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)

Tuesday, October 28, 2014

Morning Sitting

Volume 16, Number 6

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

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 28, 2014

The House met at 10:04 a.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

Introductions by Members

A. Weaver: I’d like to introduce Jackie Powell, who’s the founder of Moms Like Us, an advocacy group for parents with adult children suffering from mental illness.

[1005]

Joining her in the gallery are Howard and Russell Powell; Jonny Morris, the director of policy research and provincial programs for the Canadian Mental Health Association, B.C. division; Ken Beatty; Judy Bogod; Cheryl Lynn Brown; James Canova; and Jim Kilgore. Would the House please make them welcome today.

Hon. T. Lake: I have two sets of introductions today. Firstly, I am really proud to let the House know that joining us in the House today are two constituents of mine attending the Democracy in Action Youth Conference here in Victoria. Megan Sim is a grade 11 student from the great town of Clearwater and is president of both her student council and the district of Clearwater junior council.

Neil Walter is a grade 12 student from the South Kamloops Secondary School who lives in Brocklehurst in Kamloops who, along with Megan, has spent the past two days learning about the democratic institutions of British Columbia, the electoral process and the operations of government. I hope that they really enjoy their time. I had the opportunity to meet with them yesterday. I’d ask everyone in the House to help me in making them feel very welcome here today.

Also joining us in the House today are members from Cystic Fibrosis Canada. Christine Black is the B.C. provincial advocate, Jody Birnie is the district advocate, Stephen Way is the regional representative, Anchalee Srisombun is the health policy adviser, and George Cullen is an adult living with cystic fibrosis. Members are here in Victoria to meet with MLAs. I’ll be meeting with them this afternoon. They hosted a reception last night where we learned a lot about cystic fibrosis. I ask all members to make them feel very welcome in the House today.

C. Trevena: I would like to follow up from the Minister of Health to welcome the representatives from Cystic Fibrosis Canada to the Legislature, in particular two constituents of mine, Chris and Bill Black. Many of the members would have met them last night at the reception that was hosted. I have to say that Chris is a fantastic advocate for the cause, and the mother of Kim. I hope that all of us will remember the words that Kim spoke in the clip that was shown — basically that we in this House do have the ability to make great changes in people’s lives, and that when we consider our policy and our legislation, we should consider those great changes we can make in people’s lives.

I hope that the House will welcome the members of cystic fibrosis and, in particular, my constituents Chris and Bill Black.

D. Bing: I have four constituents in the House today, four students. Hannah Moffat, Rebecca Evans-Jones and Breanna Sadler from Maple Ridge Secondary School and Ryan Rivvit from Garibaldi Secondary School. The member for Maple Ridge–Mission and I would like to make them all welcome. Would the House please make them welcome.

K. Conroy: There are a number of folks here that are representing credit unions from across the province. I’d like to welcome them all, but specifically Julie Morrison, who’s the chair of the Heritage Credit Union, based in Castlegar, and Michael Strukoff, who’s the chair of the Grand Forks Credit Union.

Also representing the Heritage Credit Union is a former member and a person who said he was going to promise to be my most peskiest constituent, our former colleague Corky Evans from Winlaw. We’d like to welcome them all here today.

Tributes

JACK ADELAAR

J. Sturdy: It is with sadness that I must note the passing of the mayor of Bowen Island, Jack Adelaar. Jack and I became friends as we were mayors of similar-sized towns in the Sea to Sky for a number of years and served on committees and various forums together. Jack grew up in Nova Scotia and graduated from Dalhousie law school. He met his wife in a typical Canadian way, I suppose, at Expo 67 and ultimately moved to Vancouver, where he practised law.

Jack was certainly a very active supporter of the arts community, including involvement in the Western Front, the presentation house in the Vancouver Art Gallery. Upon his retirement, Jack was elected mayor of Bowen Island. Certainly, there’s certainly no debating his commitment to improving the quality of life for all residents of the island.

Jack died last Wednesday after a two-year battle with cancer. I’m sure the House will join me in sending our condolences to his wife and family.

[1010]

Introductions by Members

J. Darcy: I’d also like to take the opportunity to welcome the folks here from the advocates for cystic fibrosis — an incredibly moving presentation that they made last night at the reception. I also look forward to meeting with them today.

I also want to take the opportunity to welcome a constituent of mine who is here with the Democracy in Action group. His name is Justin Houston. I met him on Saturday at our Diwali celebration. He’s 16 years old and in grade 11 at New Westminster Secondary School. He’s an avid writer, a member of the drama club and does the morning announcements on the PA system in his high school. So he’s on the road. He’s already an active volunteer in the New Westminster Environmental Partners and many other community organizations. Welcome to Justin and the entire group.

Hon. C. Oakes: As many of the MLA colleagues, we have a group of very dynamic young British Columbians — 30 in fact — that have travelled from a number of communities across the province to take part in the Democracy in Action youth conference.

We also have members of Youth Parliament here today. This two-day conference is a great opportunity for youth to experience a positive in-depth program that we know will foster a lifelong participation in the democratic process, including becoming actively engaged in citizenship in their home communities. Would the House please make them feel welcome.

L. Larson: I’d like to welcome Tiffany Heinrichs, who is with the students. I very rarely get a chance to welcome anyone from my riding, because it’s so far away. She’s from Oliver, and I’d like the House to make her welcome here in Victoria.

N. Simons: I’d just like to introduce three constituents of mine from Democracy in Action. Now, I didn’t take notes last night, so this is going on my memory. I believe it’s Jace from Pender Harbour Secondary, Cosette from Chatelech in Sechelt — but I think she’s from Halfmoon Bay — and Morin from Roberts Creek. If I got any of those mixed up, forgive me. It’s another year or two till you vote, anyway. Will the House please make my new friends very welcome.

M. Morris: I, too, would like to introduce three constituents of the Minister of Jobs and of my riding: Gemma, Michaela and Tiwanna down from Prince George. When I look at these individuals and I look at the group they’re with, I think we’re going to be in good hands here in the future to come. Would the House please make them welcome.

S. Robinson: I, too, would like to welcome the students from Democracy in Action. I’d like to particularly welcome family friend Noah Woogman from Richmond. It’s great to see him here.

I also just want to invite all the students to go and witness democracy in action at their local council meetings. As the opposition spokesperson on local government, I just want to remind the students that there is democracy in action in their very communities. There is a local election coming up. Please make sure that all of your 18-year-old friends and the adults in your lives vote in the upcoming November election, because that really is democracy in action.

M. Bernier: It’s my pleasure to introduce some constituents, as well, from my riding and, more importantly, some community leaders from the district of Tumbler Ridge — the beautiful district of Tumbler Ridge. We have with us today the mayor, Mayor Darwin Wren. We also have the CAO, Barry Elliott, and the economic development officer, Jordan Wall. Will the House please make them welcome.

G. Holman: I also want to welcome the Democracy in Action group and, in particular, a constituent of mine, Lucas from Gulf Islands Secondary in Ganges on Saltspring Island. I do want to remind the students here that you’re about to witness question period. Please remember there is a higher purpose being served here.

S. Hamilton: On that theme, I’d also like to welcome a constituent of mine from the Democracy in Action group. Ayesha Rehan is here with us today from my riding. I’d ask the House to please make her welcome.

[1015]

L. Reimer: It’s my pleasure to thank the Credit Union 1 people for hosting us for breakfast this morning. I also would like to welcome to the House my constituent Mr. Bill Brown, who is board chair of Westminster Savings Credit Union. Would the House please make them welcome.

Statements
(Standing Order 25B)

SOCIAL MEDIA CAMPAIGN ON MISSING
AND MURDERED ABORIGINAL WOMEN

J. Kwan: What does it take for our nation to stand together and to say: “Enough. No more stolen sisters, and it’s time for justice for the missing and murdered indigenous women of Canada”?

Is the documentation of 1,200 missing and murdered indigenous women and girls over the last 30 years
[ Page 4963 ]
enough to trigger a national inquiry? What about if the research shows that aboriginal women were nearly three times more likely than non-aboriginal women to report being a victim of a violent crime? What if the violence they experience is more severe and they’re four times more likely to be murdered and the perpetrator is more likely to be a stranger?

How about if a stretch of the highway in your community is dubbed as the Highway of Tears because loved ones disappear on this highway and the cases remain unresolved? What if the unthinkable happens and you’re a family member of a missing or a murdered woman?

Holly Jarrett, an indigenous woman from Hamilton, Ontario, lost a cousin. She started a social media campaign and is asking this chilling and blunt question: “Am I next?” This on-line awareness campaign is aimed at using social media to raise awareness in support of a national inquiry into the missing and murdered women.

Thousands of women are posting photos of themselves holding a sign with the question “Am I next?” One judge said: “This is a sociological issue, and it must be dealt with.”

