn’t pan out for some reason, our taxpayers will suffer some huge loss. No, it’s all upside for us. The global demand for our natural gas will pull that resource out of the ground and bring it to the market without cost to the taxpayer. Indeed, it will come with enormous benefits to the taxpayer.

I want to conclude by putting our own planned GHG emissions in context by making some comparisons. We’re assuming that our industry will produce 13 megatonnes of greenhouse gases every year — that’s 13 million tonnes; that’s a lot of tonnes — while the oil sands next door in Alberta currently produce 100 megatonnes a year. In other words, the emissions from our industry will be 13 percent of Alberta’s oil sands emissions alone.

How do our numbers compare internationally? Well, our LNG industry could produce 13 megatonnes per year. Canada as a whole produced 560 megatonnes of GHGs in 2012. The United States produced 5,200 megatonnes of GHGs in 2012. China produced 9,900 megatonnes of greenhouse gases in 2012.

These are not my figures. These are according to a report by the European Union. B.C.’s LNG industry will produce 13 megatonnes of greenhouse gases, and that’s 761 times less than what China will produce. We will not be a leader in emissions, but we will be a leader in emissions control.

Our greenhouse gases will not be insignificant. Thirteen million tonnes is still a large amount, but British Columbians should not be panicked into thinking that we will be a world leader in emissions. We will not even be in the same ballpark, not even be in the same city with the same ballpark, of any of the world’s major economies. We have to keep our perspective.

We’re going to develop the cleanest LNG plants in the world. The mechanism contained here in the Greenhouse Gas Industrial Reporting and Control Act is going to help us do it. Through it all, we’re maintaining our determination to reach the targets for GHG reduction that we set back in 2009, regardless of the development of this enormous industry.

[1725]

In June of this year we announced success. We announced that in 2012 we were successful in achieving our first interim GHG reduction target of 6 percent below 2007 levels. We remain committed to ultimately achieving an 80 percent reduction from 2007 levels, which is a lot of clean air.

I think it’s a bold promise. It’s a tall order. But we’re determined to do that while growing a vibrant industry which will do so much for our province. By 2020 or so, I’m hoping that we will also have the cleanest air in the world. The cleanest air in B.C., I hope, will be in the Fraser Valley.

To me, this bill is all about clean air, and that’s why I’ll be voting in favour of this bill.
[ Page 4951 ]

G. Heyman: If it wasn’t so inappropriate, at a time when I’m actually getting up to speak to a bill, I’d be speechless based on some of the comments I just heard. I want to say to the member for Chilliwack-Hope…. While I have immense respect for him as a person, I simply think he’s wrong in his statement, a number of his statements.

He’s wrong in his statement that the science of climate change is still undetermined. I would suggest that perhaps during a boring moment in question period the member for Chilliwack-Hope might want to turn around and have a friendly conversation with the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head, who won a Nobel Prize for a reason. He won a Nobel Prize because he reviewed reams of scientific literature about climate change and about the fact that climate change is caused by human activity.

There is a reason that about 98 percent of the world’s scientists are in agreement that climate change is a man-made phenomenon. It’s worldwide. It’s not a regional phenomenon. It’s a significant threat to the future health of the planet and the future well-being of many low-lying communities that are barely above sea level. It’s also a significant economic threat, as was pointed out by Sir Nicholas Stern, I believe, in the U.K. If we do not deal with this, there will be significant price to pay, economic price to pay, in many, many, many ways down the road.

One of the problems with our current measure of gross domestic product is that it leads often to perverse assumptions about what is useful economic activity. In fact, that was perversely put forward by Kinder Morgan in their application for a pipeline, in which they said: “If there was an oil spill, don’t worry. We’ll employ people cleaning it up.” I don’t think most British Columbians would think that’s the kind of useful economic activity that we should be supporting.

Let me simply say to the member for Chilliwack-Hope — in addition to my suggestion that he might want to review with the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head some of the very real peer-reviewed science on this matter, which is accepted worldwide — that there’s a reason that this bill is called the Greenhouse Gas Industrial Reporting and Control Act and not the “Possibly a greenhouse gas and nasty pollution industrial reporting and control act.” It’s because — for all the failures in this bill and all the questions I have about the government’s approach to combatting climate change and the slipping and sliding nature of the commitment — this government has, in fact, recognized that climate change is an issue.

This government recognizes, I think, that many British Columbians want to hear what we’re going to do to address climate change. So this government, as is its wont in very many endeavours, tries to tell the people of British Columbia what the people of British Columbia want to hear and need to hear. Unfortunately, as is also the government’s wont, there are a lot of smoke and mirrors and not much substance to the delivery of the measures that British Columbians want to hear and need to hear — the assurances that British Columbians need and deserve and, in fact, people around the world need and deserve.

[1730]

Let me say that there are, in fact, tremendous opportunities with the development of natural gas and a liquid natural gas industry in British Columbia. People on this side of the House, my side of the House, agree with that.