Am I Next is an awareness campaign. This is an educational campaign. It’s a measure of political leadership, and it’s a measure of society as a whole. Do we have the courage to review how systemic poverty, crime, abuse and racism play a part in the violence and say: “No more”?

Amnesty International is standing in solidarity with family members and indigenous organizations to say: “No more stolen sisters.” We all know tragedy is going on, but the real question is: what are we going to do about it?

STEWARDSHIP PEMBERTON SOCIETY

J. Sturdy: The Sea To Sky country is renowned for its extraordinary geography, picturesque vistas and rich, diverse wildlife. Some consider the Sea to Sky Highway one of the world’s most beautiful drives, and I’m sure that you’ll all agree.

Many who call the region home feel a deep connection to the land. It’s this connection that has led one group to explore new, innovative ways to encourage other residents to connect with nature. The Stewardship Pemberton Society is a volunteer-based non-profit organization that promotes the protection, restoration and long-term sustainability of the environment through education and community involvement.

The foundation of this society is its youth education campaigns. Initiatives like the Grow with Nature program engage youth and allow them to develop a passion for the environment through unique interactive lessons. The aim is to encourage the kids to fall in love with nature, to help them to rediscover the fun of playing outdoors and to foster a sense of responsibility for the environment.

In August the society helped coordinate the BioBlitz, an annual event which was hosted in Pemberton for first time. During the event scientists — some professional, some amateur — identified a list of species that were previously unknown and particularly rare. Such documents are important now more than ever and improve our methods of preserving species and habitats.

Through its education program and initiatives such as this, the society has strengthened our community’s connection to nature. It’s one of many reasons why this society has been shortlisted for the B.C. Hydro Community Champions award. The award comes with a $10,000 donation, and the public can vote for Stewardship Pemberton on the B.C. Hydro website until November 30.

I’d like to encourage everyone to visit the site, see what Stewardship Pemberton is all about, and I’m sure that you’ll all cast your vote so that this society can continue to enrich our relationship with nature.

DROP EVERYTHING AND READ EVENT

R. Fleming: Yesterday teachers, students, librarians and book lovers across British Columbia participated in the eighth annual Drop Everything and Read event. This initiative brings awareness of the vital role of literacy and reading to our well-being and reminds us to make reading a priority every day.

[1020]

The Drop Everything and Read event first took root in British Columbia in Surrey. Teacher-librarian Bonnie Chapman knew there was a strong correlation between daily reading and student achievement, and she wanted to create an event that would encourage students to read every day. The idea was simple. Participants would just stop everything they were doing for 20 minutes, pick up a book and start reading. The result has been a huge success.

Teacher-librarians across B.C. now are engaging over 70,000 students each year in this activity. Daily reading, as you know, engages the imagination, it reduces stress, and it nurtures the mind. Reading to children, as parents well know, improves their listening skills and helps build early literacy. Reading for 20 minutes a day is the equivalent of reading 1.8 million words a year.

I’d like to thank the B.C. Teacher-Librarian Association for their work in making this annual event such a huge success to promote literacy and reading in B.C. I want to congratulate everyone who participated in Drop Everything and Read yesterday.

I’d particularly like to thank Marilyn Campbell, the principal of Ecole Quadra, which is a wonderful school in district 61, and teachers Mme. Amber Stewart, a kindergarten teacher there, and Mme. Tonya Monahan, a grades
[ Page 4964 ]
3 and 4 teacher there, for having me into their classrooms to enjoy reading to their students in their classes. Their classes were excellent. They were well-behaved and very engaged in the reading activity.

I had in my mind a picture of the former President who was reading to a classroom full of students and had the book upside down. I managed to avoid that situation yesterday, and it was a good day for everyone involved. I encourage members to get involved in these activities in their constituencies as well.

DESIGNATION OF TUMBLER RIDGE
AREA AS UNESCO GEOPARK

M. Bernier: When you are mostly a one-industry town susceptible to world market prices and knowing for community sustainability reasons that you need to look at alternatives in order to keep your community vibrant, what do you do?

Well, for starters, you look at how you can diversify your economy. What better way than to take advantage of the natural beauty that’s right in your backyard? Of course, some of the best dinosaur fossil finds in the world tend to help as well. There’s a reason why the district of Tumbler Ridge was just given the designation of second UNESCO geopark in North America.

First of all, it happened because of the incredible passion and the commitment of the volunteers and the professionals in the community. It also happened because they are gifted with an amazing resource that will give them exceptional tourism opportunities for years to come.

I stood in this House in the spring wishing the district of Tumbler Ridge the best of luck in their bid to become a geopark, and now I get to stand in this House and congratulate the district of Tumbler Ridge for achieving this milestone.

Tumbler Ridge sits on some of the best metallurgical coal in the world, and it’s just a matter of time before world prices get back to a point where they once again become one of the busiest mining towns in the province. But they are no longer just a mining town, as they have unlimited potential.

I want to thank Mayor Darwin Wren, his council and all of the people in the district of Tumbler Ridge for always showing resilience and for showing commitment to their community during difficult times and also for always looking at the positive prospects that lay in front of them.

They understand the importance of diversifying in order to be a sustainable community, and they always have opportunities in front of them that almost no other community in British Columbia has. So with that, I’m sure that everybody in this House wants to wish the district of Tumbler Ridge congratulations and best of luck.

MOMS LIKE US ADVOCACY FOR
MENTAL ILLNESS AWARENESS AND
CLUBHOUSE INTERNATIONAL PROGRAM

A. Weaver: I recently had the pleasure of meeting a group of parents who call themselves Moms Like Us. These parents all had something in common: an adult child, a family member, struggling with mental illness.

Moms Like Us became motivated to advocate for their adult children as they watched them become increasingly isolated and dependent. Moms Like Us presented me with the details of an established program called Clubhouse International, with 322 clubhouses worldwide in 33 countries. This program is based on psychosocial rehabilitation, which is an innovative, evidence-based, best-practices model that helps people living with mental illness to lead productive lives.

The clubhouse motto is a belief that everyone has a right to a place to come, to meaningful work, to meaningful relationships and to a place to return. Internationally recognized, Fountain House was the first clubhouse to open, in New York City in 1948. It has since blossomed into a global program that recognizes an individual’s potential through meaningful work and the support of a caring community.

[1025]

Clubhouse International’s programs of social relationships and meaningful work have literally saved thousands of lives over the past 66 years. Its program is a beacon of hope for those living with mental illness that are too often consigned to lives of homelessness, imprisonment, social stigma and isolation. We have three clubhouses in British Columbia — New Horizons Clubhouse in Port Alberni, Arrowhead Centre in Sechelt and Pathways Clubhouse in Richmond.

As the member for Richmond-Steveston recently told the House, Pathways Clubhouse undertook an independent audit, which showed that for every dollar invested in them there was a societal return on investment of $14. This means that the demand on hospitals, police departments and other emergency services was reduced as a result of having Clubhouse International in Richmond. Those are the kind of economics we can all get behind.

Moms Like Us are working towards the establishment of a Clubhouse International in the capital regional district. I ask that this House join me in wishing them every success in their endeavours.

CYCLING4DIVERSITY
MULTICULTURALISM INITIATIVE

M. Dalton: Canada takes pride in its cultural diversity. People from all over the world come here to escape prejudice and oppression and to embrace all the freedoms that Canada has to offer. To celebrate our multicultural society, Ken Herar and the Cycling4Diversity Foundation
[ Page 4965 ]
have been encouraging people of all ages to not only take pride in their own heritage but to reach out and learn more about their friends’ and neighbours’ culture.

Since 2011 Cycling4Diversity has been starting a dialogue, one town at a time. This year, during the Cycling4Diversity Week, a team of cyclists went from Mission to Mission, looping 15 cities and visiting 20 schools along the way, to talk to students about better understanding one another. Along the way they literally met thousands of people and shared the value of being inclusive. The hon. member for Abbotsford-Mission and I were happy to attend the 2014 launch of Cycling4Diversity from the Mission Friendship Centre, a very appropriate place to begin.

To achieve its goals, Cycling4Diversity seeks collaboration with a broad cross-section of organizations, including local government, school districts, Rotary clubs and non-profit agencies. The primary focus of this organization is to build stronger, cross-cultural dialogue in both our neighbourhoods and workplaces. This is how new friendships are started. Cycling4Diversity believes in fostering respect for people, regardless of our ethnicity, religion, gender or abilities.

I ask all members of this House to join me in congratulating this important volunteer organization.

Oral Questions

ALBERTA RESIDENCY REQUIREMENTS
AND CORPORATE HEAD OFFICES IN B.C.

J. Horgan: Last week the government acknowledged that its LNG plans will produce substantially less revenue than promised before the election and as recently as this spring. To respond to that, the government created a diversion. What they did is they created a new corporate tax revenue stream that was designed, they claimed, to attract corporate head offices from Alberta to British Columbia.

Yet we have government briefing notes, through freedom of information, that disclose that the Liberals have failed to address Alberta’s requirement that energy companies maintain a corporate presence in that province in order to operate there.

The government claimed that TILMA, an agreement that we opposed, would solve all of these problems, but instead we have no mutual recognition agreements in place. Even though the government’s own documents say, according to the director of trade quote from June 13, “A substantial leakage of economic opportunity and provincial revenue to Alberta is the result,” no action has been taken.

My question is to the Minister of Trade. Can she tell the people in this House and the province at what point they will acknowledge that they have not yet done the due diligence and the work to implement the tax that the minister announced last week?

Hon. T. Wat: Our government has been steadfast in working towards a resolution that creates a fair playing field for our businesses. Senior ministry staff continue to have discussions with Alberta and our affected ministry and agency here in B.C. with a will to resolving the issue. We are going through a comprehensive legal review and due diligence to ensure that the MRA, the mutual recognition agreement, creates the outcomes we want.

[1030]

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

J. Horgan: In 2006 — that would be about eight years ago by my reckoning — the Finance Minister of the day, Colin Hansen, claimed that TILMA provided fines that would “ensure that the agreement will, in fact, be lived up to.”

In 2012 then Trade Minister Pat Bell said that Alberta was going to make the changes to eliminate the headquarter residency requirement “within the next couple of weeks.”

Then again, just before the election, conveniently the same minister said in this House that the dispute had reached a conclusion and that Alberta was going to comply with TILMA. Yet according to a briefing note prepared by the minister’s staff this spring: “Failure to open the Alberta market in the near term will continue to compromise the province’s efforts to attract head offices of natural gas and pipeline companies.”

Again, although I’m delighted to hear that the minister has new briefing notes and she’s giving assurances that we’re going to continue the eight-year battle with our friendly neighbour to comply with a trade agreement that was forced down in this House, will the minister give us something tangible, beyond rhetoric, about what she plans to do to implement the facade that the minister announced last week?

Hon. T. Wat: This side of the House, our government, wants to ensure that energy companies in British Columbia can keep their mines and management, as well as jobs and economic benefits, in British Columbia, whether they choose to have operations in Alberta or not. We have always been committed to protecting B.C.’s interests and ensuring that Alberta fulfils its trade obligations and doesn’t discriminate against B.C. companies.

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

J. Horgan: The government says one thing and then does another.

We had an acknowledgment from the government that their pre-election commitments to bajillions of dollars of revenue to eliminate the debt and hundreds of thou-
[ Page 4966 ]
sands of jobs was all a smokescreen. Now we’re down to the hard negotiating with these companies. But the good news is: we’re going to create a new tax regime. We’ve been working hard, apparently, for eight years to allow a trade agreement that we signed and entered into and that would be complied with, with our neighbours to the east. So what is the government’s challenge now?

Mr. Bell said, at the time, that the Oil and Gas Commission was ensuring that there were head offices coming, even before the election. They were streaming across the border with the excitement of the re-election of B.C. Liberals. Streaming across the border — they were doing this.

Interjections.

J. Horgan: Oh yes. Hang on. Hold the applause line there, Minister. I know in the make-believe world of B.C. Liberals there are companies popping up all over the place. We’re going to be fracking right here before the end of the session.

What did the Oil and Gas Commission say to this notion — this notion of notional companies marching across the border? They said: “We have been unable to point to specific companies that have returned to set up head offices in B.C.” And the Ministry of Energy and Mines was unable to provide any company-specific evidence.

In light of the absolutely laughable record of this government, my question to the capable Minister of Trade: how can you possibly stand in your place and expect British Columbians to believe a word you say?

Hon. T. Wat: This side of the House believes in growing the economy and creating high-paying jobs for British Columbians. That side of the House says no to every development. We have been successful in attracting a lot of head offices to B.C. Let me cite you a couple of examples. Paper Excellence has decided to set up a head office in Richmond, in my riding. Sony Imageworks has decided to move their headquarters from California to Vancouver, right in downtown.

[1035]

I find it really a little bit incomprehensible that on that side of the House the opposition leader lectures us on how to grow the economy and create high-paying jobs for British Columbians.

B. Ralston: My question is also to the Minister of International Trade. Eight years ago, as the Leader of the Opposition has said, this government told British Columbians that TILMA was going to bring business and corporate headquarters back to B.C. But what has actually happened? After an energy company met with ministry officials just last fall, public servants wrote in a briefing note: “They confirmed the difficulties they are experiencing as a result of Alberta’s trade barrier that requires them to maintain an agent if they wish to operate in that province. This creates costs and operational difficulties and has encouraged companies to leave B.C. and set up their head offices in Alberta.”

Why should British Columbians believe that the B.C. Liberals have somehow now figured out how to bring corporate head offices back to British Columbia?

Hon. T. Wat: Our province protects the rights of our businesses and workers by challenging protectionist barriers in other jurisdictions. B.C. has led national efforts to improve the national agreement on internal trade, as well as the new west partnership trade agreement, in order to open market access for our exporters of goods and services and improve labour mobility for workers.

As promised in the strong economy and secure tomorrow document, our government is committed to working with Alberta to ensure that they fulfil their obligations under TILMA.

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

B. Ralston: In March 2013 Pat Bell told this House that: “…we’re starting to see head offices being set up in B.C. as a result of the partnership.” But internal government documents, somewhat like the response that we’ve seen from the minister this morning, show that it just isn’t so.

In fact, government staff not only pointed out that both Bell’s claims were nonsense but even went on to explain that: “This wasn’t entirely surprising since (a) a mutual recognition has not been concluded with Alberta to remove the final barrier to businesses establishing head offices in B.C. and operating in Alberta and (b) to our knowledge there is no tracking mechanism of identifying such companies.”

My question is to the minister. Why are she and her colleagues telling the public what they want to hear when their staff — their well-informed staff on the ground — are saying something very, very different?

Hon. T. Wat: I guess I have to cite a couple of examples of the head offices our government has attracted to Vancouver. The Agricultural Bank of China. They set up an office in Vancouver. That’s their only office in Canada. The Bank of China. After the Premier’s trade mission to Beijing last year together with myself…. We had a meeting with the chairman of the Bank of China, and then they decided to consolidate their international financial activities in Vancouver.

One of my mandates assigned to me by the Premier is to secure a number of head offices to Vancouver. Those are not just ordinary head offices. They are the head offices of major corporations in Asia. Myself and my ministry are working hard to achieve that mandate.
[ Page 4967 ]

APPRENTICESHIP PLACEMENTS
ON PUBLIC PROJECTS

S. Simpson: The government knows that a key challenge for the blueprint for skills training is finding sufficient job placements for apprentices. We know that there are challenges in getting the private sector engaged in creating those placements.

[1040]

The government needs to step up and support those efforts as well, through the public service. With only some 331 placements in the public service, including municipalities and the SUCH sector — schools, universities, colleges and health care — it’s hard to argue that the B.C. Liberal commitment to meeting this demand has been realized.

If the minister is serious about an effective skills-training program, the government needs to create substantially more apprenticeship placements in the public service. When will that begin?

Hon. S. Bond: I thank the member opposite for his question. It is certainly important that as we face unprecedented economic opportunities in the province, we do need to deal with the issue of apprentices. Today in British Columbia we have over $82 billion in projects that are in the construction stage, and when we look to the future, that number rises significantly. We have over $236 billion in proposed projects.

We absolutely want to see the number of apprenticeship placements increase. We have worked very closely with organized labour, for example, in the province, who have brought forward a recognition that we consider looking at whether or not there should be requirements to have apprenticeships as part of public projects.

That work is underway, and we’re very optimistic about being able to make progress in the very near future.

Madame Speaker: Vancouver-Hastings on a supplemental.

S. Simpson: The problem, as the minister will know, is that while the blueprint makes some reference, there is nothing concrete here about how we make that happen. As the minister says, the province spends billions of dollars on capital projects itself, yet there are no obligations in the bids on these projects for contractors to have any apprenticeship plans as a requirement of the bid. It doesn’t exist.

We know that in the past such requirements, when they were in place, had a meaningful impact. When will the government put in place those requirements, on bids for public projects, that there be an apprenticeship component to ensure that we’re finding the job placements necessary to make skills training successful in this province? Will they do it now?

Hon. S. Bond: In fact, the government recognizes the critical importance of having a skills blueprint for the province. We have worked together in an unprecedented way, not simply across ministries in government but also using the expertise provided by industry and also working closely with organized labour and alternative unions in the province to look at this issue.

Everyone needs to step up. As we actually reference all the time, it’s all hands on deck. We need everyone in British Columbia to be a partner to actually manage the labour needs that we will face as we grow the economy.