Where we differ with the government is on the approach to developing it and the fact that we believe there are some very significant steps that need to be taken to make this a healthy industry, an industry that doesn’t threaten the people of the planet and British Columbia with global climate change and that actually can contribute, in the form of transition fuels, as we move to a low- or no-carbon future.

That is why on this side of the House we’ve said that if, in fact, liquid natural gas holds the promise in British Columbia for many, many jobs, there need to be guarantees of jobs and training opportunities for British Columbians, particularly benefits for First Nations.

If this is going to be a good economic opportunity for British Columbia, then we need to ensure that British Columbia gets a fair return on our resource, and we need to ensure that that’s concrete, that that’s not a list of benefits, on the one hand, and then a list of how we mitigate those benefits and hand them over to somebody else, on the other hand.

For the purposes of this bill, which is about greenhouse gases, we say that we need to protect our air, land and water, and we need to do that by living up to our climate commitments and living up to them very clearly.

The Environment Minister has said in the backgrounder to this bill: “There is no point in establishing an LNG industry in B.C. if we can’t protect the environment. We want to enable safe development with great environmental standards.” Those are important words. They’re the words that British Columbians want to hear. So the minister and this government tell British Columbians what they want to hear. Unfortunately, there is nothing in this bill that delivers on those commitments.

During the convention of the Union of B.C. Municipalities I had the opportunity to sit in a room with a number of mayors from around the province who were discussing the actions they were taking. We often see tremendous leadership at the municipal level from governments that take very concrete actions to address greenhouse gas emissions as well as other environmental matters.

The minister, speaking to this group of mayors, indicated that it was going to be extremely difficult, all things being equal, to meet the government’s greenhouse gas emission reduction targets by 2020 and 2050 and that it would be exponentially more difficult with the liquid natural gas industry.
[ Page 4952 ]

One of the reasons for that is because while the member for Chilliwack-Hope said that the proposal for a liquid natural gas industry in British Columbia was positing only about 13 percent of the greenhouse gas emissions of our neighbour Alberta, with the oil sands, that’s simply not true.

That’s true if we only have one plant, but if we have five plants, we’ll have 75 million tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions. If we have seven terminals — and let’s bear in mind that the Premier has often spoken about a large number of potential projects going forward, has, in fact, staked the government’s credibility on that claim — seven terminals would produce 110 million tonnes of CO₂ equivalent. The total from the oil sands is 90 million tonnes — 90 million tonnes.

It’s important to set the record straight. The proposal for greenhouse gas emissions or CO₂ equivalents from B.C.’s natural gas industry will only be 13 million tonnes with one terminal. It’s important that Hansard not include a spurious fact. It’s important that we, in this House, deal with reality, that we deal with the truth.

[1735]

That’s one of the big problems with this bill. It talks about…. In fact, the government, prior to this bill, talked about, in its own strategy documents — and I’m quoting from the LNG strategy document, 2012 — that “LNG development in B.C. will have lower life cycle greenhouse gas emissions than anywhere else in the world.”

In the natural gas strategy document of 2012, this was repeated. “LNG development in B.C. can have a lower life cycle for greenhouse gas emissions than anywhere else. This will differentiate B.C. in the global LNG export market.” This was all to sum up the promise that B.C. would have the cleanest life cycle emissions in LNG.

What do we see more recently? What do we see in the Premier’s more recent speeches? What do we hear from the Minister of Environment? What do we hear from this government? What do we hear in the throne speech? We talk about the cleanest liquefaction plants — the liquefaction plants that only cover 30 percent of the greenhouse gas emissions associated with the extraction of gas, the transport of gas and the liquefaction of gas into LNG for export.

I want to repeat that we on this side of the House believe that, in fact, there are opportunities for B.C. with liquid natural gas and with natural gas generally. That’s why the NDP government established the Oil and Gas Commission. We believe that liquid natural gas can, in fact, play a role in fighting climate change if it’s used properly, if it’s used as a replacement fuel, if it’s used as a transition fuel.

We won’t achieve the goals of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and we won’t achieve the goals of having the cleanest LNG industry in British Columbia if we deny that 70 percent of the GHG emissions associated with natural gas production are upstream emissions, which this bill does nothing to address. Now, in fairness, the minister has said: “We’ll deal with that later.” That’s not good enough.

If we’re to take this bill at its word in its title, Greenhouse Gas Industrial Reporting and Control Act, then we and British Columbians have a right to expect that we will see not aspirational goals, not wishes and promises, not a kind of optimistic outlook on the future that says, “Trust us. We’ll deal with those nasty 70 percent of CO₂ equivalent emissions that occur from leaks, that occur from carbon dioxide emissions in the upstream formation, that occur from the flaring and the leaking of methane,” which most people know is five times as greenhouse-gas-intensive as CO₂.

Most people would believe that it’s important to address those things, not pretend they don’t exist, not pretend that they can be addressed later and, most importantly, not ask the people of British Columbia, who are concerned about climate change, to “Trust us.”