In fact, the member opposite said there hasn’t been an indication publicly. In my mandate letter it is clearly laid out that we are looking at the issue of apprentices on public sector projects. But one of the things we recognize on this side of the House is that before we simply say, “Let’s just go do it,” we actually need to make sure that it’s not going to delay the projects in terms of time of completion, looking at additional costs to taxpayers in British Columbia.

Good work is being done. It’s an issue this government brought forward as a result of the work with organized labour and others, and we look forward to being able to discuss the outcomes very shortly.

M. Mungall: I hear what the minister is saying, but after 14 years what British Columbians want is real action from this government. This isn’t a radical idea. The Ontario government gets it. They are increasing apprentices in their infrastructure projects. The federal government gets it and is moving to increase apprenticeships in publicly funded projects.

[1045]

The Premier’s own LNG Working Group gets it. They recommended that at least 25 percent of trades jobs on public infrastructure projects and LNG projects be filled by apprentices.

So why is the B.C. Liberal government refusing to take this simple step that would drastically increase opportunities for skills training in our province?

Hon. S. Bond: Well, one thing that I’m very encouraged about in British Columbia is that we’re in a period of time where we actually have jobs looking for people instead of people looking for jobs.

We have made it clear, and I think we’re having a moment of heated agreement in the chamber. I’ve said clearly…. From the moment the recommendation was brought forward from the Liquefied Natural Gas Working Group that suggested, as a government, we consider this idea, we said that we notionally agreed with the principle and that there was homework to do.

I think most British Columbians want to be assured when we create public policy that brings new expectations of industry in this province, that we actually consider: does it cost more? Does it take longer? What does
[ Page 4968 ]
industry think about that? How do we work with organized labour? That is exactly the work that is underway as we speak.

Madame Speaker: Nelson-Creston on a supplemental.

M. Mungall: Just a reminder to the members opposite that they are ninth in job creation in the private sector in this country. That’s the fact. What we are talking about here, about apprenticeships, is basic stuff. It doesn’t matter how many people we put through colleges and technical schools if they can’t get the apprenticeships they need to get fully certified in their trade.

Again, to the Minister of Jobs: when will the B.C. Liberals get it? When will they follow recommendations by the Premier’s own LNG working group and give British Columbians the apprenticeships they need to get the jobs?

Hon. S. Bond: Once again, as I said to the member opposite, we are considering the policy, the implications of policy changes, and in fact those recommendations have come forward. But in the meantime, we have been working closely with the Industry Training Authority as they look at how they support apprentices on the ground and encourage more apprentices and employers.

In fact, very recently the Industry Training Authority hired six new apprenticeship advisers to work with industry, to work with employers and to work with students to ensure that we’re encouraging more apprenticeships in the province. We have also announced $6.8 million in new, critical training seed funding.

This is a significant challenge for British Columbia. We need to make sure that there are a number of ways we look at providing the workforce of the future. Apprenticeship is certainly critical to our skills-training blueprint, and as I have said three times previously, we support the principle, we’re working on the homework, and we look forward to discussing it very shortly.

WAIT TIMES FOR COLON
CANCER SCREENING SERVICES

J. Darcy: Michael Goldman has had colon cancer, and he needs to have regular follow-up colonoscopies. He and his family also very well understand the importance of early screening, and they know that up to 90 percent of people diagnosed with the disease can have their lives saved.

What Michael and his family do not understand is why he and many others like him at very high risk are now being forced to wait up to eight months for a colonoscopy when the recommended wait time is eight weeks.

Why did this government, with great fanfare, announce a provincewide screening program just before the election and then fail to create the needed capacity to ensure that everyone who needs this procedure gets it in a timely manner?

[1050]

Hon. T. Lake: I don’t think there’s anyone in this House who doesn’t understand the importance of early detection and treatment of colon cancer, and that’s why we are using the FIT as a screening mechanism for detection of colon cancer.

We know that early detection and treatment will raise survival rates significantly, and with early detection and treatment, survival rate is close to 90 percent. We are committed to ensuring that British Columbians have screening opportunities, and we are about 10 percent higher in the number of colonoscopies and surgeries being done in the province of British Columbia.

We do recognize that some health authorities have had a challenge in the wait time between when a diagnosis occurs and when the surgery occurs. We are working with health authorities through that problem, and we are committed to ensuring that those wait times are reduced.

Madame Speaker: Member for New Westminster on a supplemental.

J. Darcy: Well, that’s almost exactly the same statement that the Minister of Health made about a year ago, saying Island Health was overwhelmed with the demand and they were going to fix the problem before they rolled it out to other health authorities. Now they have rolled it out, and the problem is continuing right across the province.

Everybody agrees that an early screening program, the FIT program, is absolutely essential, but so is follow-up care for people at major risk, like Michael Goldman.

Colorectal cancer is the third most common cancer in British Columbia and the second leading cause of cancer death in men, and 1,200 people die from this every single year. Screening and detection of colon cancer have been proven to save countless lives.

My question to the minister again: what steps will he take immediately, today, to ensure that everyone who is at risk gets the screening procedure in a timely manner, because it can help save lives of British Columbians?

Hon. T. Lake: I’m not waiting. I have already addressed this issue with the health authority board chairs and CEOs in a recent meeting in Vancouver. I understand that there is a concern about wait times. We are working hard to reduce those wait times. In some cases, health authorities have hired additional staff. They are using the colonoscopy suites on Saturdays and building new colonoscopy suites.

We understand the challenge that has been created by the expansion of the screening program. We are meeting that challenge. All health authorities are working hard,
[ Page 4969 ]
under my direction, to ensure that we do reduce those wait times so that all patients that have to be screened and then have a colonoscopy and the surgery are done in a timely manner.

COMMENTS BY PARLIAMENTARY
SECRETARY AND ACCESS TO PUBLIC
COLON CANCER SCREENING SERVICES

S. Fraser: That’s powerful rhetoric from the minister. These are my constituents. When Michael’s family took their significant concerns to the Parliamentary Secretary for Seniors to the Minister of Health, she told them that if it was her, she would just pay for it herself — get it done privately.

Does the minister agree that British Columbians should go thousands of dollars into debt to pay for services that are already covered through the public medicare system? One system for the rich and another one for everyone else — is that it?

Hon. T. Lake: We do recognize that early detection and treatment are critical for colon cancer. That’s why I have expressed my concern and my desire to the CEOs and the board chairs of all of the health authorities to ensure that we address this problem.

Interior Health Authority has hired additional staff, is offering procedures at Vernon Hospital on Saturdays. They’ve increased capacity at all screening colonoscopy sites and are working on major capital initiatives for new suites at Kelowna General Hospital and Vernon Jubilee Hospital. Island Health has hired additional nursing staff, increased operating hours and hired a new gastroenterologist.

Vancouver Coastal is looking at ways to reduce the backlog and wait-lists. Fraser Health Authority has added colonoscopy time at Burnaby, Chilliwack, Ridge Meadows, Abbotsford, Royal Columbian, Jimmy Pattison Outpatient and Surgery Centre, Delta Hospital, Langley Memorial Hospital. They’ve also hired a new gastroenterologist for Abbotsford Regional Hospital.

[1055]

We recognize the challenge. We are working on it as we speak.

A. Dix: The minister knows this. I know that he’s worked on the file. The frustrating thing about colorectal cancer is that delays in diagnostic testing lead to death. We have personal experience with it. My mom was diagnosed in 1998. She survived because of early detection. Had she had to wait six months, she would have died in 1998 instead of living a vibrant life to this day. This is the significance of it.

When the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health suggests that people go to private care in order to jump that step, that diagnostic step to treatment, what is being proposed here is a two-tier system for colorectal cancer care. That is not good enough.

Wait times have gone up everywhere in the province. Will the minister take the required action to ensure that the wait times in this case and in other cases are not unfortunately undermining the impact of the program?

Hon. T. Lake: I recognize the importance of early detection and surgery for colon cancer. I think all of us in the House have members, friends, colleagues, family members that have been struck with colon cancer, and we know that early treatment and surgery is imperative. That’s why we expanded the FIT program. The FIT program detects occult blood in the stool and is one sign of potential colon cancer. It has to be followed up with a colonoscopy and then surgery if that turns out to be positive.

We recognized that when we expanded the program, it created an enormous challenge for the follow-up colonoscopies. We recognize that challenge. I have outlined all of the steps that we are taking, my personal commitment and exhortation to the CEOs and board chairs of all the regional health authorities. They are all putting in plans to increase the number of colonoscopies that are performed following a positive FIT test.

We understand the importance of this. We are working hard on it. For the member to suggest that we don’t understand the importance of this or that we don’t think that we should be taking steps is irresponsible. We do care about British Columbians. That is why we expanded that screening program, and that is why we’re going to fix this problem.

Madame Speaker: Member for Vancouver-Kingsway on a supplemental.

A. Dix: You can’t watch a hockey game in this province, you can’t listen to a Lions game in this province, you can’t listen to a Giants game or a Blazers game in this province without hearing ads by private providers for colonoscopies. This is a fact. It is a fact that the parliamentary secretary in this government is suggesting people pay to jump the queue — pay to jump the queue.

That is completely unacceptable and makes a mockery of the government’s rhetoric on these questions. That shouldn’t happen; $2,000 should not get you months of an advantage in colon cancer care in B.C.

Does the minister agree with me that the suggestion was irresponsible? Does he agree with me that we should not be forcing people to pay $2,000 to get the care they need?

Hon. T. Lake: Let me remind the members opposite that British Columbia has the very best outcomes in terms of cancer care in the entire country of Canada. This province’s health care system is second to none when it
[ Page 4970 ]
comes to early detection and treatment of cancer and having positive outcomes. I have outlined all of the steps we are taking to ensure that British Columbians have early detection, early colonoscopy and early treatment for colon cancer.

[1100]

We will continue to work hard to make sure that that problem is fixed, and I am committed to doing that today and every day.

[End of question period.]

Orders of the Day

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

Madame Speaker: Surrey–White Rock seeks leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

G. Hogg: On behalf of my colleague the member for Surrey-Panorama, it is my privilege and honour to welcome the students from Panorama Ridge Secondary School to the Legislature today. Please welcome.

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 2 — GREENHOUSE GAS INDUSTRIAL
REPORTING AND CONTROL ACT

(continued)

S. Simpson: I’m pleased to rejoin and continue debate on Bill 2, the Greenhouse Gas Industrial Reporting and Control Act.

[D. Horne in the chair.]

Maybe just to recap a little bit some of the discussion and some of the debate and the position and the comments that I made yesterday before adjournment. Some of the critical issues that we face with this piece of legislation….

The first thing we know, of course, is that this piece of legislation, Bill 2, only covers about 30 percent of the emissions in the life cycle of LNG. About 70 percent of those emissions aren’t covered. That includes flaring, fugitive emissions, emissions around extraction — all of those areas — and emissions related to pipelines.

Those are challenges, and that’s part of the concern here, that this covers a very narrow component. The Minister of Environment, as I said yesterday, has suggested that those will be picked up in another process, but we have no idea what that might be. There certainly has been no indication to this House as to, in specific terms, what that might be and how in fact we may engage that.

Second, I’ll remind members of the House that this really does little to reduce or limit emissions. What it does do is provide options through offsets, through the use of a technology fund, that would allow people to purchase, allow industry to purchase its way out of the emissions increases that we’ll see. We know that that has great potential to be problematic, particularly if we’re burning gas for the liquefaction process. If that’s what occurs, we are going to have significant increases in emissions, and there’s really no way around that.

Back to kind of how people buy their way out of this. The tools that are presented here in Bill 2, in this legislation, are offsets and a technology fund. The offsets — while there’s some framework around what those might look like, there are really no specifics here, again, on what those offsets will look like. It’s a matter for regulation, and that’s a problem.

The technology fund is even a more vague process. Ministry officials have acknowledged they don’t know what that fund looks like, and they’re not entirely sure how it will function and what its purposes will be. That’s a problem. So we don’t know what it is that we are going to use here, what people will be paying for and how that in fact will work.

Part of the concern here — and I guess it was a bit of a scramble on the part of government, maybe some combination of scramble and just wanting to keep as much out of public debate as possible, particularly around this area as it relates to LNG — is that so much of this is going to be covered and captured in regulation.

[1105]

As I said yesterday, the problem with regulation is that’s done at the cabinet table. It’s done behind closed doors. There is no public engagement required or obliged around that. It’s not a matter that comes through this Legislature. It’s not a matter that gets debated here. It’s not a matter that the public and legitimate public interests have the opportunity to understand what’s being proposed and to make comment on that. You would just read about it in the Gazette potentially, after it’s already been done through regulation and order-in-council.

The other point that I would make about what occurs here, of course, is that the decision was made with Bill 2, with this piece of legislation, the Greenhouse Gas Industrial Reporting and Control Act, that there is the repeal of the cap-and-trade law that was put in place previously by this government in 2008. The issue there, of course, is that we’re starting to see more and more action around that potentially, with California, with Quebec, with others who are looking potentially at using that tool.

When we look at this, we’re looking at the four requirements that we’ve talked about around LNG and our
[ Page 4971 ]
support for LNG. We want jobs for British Columbians — jobs for British Columbians first.

A fair return for British Columbia on our resource. We need to get a fair share. This is a resource, LNG, natural gas, like the forest, like mining products, like coal, like copper. These belong to the people of British Columbia, and the people of British Columbia need to realize the benefit from that. You can realize that benefit in jobs. You can realize that benefit in other returns, through royalties and other tax policy. So we need those two things.

We also know we need a partnership and a fair relationship with First Nations that ensures they are partners in the success of these projects that are on title land and that they have the opportunity to be beneficiaries of some of those jobs and some of those economic opportunities and some of that wealth that will be created. That needs to occur.

The last one, of course, is the protection of land, air and water to the greatest degree possible — the sustainability question, the environmental question. That’s the question that Bill 2 is supposed to be addressing here.

Unfortunately, that’s where the problem comes. We know, as we’ve said, it only captures a portion of the life cycle, and so much of it now, of what will be the result of Bill 2, is a reliance on regulation. There’s no certainty at all that we will capture that other 70 percent. There’s no certainty at all that the levels that are addressed in the schedules in this piece of legislation will continue to be the levels. They’re schedules. Schedules can be changed. It happens very easily. Cabinet could make those changes.

Cabinet can make a whole array of changes related to this legislation — a whole array of changes that would dramatically alter how the legislation would work. As I’m saying, this legislation already has serious flaws, and that regulatory potential makes it even greater.

This particularly is a problem with this file on LNG, because the one thing that we know is that the government has gone all in on LNG. We know that. Everybody in this province knows that. The Premier is all in. The government is all in. We know how difficult that has been because of the expectations that have been created by the Premier and by the B.C. Liberals about what the benefits of this may be — expectations that are extraordinary, to say the least, and not based in any reality, it’s becoming clearer every day.

What the government has done is that they have put all their political chips into this pot too. We know that it absolutely is imperative for this government and it’s imperative for the Premier and for the Minister of Natural Gas that they’ve got shovels in the ground before 2017. We know that. We know the government is just going to be desperate to make sure they have a significant plant or two in some sense of production, of development and construction — some sense.

That means putting shovels in the ground. The problem there is that it’s pretty clear that as the government becomes more desperate to ensure that that will occur, they will take whatever steps are necessary to realize that.

[1110]

If those steps require…. If companies that are potentially looking at moving forward are coming to government and saying, “You need to deal with and ease these processes around environmental concerns and you need to take steps to expedite for us the opportunity to develop without increasing cost pressures that are created by Bill 2,” then there will be great pressure at that cabinet table, behind closed doors where those regulations get done, to tweak Bill 2 — to tweak the regulatory regime, to make changes there that will open those doors.

In doing that, you will diminish the environmental protections. In doing that, you will diminish the greenhouse gas protections. Around this province, people have looked at this government and seen it saying one thing and doing something entirely different on far too many files.

There is great concern in this province, and particularly from those who are concerned about the areas that are entertained in Bill 2. That would be First Nations. It would be local communities. It would be environmental interests. It would be the general public.

They are concerned with the safeguards in this bill, for what they. First, they are insufficient to begin with. And even more problematic, they are flexible, to say the least, in terms of the ability to change those regulatory requirements, to change those protections and diminish them. That’s a significant concern for people in this province — the potential to have that occur.

It really is important that this bill be correct and be got right. That just hasn’t happened here. It just has not happened with Bill 2. With Bill 2, we just see far too much wiggle room here in order to proceed and be able to move this forward.

It’s not a bill that’s worthy of the support of this House. It’s not a bill that meets the objectives that we have for LNG and the production, and successful production, of LNG and growth of an industry in this province. It’s not a piece of legislation that meets the expectations of those in the community who are watching this debate and who are watching the evolution of LNG and looking for the kinds of protections we need. We are not seeing it in this bill.

The bill has serious shortcomings. The bill doesn’t deserve the support of this Legislature. Sadly, the Liberal majority, I’m pretty sure, will force it through.

B. Routley: The first thing I want to make clear is that I support LNG for British Columbians. However, this bill is unacceptable in its approach to dealing with greenhouse gas issues.

It was interesting and somewhat alarming to hear in this House that some people actually are denying that there’s even a climate change issue. Applause broke out
[ Page 4972 ]
for somebody that was suggesting that they weren’t quite there on whether or not there was really a global warming or climate change issue.