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

As I’ve said, we have a commitment to our children and grandchildren to ensure not only that we have a healthy economy in British Columbia and that we don’t leave massive financial debts — which, by the way, have been growing on a yearly basis — but that we don’t leave a massive environmental deficit that threatens their food security, threatens the livability of British Columbia, threatens our security in British Columbia and around the world by the fact that many, many tens of thousands of people will be displaced by things that we already see occurring in other parts of the world where there have been extreme weather events, flooding and any number of other things that make their homes uninhabitable.

[1740]

We also will have a severely negative impact on other parts of our economy. We’ve seen the impact through pine beetle on forestry. We will see an impact on tourism. We will see any number of other things that impact the cost of our food. We’ve seen three years of droughts in California. We know that the growing areas in British Columbia will change with climate change.

If we’re going to be honest about LNG being a generational opportunity, then we need to make it so. We need to make this a generational opportunity by ensuring that as we develop liquid natural gas, we do it right — that we look at the total range of environmental safeguards and actions that should be contained in this bill to address greenhouse gas emissions and that we’re explicit about that.

We don’t ask the people of British Columbia: “Trust us. We’ll deal with 70 percent of the emissions later.” We don’t write a bill in which most of the detail will be introduced later by regulation. Some of the detail that’s contained in the bill today can be wiped out later by cabinet regulation,
[ Page 4953 ]
by a stroke of the pen — that we would actually talk very clearly about a vision that this government should have, but apparently does not have, about concrete measures that will be taken to address and mitigate the very real greenhouse gas emissions associated with the extraction, transport and liquefaction of natural gas.

That’s a reasonable expectation. I would love to be standing up here today and debating whether in fact the assumptions and the detail in a bill that outlined how we were going to do that were correct. But I can’t, because they’re not here, and they don’t exist. This government won’t come clean with British Columbians about what it actually intends to do.

This bill fails in a number of ways, a number of ways that would be critical for British Columbians, for us on this side of the House, even for the government’s own members to understand how in fact we’re going to develop a liquid natural gas industry and honour our legal, our legislated — our Liberal-legislated — commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions so we can meet our climate commitments. If that were the case, we would see a number of things in this bill that we simply don’t see.

We might see, for instance, a projection about what the greenhouse gas emission load of a liquid natural gas industry would be in a number of different scenarios: powered by gas; powered by e-drive; if carbon prices were going to be placed on the process emissions of the gas industry, which they are not and which they have not been — which members on this side of the House committed to do in the last election and would have done if elected, which would have driven some technological change in the industry as the carbon tax has driven in other parts of the economy.

There might be that measure to talk about how in fact we intend as legislators to live up to the responsibilities that are contained in legislation that was passed in this House and that is the law of British Columbia, yet we don’t see that. I wish I could see that.

I wish that this bill contained some suggestions about how the provisions in the bill for LNG proponents whose plants are above an intensity level that this government points to as an indication that they are developing the cleanest LNG in the world — I want to reiterate not life-cycle LNG but liquefaction LNG — and that meet that target or come within striking distance of that target will receive some incentives, and others who exceed that target will have to deal with that by buying offsets or by contributing to a technology fund.

[1745]

The problem with that scenario is that the technology fund cost will be about $25 a tonne of CO₂ equivalent, whereas the current price for offsets is something like $9 a tonne. You don’t have to really do the math. It’s pretty obvious. People will revert to the offsets, but there are problems with offsets.

We’ve seen, even as the member for Chilliwack-Hope said in his remarks, that there were some questionable carbon offsets that were used to support the so-called carbon neutrality of government in the broader public sector, in the education sector, in the hospital sector. In fact, some offsets that were sold for a very high price, a price that might otherwise have been put into the education of young people in British Columbia, actually went to support projects that not only would have proceeded without the offset, but they actually would have proceeded for a very good reason. They were saving the proponent money.

There are some offsets in British Columbia and around the world that are credible. This bill says that they’ll be certified by a third party. Well, I hope so, because the record of this government under the Pacific Carbon Trust was abysmal and was enough to make British Columbians cynical about the whole carbon offset system.

What would be more to the point, if we want to be serious about meeting our legislated targets, is, yes, have a penalty for excess greenhouse gas emissions, but also have a limit for greenhouse gas emissions. Have a cap. Have the kind of cap that was envisioned under a cap-and-trade system enshrined in legislation which, by the way, this bill will repudiate and remove.

Have some suggestions or incentives in the bill about what proponents of the liquid natural gas industry might do, could do, should do to specifically reduce greenhouse gas emissions so that British Columbians know that as we develop an industry that holds some promise for British Columbia’s economy, that could hold some promise for lessened greenhouse gas emission reductions around the world, we are doing that in a way that doesn’t boost our own greenhouse gas emissions sky-high in such a way that it will — by the Minister of Environment’s own admission very recently in Whistler, B.C. — make it all but impossible to obey the law that we in this House passed and that we in this House should take seriously and have a responsibility to ensure continues.