Yet we’ve seen worldwide — in the Environmental Protection Agency in the United States, and you’ve got the UN — all of the global scientists basically supporting the need for action and governments all over the world taking action, including the government of Gordon Campbell back in 2008.

I read with interest…. After I heard the comments, I thought I should go back and see: has the government changed their plan? They indeed have a climate action plan for the 21st century that talks about greenhouse gas reduction targets, so there is an acknowledgment that there is a greenhouse issue.

I just want to expand on that for a moment. I did hear the member acknowledge that in his lifetime he’d experienced changes in the climate.

There’s no question that the province of British Columbia, whether it’s the pine beetle that we’re dealing with…. That’s a major issue acknowledged worldwide as one of the impacts of global warming. What’s happened: the fact was that the beetles used to die off, and that didn’t happen. As a result, there was a major outbreak that has taken over 81 million hectares in the province of British Columbia — dead and dying with pine.

[1115]

I myself, as a young man growing up in the Cowichan Valley — I’ve said this before in the Legislature — learned how to skate on Somenos flats. Well, you know what? I haven’t seen the skating going on, on Somenos flats for the last 50 years. Why? Because it doesn’t freeze anymore. When I moved in 1951 to the Cowichan Valley, there was seven feet of snow in Youbou. In Duncan we used to have snow right up to the edge of the windowsills. We don’t see that kind of stuff anymore. It doesn’t happen.

Global climate change — the evidence is everywhere. So it’s just unbelievable that there can be folks that actually deny the existence of climate change and the impacts of global warming.

If we’re going to build an LNG industry here in British Columbia, one of the things that’s absolutely critical is that it come with good jobs for British Columbians.

One of the problems here is that the deal is being inked behind closed doors, and it’s being inked by a government who has said all these grandiose promises about what’s going to happen. “Oh, it’s going to be wonderful. We’ll have so much cash that we won’t know what to do with it all. We’ll have wheelbarrow loads of cash to put in the prosperity fund.”

Now, all of a sudden, not so much. It might be $100 million in — what? — five or six years from now. The reality is coming home to roost. There are some on the other side of the House that still can’t get their head around acknowledging and accepting the truth of what’s really going on.

When you read the documents of what’s happening in the world with LNG, the prices have been dropping worldwide. Why? Because everybody is rushing…. There’s LNG everywhere. Like somebody said, if we fracked in the middle of this room, I wouldn’t be surprised if there isn’t natural gas down there. There’s certainly lots of gas going on in this place — hot air, anyway.

The government must secure LNG project agreements where proponents enter into express guarantees that put jobs and training opportunities for British Columbians first. I don’t have faith that that’s what’s happened with this government. Time and time again we’ve been told one thing, and they do something else entirely — something else often totally unacceptable. Only after every British Columbian who is qualified or wants to be qualified is working or being trained on the job should B.C. be looking at other Canadians, then at future Canadians.

I talk about future Canadians because I still reject notionally the idea that somebody should come here and just be treated as temporary, with a one-way ticket home. They should have the right to become real British Columbians with real rights and privileges like the rest of us. It’s unacceptable that we have some kind of substandard British Columbian, some kind of substandard Canadian that’s temporary. They ought to be here with real rights and privileges. A fair and right-thinking government would only be working in that direction.

The Premier’s plan continues cutting deals to bring in low-wage workers to live in camps on temporary work permits with a one-way ticket home in the end.

LNG must show a fair return for our resources. However, in desperation, this Premier has slashed those benefits to British Columbians in half. Now it’s just crumbs from the table. Basically, she’s got her instructions from the big corporations.

First Nations need to be respected. They need to be made partners, and their rights to share any of the benefits must be recognized. However, the government’s record is one of needlessly antagonizing First Nations and wasting millions of dollars on unnecessary and unsuccessful court cases.

[1120]

Bill 2 shows this Premier is breaking her promise to have the cleanest LNG in the world — the cleanest LNG through the life cycle — by failing to address completely any upstream emissions that represent 70 percent of that life cycle. These are things like fracking and what goes on prior to getting to the actual facilities. This government is clearly abandoning their original focus on dealing with carbon.

It really is evidence of the true feelings of some MLAs that they have no interest in a carbon reduction plan. Now it’s clear that this government just created a stickup at the gas pumps for British Columbians. They’ve been robbing us blind instead, with no real plan to deal with carbon — no real plan to deal with carbon at all. They
[ Page 4973 ]
are not serious about a carbon reduction plan. You get to pay at the pump.

Small business that they claim to care so much about — they get to pay at the pump. Big polluters — you don’t have to pay. You’re not on their radar. Now the government is just turning a blind eye, looking the other way. They have no interest in really having a carbon reduction plan.

LNG industry in B.C. needs to protect our air, our land and our water. That means actually honouring our climate change commitments to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The legislational LNG environmental regulations fail to address at all upstream emissions from natural gas production and gives liquefaction facilities enough loopholes to ensure we won’t meet our emissions targets.

In the 2007 Speech from the Throne this provincial government — they’re still here, the Liberals — announced at that time an aggressive stand to reduce GHG emissions. It passed the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Targets Act and put into law B.C.’s targets for carbon reductions of 33 percent by 2020 and 80 percent by 2050.

This government’s history on carbon offsets is already shoddy, but the legislation relies on a similar system to the failed Pacific Carbon Trust. Now, let’s just camp there for a minute and look at what the Auditor General’s report in March 2013 said about the government’s plan and how they were dealing with the whole issue of climate action by working it through their Pacific Carbon Trust plan.

In 2007 the act also required each public sector organization to become carbon-neutral by 2010. The province announced it had achieved this goal in July 2011. The Auditor General, however, found that the Pacific Carbon Trust had not done its due diligence or purchased credible offsets.

The report looked at two examples: the Darkwoods forest carbon project and Encana’s underbalanced drilling project and found that they failed the crucial test of additionality. The AG writes: “In industry terms, they would be known as free riders, receiving the revenue — $6 million between the two — for something that would have happened anyway.”

The Auditor General’s conclusions about this whole failed plan was that they have totally failed the test of additionality. Now, the issue of additionality is important, because it’s about actually doing something to really offset and to really deal with the carbon footprint that someone has.

One of the ways to do that is things like planting trees. Yet what has this government done? They’ve actually increased the amount of land…. Talk about a footprint. They’re increasing the amount of land that is not sufficiently restocked. Some guess it’s at least a million hectares. It may be as much as 2 million hectares of not-sufficiently-restocked forest land.

What about all the trees that have been killed by the pine beetle? There’s a tremendous fire risk to British Columbia. We’ve had some huge expenditures as a result of the conditions that we’ve had.

At the end of the day, I’m very concerned. This Auditor General says that the additionality…. These offsets are not credible and would have happened anyway. The AG says that therefore they should not even be eligible for funding.

[1125]

This is the kind of scheme, and it directly…. When I talk about jiggery-pokery, this is the kind of thing that clearly qualifies for jiggery-pokery. We have seen so much of it, with all of the promises about all the things that are going to happen. It’s clearly just more of the same jiggery-pokery.

Interjection.

B. Routley: You’re about to speak. You want to listen to this. This is the kind of jiggery-pokery that goes on in this House.

Here’s yet another example. While the B.C. Liberals charge the public sector $25 per tonne for carbon offsets…. This is the Auditor General that found this. He said that they have sold carbon offsets to private sector corporations, such as Sempa Power Systems and TimberWest, for as little as $10 per tonne. They were charging the public sector $25 and selling them for $10.

Now, this is really good business reality creeping in here. This was a government news release, February 14, 2013, on the Pacific Carbon Trust website. The B.C. Liberals have subsidized big corporations — through their cash-starved public sector, through the Pacific Carbon Trust scheme — nearly $60 million in the first three years.

The B.C. Liberals spent $6 million on payouts to convicted political aides during the B.C. Rail scandal, $8 million over the HST deceit and $17 million in partisan advertising, while our schools and universities and hospitals have suffered for funding. It is truly a shameful record.

The B.C. NDP have argued for some time that the Pacific Carbon Trust should be dissolved. It needs to be put into dissolution to ensure that the millions in levies paid by hospitals, Crown corporations and post-secondary schools…. They should see the money returned to their public sector institutions in order to fund energy-efficient upgrades. That would be a good plan indeed.

The government still has not defined what the offset system would look like or what a cap-and-trade incentive program would look like. In fact, fully a quarter of this bill, Bill 2, is aimed at giving the B.C. Liberals the ability to change the rules at the stroke of a pen. All talk, very little action. All is going to be left to future decision-making and regulations.

These aren’t the strong regulations that British Columbians were hoping for. We need to drastically re-
[ Page 4974 ]
duce greenhouse gas emissions in B.C., but this plan continues to just shift them around, putting the burden on other parts of the economy to reduce emissions, with no plan to achieve such reductions.