Let’s step back for a minute and assume that maybe the technology fund will receive some investments from people instead of buying carbon offsets. That might well be a good thing. Perhaps the technology fund should have been given equal prominence by ensuring that the penalty, whether it’s an offset or the clean technology fund, were equal so that there was an incentive for people developing the liquid natural gas industry to invest in a fund that actually develops technologies that are specified, that we talk about in this bill, that might reduce greenhouse gas emissions not only in this industry but in many industries.

This government had a chance in this bill to put forward a vision, a holistic vision that said we are going to develop liquid natural gas because it holds promise for British Columbia. It holds promise for British Columbians.
[ Page 4954 ]

[1750]

It holds some promise and can play a role in being a transition fuel over the next decades as we move, hopefully, to an era of reliance worldwide on renewables before we do exceed the 2 degrees of warming, which the member for Chilliwack-Hope may believe isn’t imminent but which a vast, vast majority, in the 90 percentile, of scientists believe is inevitable unless we make some serious change — like the ones at the UN.

A holistic view would have said: “We’re going to do this. We understand that there are emissions associated with this. We understand that there are measures A, B and C that can be taken to lessen the emissions. We expect proponents…. If they can’t, in the initial stages, because of the capital-intensive development of this industry, use some of these less greenhouse gas–intensive technologies, this is what we expect them to do over time to phase things in. And there will in fact be increasing penalties if they don’t do that, just as there were in the Liberals’ initial carbon tax, escalating over time, to ensure that there is an incentive to, in fact, get there.”

On top of that, there are a number of other things that this bill could have, should have, assured British Columbians that this government is committed to in terms of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. There could have been a commitment to make a massive investment in public transit in Metro Vancouver and in improved transit in other parts of the province that, over time, would deal with one of the major causes of greenhouse gas emissions around this province, and that’s transportation. Some people need to be in cars and trucks — we understand that — not everybody does.

This government continues to refuse to use or even to consider using the carbon tax, or even a new regional carbon tax with agreement of municipalities, to invest in transit or to support and invest in a massive energy retrofit program for public buildings, for commercial buildings, for residential buildings.

Nowhere in this bill do we see other commitments, other visions, other plans or other road maps that could assure British Columbians that as greenhouse gases rise through the creation of liquid natural gas plants — because they will to some extent; there is no way to produce liquid natural gas with no emissions whatsoever — this government is committed to taking strong, concrete and clear measures to build an economy in other parts of this province based on clean technology, based on carbon reduction to offset the emissions in this industry, which, as I’ve said, does hold promise for British Columbia.

Instead, what we see is a bill that tells British Columbians what British Columbians want to hear and need to hear. British Columbians, of course, respond positively to the notion that we will have the cleanest LNG industry in the world. Therefore, the Premier, the Minister of Natural Gas and the Minister of Environment tell British Columbians what they want to hear but don’t tell us how they’re going to deliver, don’t take the measures necessary to ensure that we do deliver. It’s fine to promise, but a promise broken is worse than no promise at all.

You don’t have to be a United Nations– and Nobel-recognized scientist to know that there are things that we can do in British Columbia that, if we start now, will have a significant impact on greenhouse gas emissions and will enable us to reduce those emissions. There are things we can do in developing a natural gas industry that can ensure that we don’t miss our targets and that we do contribute worldwide to some change. But they’re not in this bill. The detail isn’t in this bill.

[1755]

There is nothing in this bill that prevents the government, through cabinet regulation, from reversing the small number of promises that are contained in this bill, including the intensity level, which is simply a matter of a schedule that can be amended by cabinet regulation.

It’s not good enough. British Columbians deserve better. We should be giving them a clear road map. As we develop this industry, we shouldn’t be holding out false promises. We shouldn’t be holding out empty bills. We should be giving clear direction to the industry and to British Columbians about how we are going to meet our greenhouse gas reduction targets. This bill simply does not do that.

R. Austin: I rise to participate in the debate on Bill 2, the Greenhouse Gas Industrial Reporting and Control Act. Even the title of the piece of legislation is a complete misnomer, as the vast majority of increased GHGs that would come with any prospective LNG facility actually coming to fruition are, of course, exempt from this bill.

As if to add insult to the intelligence of British Columbians even further, there is little or no control in this act. Once again we see a government who are attempting to use their sloganeering of the last election, namely that they would regulate the industry to bring in the cleanest LNG in the world, but now in government, are breaking that commitment with a piece of legislation that does no such thing, proving once again that this a government and a Premier who says all the right things but then does whatever it wants in the hope that people are not paying attention or can be confused with bafflegab in the details of this legislation.

Let’s get down to the specifics of this act. This is a piece of legislation that is of great importance not just to the people of Skeena, who — dare I say it? — live in a part of the province that can be deemed LNG central, but more importantly, this act affects future generations.