Oh, you can buy carbon offsets. You can reduce on-site emissions, which is a good thing, but you can purchase offsets, or you can contribute to a technology fund. These last two…. I would think: what’s next with this government? Are they going to be giving a guy who can afford to drive a Lamborghini or a Maserati the right to buy credits from the folks who are driving really slow?

Is that a plan that makes any sense? Somebody on the Coquihalla…. You know, there are all kinds of trucks that are probably only doing 50 miles an hour. They could be selling credits to those folks that want to drive really fast. Is that another kind of scheme? It might as well be. It’s as ridiculous, as nonsensical as what this government has planned. It’s just more smoke and mirrors. They say: “Trust us.”

Or how about ignoring science altogether? There’s been some indication of that. I fear that we may have to rescue these Liberals from thinking that they can somehow elbow their way into the car and replace the crash test dummies. Now we’ve all seen…. That’s a scientific thing.

I want to be clear. I’m not calling my friends on the other side of the House dummies. I have great respect for them. In fact, I’m trying to rescue them, at the end of the day, rescue them from jumping in the car.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: The member may need to be rescued himself shortly.

[1130]

B. Routley: I had a dream. It was a terrible dream that some of them were trying to elbow their way into the crash test dummy and that they would be using that opportunity to just enjoy the view, to sit comfortably, catapulting towards climate change. These Liberals seem to think they can just jump in the car and somehow enjoy the ride. It’ll be real a long ride. Somehow you can just ignore science, just go along for the ride.

We want to rescue our friends on the other side. There’s just no way we’ll be able to meet the B.C. climate targets under this current regime. This is just another case of them knowing what to say, talking about the world’s cleanest LNG. Nobody knows what it means. Nobody can describe a real meaning for all that. It’s just more jiggery-pokery on steroids.

The Vancouver Sun on April 20 reported that the B.C. Environment Minister was warned about LNG greenhouse gas emissions.

“Ministry staff have warned their minister that the province’s dreamed-of liquefied natural gas industry poses some big challenges with greenhouse gas emissions. Internal briefing notes prepared for the Environment Minister…since she took office…and obtained by the Canadian Press” — through freedom of information — “single out methane emissions for concern.

“On top of the emissions from combustion and flaring of natural gas, methane and carbon dioxide escape during hydraulic fracturing process, or fracking, the documents said. ‘Methane emissions are a particular concern since they have a global warming impact 21 times higher than carbon dioxide,’ said one July briefing note. ‘A small increase in the percentage of natural gas that escapes can have a significant impact on overall emissions.’”

At a meeting last November staff of the Ministry of Environment warned the minister that the federal government has updated its formula for calculating greenhouse gas emissions and that alone will increase methane values by 20 percent. “The province will need to follow suit.”

Members of the climate action secretariat told our B.C. Minister of Environment that emissions remain a hurdle for the provinces, which have legislated targets for reduction — legislation that dictates that emissions are to be reduced by at least a third below 2007 levels by 2020.

The Minister of Environment has been told that while B.C. estimates that between 0.3 and 3 percent of natural gas extracted is lost as fugitive methane emissions, other North American jurisdictions and scientific literature estimate that the rate is more like 7 and 8 percent. The U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration estimates it’s at least between 4 and 9 percent that is lost.

“‘The province’s climate action secretariat and Natural Gas Development Minister are working with the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers to test technology to curb emissions,’ said the internal document. ‘Though significant, this work does not address concerns about potential fracking-related emissions from geological formations, poor cement casing or produced in water storage tanks,’ said the briefing prepared last July.”

Apparently, the minister declined a request for an interview to talk about these findings.

“‘Based on academic research and work in the United States, there is concern that fugitive or unplanned emissions from oil and gas facilities are higher than currently reported in B.C.,’ the ministry said in an e-mailed statement to the Canadian Press.

“‘The federal government has updated its greenhouse gas emissions formula, and the province ‘is examining’ when to update its own regulations, it said. The climate action secretariat is working with the association and industry to find ways to reduce emissions and ‘ensure emissions levels are properly understood….’

[1135]

“‘B.C.” — this is important — “has been underestimating the impact of methane,’ said Tom Pedersen, executive director of the Pacific Institute for Climate Solutions, a collaboration between the University of Victoria, Simon Fraser University, the University of British Columbia and the University of Northern British Columbia.”

We now see this government essentially saying: “Go ahead. It’s okay to look here, at the plant. You can look at the plant, but whatever you do, don’t look over there. Don’t go and look behind the process, what’s going on.”

It’s like driving along in your car and saying, “We’re going to test for carbon by the steering wheel — or where the transmission drive is — but whatever you do, don’t go back and look at the tailpipe or what’s going on back
[ Page 4975 ]
there.” That could be a real bad scene indeed. Those are the facts. The Pembina Institute suggests that it’s as much as 70 percent that’s not even being looked at as a result of this. That’s wrong.

The Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives wrote:

“Is British Columbia ‘doing the world a favour’…by developing a liquefied natural gas export industry? Or is this just wishful thinking from a government that has abandoned its own law on reducing carbon emissions in order to pursue LNG riches?

“Natural gas is a cleaner-burning...fuel than coal in terms of carbon pollution, as well as other emissions that lead to smog and acid rain. In the United States substitution of gas for coal in electricity generation has led to declining carbon emissions in recent years.”

So while it is plausible that the same could be true for Asia, enabling essentially unlimited exports of LNG in the name of climate action, for B.C.’s LNG exports to truly lower global emissions, there would have to be — on both parts, both from China and British Columbia — a deliberate effort to use natural gas as a transition fuel.

Now, as far as I know, that’s not the case. There is no deliberate attempt, and I don’t think the Chinese are about to guarantee that they’re going to make this a bridge issue and provide natural gas to replace coal. In fact, I think they’re going to continue to need extra energy from all kinds of different sources. While I applaud that in China they are also working on a clean energy plan and, in some ways, leading in that regard, there is no evidence whatsoever that our natural gas would be used to replace coal in this deal. And there’s been nobody that’s stepped forward to do that.

This is far from the wild west mentality currently going on, underway, on the north coast. First, will LNG be a substitute for coal, at all? I don’t think so. A number of independent projections show a growing appetite in China for all energy sources, including renewables, nuclear and fossil fuels.

A new international treaty to constrain carbon emissions, currently under negotiations, would change the dynamic within 15 to 20 years. For now, LNG is anticipated to pile on top of China’s growing coal consumption rather than to displace it.

Another challenge to the Premier’s argument is that LNG may displace other sources of power — in particular, nuclear power from Japan. As evident after the 2011 Fukushima nuclear disaster, nuclear has major risks. On the other hand, nuclear’s carbon footprint is negligible. So if Japan decides to shift to nuclear once again, or if they shift to LNG…. Global carbon emissions could go up, not down, if they choose LNG instead of going back to nuclear.

Leakages also undermine the case for LNG…. Linkages, I should say, also undermine the case for LNG as a transition fuel. Natural gas is primarily methane, a greenhouse gas that is 86 times more heat-trapping than carbon dioxide over a 20-year period. Linkages of only 1.2 percent are enough to erase claims — leakages.

[1140]

Sorry, I’m getting hung up on “leakages” and “linkages.” They look a lot the same. Anyway.

“Leakages of only 1.2 percent are enough to erase claims of having an advantage over coal.

“Typically, from the wellhead to final combustion, including processing and transportation, leaks of about 2 to 4 percent are standard. Those leaks can be much higher for fracking operations, the technology that will be used to supply B.C.’s LNG industry.

“Strong regulations could reduce the amount of leakage….”

However, for B.C. to claim the cleanest LNG in the world,

“…such regulations must be part of the deal, even if they impose additional costs on the industry.”

At the current time we do not know that there are any kinds of appropriate regulations. We look at the past to imagine the future. The past is looking at things like…. When the government brought in new forest legislation, they promised $1 million fines. People would go to jail. More compliance and enforcement. And the result has been that they’ve actually backed away and there is less compliance and enforcement than there once was.

I see that my time is limited. I do want to quickly mention that in countries like Australia one of the problems they’ve had is that they now are talking about the need for a national reservation policy that would ensure energy security by requiring major LNG projects to set aside at least 15 percent of gas production for local industry and households.

Those kinds of local industry and household protections, I understand, are in place in other places, such as the United States. Even in Australia, in parts of Australia they have them, but in the parts of Australia that don’t have any linkages to local industry or households they’ve got the problem of natural gas price increases that have gone up three times. They’re three times higher per household than they were just in the last five to ten years. There’s been a dramatic increase in natural gas consumption costs in Australia, and in some cases they actually have a shortage of natural gas.

I know that we have concern in the Cowichan Valley. I had some e-mails from constituents that talked about the issues of what could happen….