Many MLAs like to get up in this House and extol the virtues of being grandparents and how, as a result of that experience, the important role of being legislators has extra meaning, because they get to make laws that will have a huge impact not just on the here and now
[ Page 4955 ]
but rather will be judged by their grandkids and their grandkids’ children.

If that is the case, then Bill 2 is a gross failure and demonstrates once again that saying nice things about the legacy we are leaving future generations and the reality of abandoning principles which this Liberal government ran on in the last election are just par for the course.

This bill stipulates that the government has set an intensity benchmark of 0.16 of carbon dioxide equivalent, of CO₂, per tonne of LNG produced. This target, however, only includes emissions — for example, combustion, electricity generation, venting and fugitives — from the point when the gas enters the facility to where it is loaded onto a ship to go off to Asia or any other market.

It completely leaves out all of the upstream GHGs that come from extracting the gas in the northeast of the province, as well as upstream combustion, flaring, fugitive emissions, venting and pipelines. In other words — and this is the outrageous part of this act — it does not cover 70 percent of the total emissions that arise from the start to the finish of the LNG industry.

Let me reiterate this for any listeners who may be stunned by this omission. The government has chosen an applicable target, one that represents the best examples of other facilities in other jurisdictions for the LNG plant, but omits at least 70 percent of any increased GHGs from this act.

It gets worse, I’m afraid. Having set that target for the plant itself, this act then provides any proponent flexibility to meet this benchmark. If companies cannot meet this mark — and remember this is only on the plant, not their entire process — they can either invest in B.C.-based offsets at market prices or “contribute to a technology fund at a rate of $25 per tonne” of CO₂ emissions. In other words, this bill does not actually require LNG operators to reduce their GHG emissions.

[1800]

I’m going to quote from a reporter here, Les Leyne, who writes for the Times Colonist. He writes that the legislation “will allow the B.C. Liberals to continue to claim that any B.C. LNG will be the cleanest in the world. But there’s a lot of ‘flexibility’ and plenty of government help available to make the target achievable…. The common perception holds that it’s a means of buying a way past a problem.”

I think he gets it absolutely right. We might as well bring in new speed limits on our roads and then exempt 70 percent of the roads in B.C. because, after all, we only want drivers to attempt to meet those limits. I know that’s a bit of a ridiculous analogy, but so are the main parts of this bill.

This is a government bill that demonstrates that while the government picks the right slogans to get elected, once elected they do anything they can to ignore or overcome those slogans.

Climate change is the issue that more than anything determines what kind of world we leave our kids. Previous iterations of this government, and I’m going to praise them on this, once took this issue seriously. In fact, it was Gordon Campbell who, in 2007, was the first senior politician in Canada to recognize this and brought into place the law that legally forced B.C. to decrease our GHGs by 33 percent by the year 2020.

It is a tad ironic that on this side of the House I and others are now honouring his efforts while his own party members who have succeeded him are tearing that important legacy apart with this bill.

Let me express my concern with another aspect of this legislation. I’m quoting again. “Facilities that have achieved annual performance below 0.23 tonnes of CO₂…of LNG produced are eligible to participate in the LNG environmental incentive program. Performance below 0.23 and above 0.16 will receive a prorated incentive based on their actual compliance costs. Performance below 0.16 will earn the facility a performance credit that can be sold to other LNG facilities.”

To be clear, there are two important targets in this bill: 0.16 of CO₂ per tonne of LNG and 0.23. Between those two targets, the government plans to use taxpayers’ money to incentivize companies to get as close to 0.16 as possible.

You heard this right. Taxpayers will somehow be paying to assist these companies to meet this goal rather than the companies doing this on their own. This policy, as my colleague from Oak Bay–Gordon Head has pointed out, is nothing short of the taxpayer paying for pollution rather than the polluter.

This bill has no specifics in terms of many of the goals announced. In fact, over 25 percent of this bill is not statutory legislation but, rather, enabling legislation, the difference being that in most of our legislation passed in this chamber, the details are specific and become the law of the province of British Columbia, whereas with enabling legislation, the bill simply gives the government the ability to bring in whatever regulations they deem fit after the fact by orders-in-council — namely, the Liberal cabinet.

In other words, we have once again some mealy-mouthed goals, but the real rules will be announced later via the cabinet in orders-in-council. That is no way to run a government, especially on an issue as important as reducing GHGs — just to say: “Trust us. We’ll figure this all out later and pass rules for the industry to follow based on what we think is best.”

These rules can be brought in at any meeting of the cabinet, at its usual Wednesday meetings, without having any debate in this House and will probably be done when the Legislature is not even in session.

I’ve talked about intensity targets — as mentioned previously, the targets of 0.16 and 0.23. Using this method, the government can avoid the real hard work, which is to set an actual limit of GHGs for the industry as a whole.
[ Page 4956 ]

Don’t forget that we still have the 2007 act that states that we must lower our overall emissions in B.C. by 33 percent before 2020. The government has not repealed that, yet without having a cap on emissions and by not even counting the 70 percent of emissions that arise from the upstream and midstream part of the LNG process, it is effectively giving up on B.C. ever being able to meet our long-term goals.