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Member.

B. Routley: Thank you, hon. Speaker, for this opportunity.

S. Robinson: I am pleased to take my place in this debate on Bill 2, the Greenhouse Gas Industrial Reporting and Control Act.

Many will be talking and have been talking about the GHG intensity benchmark of 0.16 carbon dioxide equivalent per tonne of LNG or about the fact that this legislation does not actually require the LNG operators to reduce their GHG emissions. In fact, there is so much flexibility in this legislation that the LNG operators can
[ Page 4976 ]
do accounting gymnastics here in order to meet the targets set out by the Liberal government.

We see in the legislation that there are subsidies available, but there are no details, actually, on how large that subsidy will be. It also makes mention in this bill that there’s performance credit that the proponents can take advantage of, but we have no idea how the performance credit market will be regulated.

This is a bill, actually, that is quite short on detail, so being asked to vote on something that says, “Well, we’ll deal with that later,” makes we very suspicious. It’s like: “Here’s the contract. Here’s what we’re proposing to do, and here are the expectations of you. Oh, and that piece about the amount that we’ll contribute or that piece about the amount you’ll contribute — we’ll deal with that later.”

If I’m going to be asked to vote on a bill, I want to know what the details are. I want to know exactly what it is that I’m voting on so that I can make a decision about whether or not to support it. There’s a whole bunch of detail missing here that doesn’t allow me to make a really clear decision.

[1145]

On top of all that, this bill has set out the 0.16 GHG intensity level in a schedule at the end of the bill. So this number, this magical number of 0.16, is actually not in the bill itself.

While I appreciate good policy and I don’t think I’d ever call myself a policy wonk, I do know enough to know that when it’s not in the bill, if it’s in a schedule at the end of the bill, it means that it can be easily changed. You don’t have to open up the entire bill in order to do that.

That really makes it incredibly flexible. We have this impressive, gymnastic bill that you could do frontward walkovers, backward walkovers, handsprings with. You can do the splits with it, it’s so flexible.

It worries me that this government perhaps is bending over backwards, just like a gymnast, to accommodate the LNG industry. Never mind the commitment that was made to British Columbians. I don’t see those commitments in this bill at all. Never mind that this government and this Premier, before elected, said that we would have the cleanest LNG industry in the world. Those are significant words.

All wrapped up, this bill says a number of things. It says that we have a number that we like, 0.16, which also says “for now.” We might change it later, because it’s in a schedule. It says that we haven’t yet worked out all the details. What it says is that we’ll deal with those later as well. It says that as government….

This is the part that I find very frustrating. There’s a little play on words happening and a little bit of smoke and mirrors. What it says, in order to sort of fool the electorate into believing that we are being true to our word on the cleanest LNG industry in the world, is that really, in the end, if you read all the fine print and all the detail, that’s actually not going to be the case. To me, that is the most problematic piece of this bill.

Early in 2012, well before the election, the LNG slogan was “Cleanest LNG in the world.” When I hear the word “industry,” to me that means the entire industry. An industry is not a plant. An industry is not a pipeline. An industry is from beginning to end. It is a scope of activities that happen in order to produce something at the end. That is what an industry is.

In this bill there’s no fine print, no footnote explaining what the slogan meant. You have to take each word as it stands: “Cleanest LNG in the world, cleanest LNG industry in the world.” That is what I understood, and I believe that that’s what most British Columbians understood to be the case. At the time, back in 2012, the province’s LNG strategy read: “LNG development in British Columbia will have lower life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions than anywhere else in the world.” Sounds pretty clear to me. I’m assuming, hon. Speaker, it sounds pretty clear to you. Nothing confusing in those words.

I hear that word “industry” — that our LNG industry, the LNG industry that this side of the House wants, that that side of the House wants, that British Columbians want…. They want it to be the cleanest in the world. So when I hear the word “industry,” I take that to mean the entire supply chain. That would include extraction, the gas wells, the pipelines, the flaring, the upstream combustion, right through to the supply terminals. To me, that’s industry, and that’s what I was certainly expecting. It’s certainly what my constituents in Coquitlam-Maillardville were expecting. It’s certainly what I think British Columbians were expecting.

But after the election we start to hear the words change. They start to shift a little bit. The Premier starts to use different words, because words matter. She noted that the promise to have the cleanest LNG industry in the world didn’t apply to the impacts in northeast B.C., and then she started focusing the scope of the environmental impacts from LNG — I’m implying “industry” — only to the terminals.

[1150]

Just one tiny, little piece of this entire industry was now the focus of the Premier’s words and efforts. Forget the gas wells, the pipelines and other infrastructure needed to supply terminals. We won’t count those in our promise of the cleanest LNG industry in the world.

We know on this side of the House that 70 percent of the emissions come from the upstream activities of the LNG industry. All this legislation before us deals with is the 30 percent at the end of the supply chain. That’s all we can identify that comes out of the terminals.

Now we have a response that sounds more like this, a response that comes from the Liberal government. “Did we say ‘industry’? We meant ‘terminals.’”

I come from a world where words matter, and this government keeps changing the words. When you keep
[ Page 4977 ]
changing the words, it means it becomes really hard to trust or understand what it is that you’re saying. As these words shift and morph over time, people are led down a path, believing one thing and government delivering another. That’s not a way to govern. That’s about smoke and mirrors. “We said this, but we really meant that.”

Hon. Speaker, noting the hour…. It’s not time? Then I will continue on, sir.

When I think about what’s important about words, I think about the ways in which words have impacted my life and in the work that I’ve done. I’ve been a family therapist for 20 years. When I would sit with a couple struggling to find their way through a difficult time, we would spend a fair amount of time talking about the meaning of words and how they played out in actions in their relationship.

When people give their word and then pretend that they meant something else, or when people said they were going to do something and then didn’t follow through, or when people would say one thing and then do another, I saw in the counselling room that it really did matter to people. It mattered in the therapy session, and it mattered in their lives.

When a spouse would regularly promise to be home at a certain time and would then always be late, or when a partner was told by their spouse that they mattered but their mate could never seem to find time to spend with them, these were promises made and promises broken. When the offending spouse would say, “I know I said I’d be home at five, but it’s only 5:30. I don’t know what the big deal is,” or when a partner professes to love and care for their mate and then justifies their non-commitment to actually engage in either physical contact or even spending time, and they say, “Well, they just don’t understand,” or “They should just know that the words ‘I love you’ ought to be enough to convey meaning….”

We know that there’s more to the story. We know that our words carry weight, but it’s our actions in our lives and in our marriages that really, really do speak to people.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

What does this have to do with the promises this Premier made to British Columbians before the election? The Premier made a promise — promise made — but instead of promise kept, we have promise redefined. That’s the slogan we’re seeing now. When people in relationships change their words, alter their commitments and essentially water down what they said they would do, we now have a compromised relationship.

Just like the couples I worked with as a family therapist, when the person you trust says one thing and then does something else, when the person you trust doesn’t follow through on her word, when the person you trust starts to change their message so that what you thought you were getting and what you actually get is something else, your ability to trust them is eroded.

Saying what you want people to hear without backing it up with actions at the end of the day simply erodes trust. As a family therapist — because I know everyone is dying to know what we do in family therapy — I would try to spend some time trying to understand what the words without action by the offending partner were all about. Often they were interested in short-term benefits.

For example, if I just say that I’ll be home by five, then I won’t have to deal with the drama if I say I’ll be home by 5:30. So I’ll just say I’ll be home by five, and it’ll just make life a little bit easier. I could say no to my work colleagues and not go for a beer after work. But really, I don’t want to do that, so I’ll just say I’ll be home by five, and I’ll deal with whatever comes my way.

[1155]

In the long run, this kind of behaviour makes partners cynical and fosters a relationship of mistrust, and at the end of the day, people walk away. They walk away from these relationships that are based merely on words — words that are not followed up by action — and the relationships just fall apart.

Here we have a government in relationship with the citizens of British Columbia, and these citizens have a Premier and a government that say what they need to say so that they can win an election. But they can’t deliver on their promises.

British Columbians deserve better. They deserve politicians that say what they mean and mean what they say. They were told that they would get the cleanest LNG industry in the world, and Bill 2 simply doesn’t deliver.

Bill 2 doesn’t cover upstream emissions. It does not require actual GHG reductions. It actually allows for a free pass, permitting terminals to emit 0.16 tonnes of pollution for every tonne of LNG exported, without penalty.

While there is mention of a technology fund, an incentive program and opportunities for offsets, the details are just not clear. And we know that this government does have a poor record. This government has a poor record on offsets.

Furthermore, I do understand….

Noting the hour — gee, look at that; time flies — I move that we adjourn debate until after the noonhour.

S. Robinson moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. T. Lake moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 11:57 a.m.

[ 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