Of course, the 2020 deadline is past the next election. I guess when you’re only governing for today and not thinking about tomorrow, that is just another detail that can go by the wayside.

If the government was in any way serious in believing in the previous goal of producing our GHGs by 33 percent, at 2007 levels, while allowing for an LNG industry to develop, then they would be telling British Columbians where we were going to get reductions in GHGs from other parts of our economy to make up for this.

[1805]

In other words, they would use this bill to say that, for example, we were going to dramatically change the B.C. building code so as to reduce our GHGs from homes and offices. Or they could have announced changes to our public transit system that would encourage people to get out of their cars and use transit instead.

Building emissions and transportation are the next largest sources of GHGs. Unless there is a dramatic reduction in both those areas, it is impossible to meet our legislated targets. This legislation also repeals the 2008 Greenhouse Gas Reduction (Cap and Trade) Act, so there’s now no possibility of B.C. joining a larger cap-and-trade system that was at one time envisioned in the western states and provinces through the Western Climate Initiative, another of Gordon Campbell’s legacy pieces of legislation.

Another important part of this legislation that is seriously lacking is the whole system of offsets. An offset, of course, allows a company or individual to take action that creates pollution but allows them to pay for offsets in other areas so as to decrease pollution in another area of economic activity.

The government has a very poor record in regards to how it manages offsets. Let’s remind people of the record around the Pacific Carbon Trust. This scheme allowed public institutions, such as schools and hospitals, to pay offsets into a trust that was then used by, and in many cases given to, private businesses to reduce their own emissions.

It resulted in the ridiculous system whereby our schools were using restricted public dollars to subsidize private companies to do things that they should have and probably would have done in any event. For example, some hotels were able to put in new and more efficient boilers that reduced their use of energy. Surely, it is up to business to make those investments using their own capital and not using taxpayers’ money that should have gone to supply educational or health services.

The problem is that this bill does not in any way recognize the government’s past mistakes but instead says that ministry staff must draft regulations by 2015, at which point all other existing offset regulations will be repealed.

I should also point out, while on the topic of offsets, that the provincial Auditor General, when auditing the Pacific Carbon Trust, produced a scathing report in which he found that government agencies were buying offsets from the trust at a cost more than double the amount on the open market. It also found that the trust was purchasing carbon credits from projects that were not eligible.

Yet in spite of this history on offset management, the B.C. Liberals are once again saying in this bill: “Trust us.” Not good enough. They said they were going to legislate the cleanest LNG. So they should have all this clear by now and under strict statute, not leaving the details to a later date, to be determined as they see fit.

In short, what we have here is a piece of legislation that is designed to undermine this government’s commitment to actually use the force of government to properly regulate the LNG industry into delivering the cleanest LNG in the world. It has been designed to actually make it easier to increase GHGs way beyond what is needed to make our previous commitments under other legislation, while at the same time pretending that by using the term “cleanest LNG in the world” a couple of times for this bill, people will be fooled into thinking that this is what this is all about.

I’m going to digress for a minute and put forward what others have suggested in this chamber. Once again we see an important piece of legislation brought to this House that is seriously flawed but will pass because the government, of course, has a majority. We have had over a year to have made this a better bill — or a good bill. We have an expert in this House who, prior to entering politics as the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head, had been involved in crafting climate legislation. But of course, now that he’s an elected official representing another party, his knowledge has become null and void.

That’s the problem with how this Legislature is run. We should be using all of the collective knowledge, not only on both sides of the House but also of academic experts, to craft detailed legislation that we all know and agree is the best for the citizens of B.C. I think I can speak for all of us in this House that getting to the cleanest LNG was something that we all wanted, not just as an aspirational goal but as a reality.

Instead, we have a piece of legislation that will inevitably pass, warts and all, and then the machine of spin will be used by the government to try and pretend that its previously spoken goals are actually going to be met. It is a sad way of governing. While I certainly want to see a successful and well-run LNG industry come to B.C.,
[ Page 4957 ]
this bill is atrocious, and I don’t really think it is supportable. Members should be embarrassed at this attempt to greenwash what we all hope will be a new industry in B.C.

[1810]

I certainly know that people in my communities want to see any potential LNG plants bring employment opportunities for us in the northwest. But people also care about our environment. Those who voted Liberal took them at their word that they would look after our air and climate. That is not going to happen with Bill 2.

S. Simpson: I’m pleased to get an opportunity to stand and speak to Bill 2, Greenhouse Gas Industrial Reporting and Control Act. What this legislation does…. It has been put in largely for the purposes of determining emission standards as they relate to the LNG industry that is expected to develop over the next coming years and decades.

What I want to do with my comments — because many of my colleagues have spoken, and they’ve talked about some of the detail of the bill, and they’ve talked about how the bill will unfold — is take the opportunity maybe to talk a little bit first about some of the areas where I think the legislation doesn’t meet the objectives of British Columbians and doesn’t meet the objectives of people who are looking for a sincere effort to deal with the issue of emissions.

Of course, the first thing we know is that much of the issue here will revolve around the scope of the industry. It will revolve around how many of these plants get developed. It will revolve around what kind of production we’re talking about in these plants.

Just to give a bit of an example of that, we know that the Premier has spoken many times about five, six, seven of these plants. She’s talked about $100 billion in a prosperity fund. She’s talked about 100,000 jobs. She’s made a number of these claims — all of them claims that those in the industry don’t seem to be quite as confident about as the Premier does.

Those in the industry often talk about one or two plants as being successful. One or two plants, I think, would be a good opportunity, and it may be something that we will see. We know that, as we hear comments from a number of ministers who have connections to the file, we’ve heard those ministers also tempering their comments in terms of the scope of what will get developed and what will get produced. We’ve seen and heard that as well. I expect that at the end of the day, the Premier will be tempering her comments more as well.

Part of the challenge here, in terms of what we see in terms of greenhouse gas emissions and the scope of emissions, will be: how big does the industry get? Is it the one or two plants that most people seem to think are a possibility, or is it the six or seven plants that the Premier has talked about pretty much continually since the last election? We’ll have to wait, and time will tell on how that will play itself out.

The other thing, of course, will be — and this becomes a critical question — how does the liquefaction process actually unfold? Clearly, if we use hydroelectric power to get us through that process, it then becomes much more realistic to be able to manage emissions in a way that reflects the commitments of government for emissions reductions by 2020. If, as we expect, in fact, almost all of that liquefaction process is going to be handled by burning gas, it changes that equation considerably. It makes a fundamental difference and change around how we will proceed.

That becomes the challenge as well. We don’t exactly know where this is going to go in terms of that. However, I think that, increasingly, there is the expectation that there’s going to be a lot of natural gas getting burned in order to process LNG for export and that that will be the reality of what we will deal with. So we’re not exactly sure what it is we’re dealing with here, and it may be a number of years before we determine that, and that’s a problem.

[1815]

It’s a problem because, as I’ll talk about a little bit later, much of this bill, about a quarter of the decisions in the substance of this bill, will be determined through the regulatory regime, not through a legislative initiative. So we have a piece of legislation that leaves a whole lot of the questions that are in front of us unanswered, and they will be answered at the cabinet table.

The problem with that, as we know, is that those discussions are not open to public scrutiny. Those discussions don’t happen on the floor of this Legislature. Those aren’t discussions that people have the opportunity to scrutinize, to determine how they feel about it, to listen to the articulation on all sides of the debate about what should and shouldn’t occur — why certain actions are taken, why certain initiatives are taken and difficult choices, how those choices have been weighed and which of those choices have been embraced because it was deemed to be the best of the options available.

We’re not going to be able to be part of that debate, nor is the public going to be able to observe that discussion if they’re so inclined. The stakeholder groups, whichever side of this issue that they might be on — whether it be industry, whether it be First Nations, whether it be the environmental movement…. None of them are going to have the opportunity, nor are the general public, to really look at what’s in front of us and how they decide to deal with this.

That becomes problematic, that we’re not going to have that opportunity to truly be part of that discussion and to be engaged. That’s a serious flaw in this legislation. It’s a flaw that, on its own, probably draws into question why anybody should endorse the legislation, because it does keep so much behind closed doors.

One of the other things this does…. The commitment of government prior to this legislation coming out
[ Page 4958 ]
was that the whole life cycle of the LNG process would be captured around environmental considerations. The whole life cycle would be captured. But as we know from experts in the field, that’s not what this legislation does.

What this legislation does is it only captures about 30 percent of all the emissions that will occur in the LNG process — from getting the gas out of the ground, to shipping it, to liquefying it, to putting it on a boat and sending it away. Only about 30 percent will be captured.

According to the Pembina Institute, the upstream emissions account for about 70 percent of all GHG emissions in the life cycle. That includes things like extraction and the implications for extraction — and we all know there will be significant emissions, upstream combustion, flaring, fugitive emissions — any emissions that relate to the pipeline itself. None of that gets captured by Bill 2. None of that gets captured in any way, shape or form by the Greenhouse Gas Industrial Reporting and Control Act. That’s a problem.

Now, the government says, and the Minister of Environment says, that those matters will get addressed at some point. The minister has said that. Well, maybe we’ll be able to draw this out in the committee stage. I’m not sure, but maybe we will. I think the minister has to be a little more explicit about what she’s talking about. I think the minister has to tell us how that other 70 percent of emissions that don’t get captured by Bill 2 will be addressed. How do they get addressed? What’s the process? How do we deal with this?

If the minister is just going to say, “We’re not going to be dealing with that stuff,” then let the minister say that. But it’s time on this issue, around LNG, to get facts on the table and to start to listen and talk to British Columbians about the real choices and the real challenges that are in front of us related to this. Unfortunately, we don’t see that.

One of the other areas is problematic as well. Folks will know that the government made the decision, when it put this legislation forward….

[1820]

One of the things that this legislation will absolutely do is repeal a significant piece of legislation that the government adopted in 2008. That was the Greenhouse Gas Reduction (Cap and Trade) Act. We know now that there is some momentum around the cap-and-trade model, largely driven by California, joined by Quebec. We understand that there are some other states and maybe provinces looking at the cap-and-trade model.

Now, of course, what the cap-and-trade model does is that it puts a real cap…. The devil is always in the details with these things, but at least broadly, the principle is that it caps the amount of emissions. It doesn’t say that we’re going to give you a way to buy out of emissions. It says: “We’re going to cap emissions, and you need to stay within those parameters.”

Well, this piece of legislation gets rid of that 2008 bill, that 2008 law, which was taking us to looking at a cap-and-trade model — a law that was passed. I don’t think it was ever enacted, but it was passed. It says: “That’s not where we’re going now. Now we’re opening doors for other ways to approach this.” I understand why that is. The government knows absolutely that there just is not a way to be able to cap these emissions at a level that would be acceptable to anyone. So there have got to be other alternatives other than cap-and-trade. I understand that.

You have a situation where the government has said, “We’re not capping, but we’re going to say that there are offset models here potentially, where you can have offsets, provide offsets, that will allow you to deal with your emissions if, in fact, you breach the standards that we have set in the legislation. Or you can support a technology fund through contributions to a technology fund” — both interesting ideas. The problem with it, though, is that, again, there’s not a whole lot here that tells us much about those things.

The legislation lays out a framework, a pretty basic one, for offsets and how they’ll be accounted for. It does talk about registering with government, about receiving certification and about some third-party validation — all good things. It doesn’t provide much substance about what those offsets look like. As my colleague who spoke previously said, the experience with offsets in this province has been a bit of a challenge.

The Pacific Carbon Trust. The government obviously recognized that problem when they essentially put the Pacific Carbon Trust out of its misery after having put it in place and having then Premier Campbell embrace it and the B.C. Liberals embrace the carbon trust as the route to go. Well, it got put out of its misery because it clearly wasn’t achieving the objectives and wasn’t being particularly well managed. That was a problem.

There’s not a ton of confidence about what this offset model looks like. The government hasn’t provided much in the way of substance to tell us about how the offsets will work.

The problem, as well, is that the other side of this…. We talked about the technology fund, and it’s vague, to say the least, about what happens with the technology fund. We have no sense, really, of where that goes. It’s something that we’re told…. It’s my understanding that the minister in the briefings with the media about the fund essentially wasn’t able to provide much in the way of details on how the fund would operate. I think they called it a backstop and suggested that, in fact, the fund is quite a long way off from having any shape or form.

I get that, because we’re a number of years away from anybody putting any natural gas in a pipe and sending it anywhere. We’re a ways away from that. But it does raise questions when the government can’t tell us what this technology fund is, how it’s going to work and how it’s going to help achieve objectives related to emissions that makes it a valuable alternative to reducing the levels of emissions. That becomes a problem as well. Again, it’s
[ Page 4959 ]
vague. It’s vague, to say the least, as to how that will work and how we begin to achieve these objectives.

[1825]

Now, all of this…. I’m starting to get the eye from the Speaker there. I’ll maybe just make a couple of comments and then adjourn for a bit till we come back tomorrow.

One of the things the Environment Minister, when she was questioned about whether in fact the emission targets that have been set by the government for 2020…. Those emission targets are to be 33 percent below 2007 GHG levels by 2020. The minister said that she thought it would be tough but maybe those objectives could be met.

Well, they might be met for 2020. They might, because I’m not entirely certain how much, if any, LNG will actually be pumping by 2020. If there’s an industry here, by 2025 it might be an entirely different story. We might be talking about something quite different, come 2025.

It’s going to be good to get a chance to ask the minister about what her expectations are as we move out past 2020. If we don’t have production or we have a limited amount of production happening by that time, maybe we’ll get close to meeting those standards. It depends on a lot of other factors that we’ll have to see.

If a couple of these plants get built or if more than a couple of plants get built or if the Premier’s dream about how this will all work starts to get even vaguely close to reality, it’s going to be really interesting to see what we’ve got going on in 2025 or 2026. So we’ll be looking at that.

Hon. Speaker, I see I’m getting that look as we get to 6:30, so I would reserve my right and move adjournment on the debate.

S. Simpson moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. T. Stone moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Madame Speaker: This House, at its rising, stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow morning.

The House adjourned at 6:27 p.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Access to on-line versions of the official report of debates (Hansard),
webcasts of proceedings and podcasts of Question Period is available on the Internet.
Chamber debates are broadcast on television.

TV channel guide • Broadcast schedule

Copyright © 2014: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada