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)

Thursday, October 30, 2014

Morning Sitting

Volume 16, Number 9

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

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 30, 2014

The House met at 10:02 a.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

Introductions by Members

S. Hamilton: It’s my pleasure to rise in the House today to introduce a number of people, and I’ll try to be brief. First of all, from Property Development Group in Vancouver, we have Mr. David Coon, Mr. Ken Grassi and Mr. Kenny Kyan. With them, from Land Strategies in Calgary, we have Mr. Mel Woolley. These individuals have worked tirelessly throughout the province with First Nations communities to try to help them realize their economic development opportunities.

We only need to take a ferry ride from this great place to see how their efforts have paid off in the form of the Tsawwassen First Nation’s economic development plan that is underway now. Now they’re working with members of the Tsawout First Nations here on Vancouver Island. With Tsawout First Nations, it’s my pleasure to introduce former Chief Allan Claxton, elder Irvine Jimmy and Mr. Vance Rosling, the economic development officer. I’d ask the House to please make them welcome.

[1005]

[Interruption.]

Madame Speaker: Please proceed, hon. Member.

H. Bains: It is my honour to introduce to this House my good friend, one of the best trade union activists. He thought he would retire from his active union duties. He thought he would retire but ended up being president of the retiree council of the Laborers International, Local 1611 — Bruce Ferguson. Along with him is his colleague and my good friend Merrick Walsh. Please help me welcome them both to this House.

Tributes

MARY ANNE COOPER

L. Reimer: It is with great pleasure that I rise in the House this morning to wish Dr. Mary Anne Cooper, my constituent, a very happy 100th birthday. Mary Anne has been a steadfast community supporter in Port Moody and was the driving force behind our cherished Ioco Ghost Town Days. She was a member of the Port Moody Heritage Commission for seven years and has served on the board of the heritage society. She’s an active member of the United Church, and in 2011 Mary Anne was awarded the Freedom of the City for Port Moody.

Would the members of this House please join me in wishing Dr. Mary Anne Cooper a very wonderful 100th birthday.

Introductions by Members

M. Farnworth: In the gallery today is a group of students, grades 7 and 8 from Citadel Middle School in my riding, visiting the precinct. I hope the House makes them most welcome.

M. Mungall: Well, it gives me great pleasure to introduce the House once again to Peggy Wilmot, who’s an active member in her community and active as a member of Faith in Action. She’s here today to watch the proceedings of the House.

R. Fleming: With us in the gallery today — and I just had a chance to have a quick word with them before coming in here — are students from Ecole Reynolds Secondary School in Saanich. There are 29 grade 11 students here with their teacher, Mr. Scott Campbell. I know they’ve been in very good hands with our parliamentary tour office, and I hope the members here won’t disappoint them in question period.

L. Reimer: It is also a great pleasure that I rise in the House today to wish my wonderful mother, Norma, a very happy birthday. I feel fortunate that we were able to celebrate her birthday this past weekend at my home and that she will be celebrating with other family members today whilst I’m here in Victoria. Would the members of this House please join me in wishing her a very happy birthday.

S. Robinson: I’d like to join with my colleague from Port Coquitlam in welcoming the Citadel Middle, and a particular girlfriend’s daughter Paige Ackerman. I hope she does get a chance to watch, because I’m going to ask her a whole bunch of questions about what she learned. Paige, if you’re here, wherever you’re sitting, please pay close attention.

G. Holman: I’d also like to greet and welcome constituents of mine from the Tsawout First Nation, Mr. Claxton, Mr. Jimmy and Mr. Rosling. I know that the Tsawout have been working for years on this development. I know how important it is to your community. So I wish you all the best in your deliberations with government. Government prides itself on being good negotiators and being good dealmakers, so please keep me apprised of how your discussions go with them.

J. Kwan: There’s quite a buzz in the community today for my good friend and colleague here in the Legislature, the
[ Page 5064 ]
member for Saanich South, who is celebrating her birthday. There’s no question. She is the queen bee of agriculture.

[1010]

D. Donaldson: There’s a practice that’s become somewhat of a tradition and that I was a little bit skeptical about, but now that I’ve gone through the experience, I think it’s a great tradition. So I want to announce the birth of my first grandchild, Ailsa Tegwyn Frisk Yunkws. I’ll get to Hansard with the spelling of that after this. That reflects her Gitxsan, Scottish-Gaelic and Danish heritage. Father Darrach and mother Cyra are doing great, and Nana Ts’its Anne is ecstatic. I would like to ask the Legislature to welcome Ailsa to B.C.

Hon. T. Lake: Since we are talking about birthdays and people who share birthdays today, it’s just come to my attention that the Minister of Environment has a birthday today. I wanted to say happy birthday to the Minister of Environment.

A. Weaver: I, too, would like wish the Minister of Environment a happy birthday today, and, in advance, I apologize for the many, many, many, many questions that I will be raising during the third reading of Bill 2.

Introduction and
First Reading of Bills

BILL 7 — NISGA’A FINAL AGREEMENT
AMENDMENT ACT, 2014

Hon. J. Rustad presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Nisga’a Final Agreement Amendment Act, 2014.

Hon. J. Rustad: I move that Bill 7 be introduced and read now for a first time.

Motion approved.

Hon. J. Rustad: I am very pleased to introduce Bill 7, the Nisga’a Final Agreement Amendment Act, 2014, for first reading. This bill enables the implementation of a collaborative government-to-government agreement that provides the Nisga’a Nation with the authority to tax property on non-Nisga’a citizens and businesses residing on Nisga’a Nation lands.

The authority to levy property tax comprehensively across its territory is crucial for the Nisga’a Nation as the LNG opportunity in B.C. becomes a reality. This legislation amends the Nisga’a Final Agreement Act to provide for the implementation of a real property tax coordination agreement between the Nisga’a Nation and the province.

The bill also provides for consequential amendments to a number of statutes, including amendments to allow the Nisga’a Nation to become a full member of the northwest regional hospital district and for an enhanced relationship with the regional district of Kitimat-Stikine. B.C. has entered into similar taxation agreements with our other treaty partners, the Tsawwassen First Nation and the Maa-nulth First Nations.

I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 7, Nisga’a Final Agreement Amendment Act, 2014, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

BILL 8 — PROTECTED AREAS OF
BRITISH COLUMBIA
AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 2014

Hon. M. Polak presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Protected Areas of British Columbia Amendment Act (No. 2), 2014.

Hon. M. Polak: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. M. Polak: This bill contains amendments to the Protected Areas of British Columbia Act. Amendments to the Protected Areas of British Columbia Act are proposed to remove approximately 63.5 hectares of land from Nisga’a Memorial Lava Bed Park to enable construction of the proposed Prince Rupert gas transmission pipeline, which is proposed to transport natural gas from near Hudson’s Hope, B.C., to the proposed Pacific NorthWest liquefied natural gas export facility on Lelu Island in the district of Port Edward.

I move that this bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 8, Protected Areas of British Columbia Amendment Act (No. 2), 2014, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

BILL M204 — POVERTY REDUCTION
AND ECONOMIC INCLUSION ACT, 2014

M. Mungall presented a bill intituled Poverty Reduction and Economic Inclusion Act, 2014.

M. Mungall: I move that the bill intituled Poverty Reduction and Economic Inclusion Act, 2014, of which notice has been given in my name on the order paper, be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.
[ Page 5065 ]

M. Mungall: Poverty is a complex economic situation that isn’t merely remedied with a job. Rather, for every person living in poverty, there is a story. For some, poverty has resulted because of a physical disability or mental illness. For others, it is a result of few opportunities during the early years of life. For many, they live in poverty because of low wages.

[1015]

Because there are so many factors that contribute to poverty, and because it costs our communities more to ignore it than to do something about it, we need a comprehensive plan with targets and timelines if we are to reduce its prevalence. Many communities in Canada have started plans and found success. Nine out of ten provinces have also committed to plans because plans work.

Although B.C. has had the highest rate of overall poverty in Canada for 13 years and the highest child poverty rate for ten years — 33 percent above the national average for that decade — government has yet to take action with a direct legislative approach. We remain the only province in Canada without a legislated plan.

Today this Poverty Reduction and Economic Inclusion Act seeks to take the needed action to look at the ways government can reduce poverty rather than contribute to it. For example, government could begin reducing child poverty by allowing children of single parents receiving income supports to keep their child support payments. When such policies are identified and changed, we reduce the poverty of real people and of our province as a whole and provide for greater economic inclusion for all people calling B.C. home.

An advisory committee composed of people from all walks of life — like First Nations representatives, business, academia, labour, non-profits and those experiencing poverty themselves — will work with government on making B.C.’s economy more inclusive. By working together, we can reduce poverty and eventually make it history.

I move that this bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill M204, Poverty Reduction and Economic Inclusion Act, 2014, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Standing Order 81.1

SCHEDULE FOR DEBATE ON BILLS

Hon. M. de Jong: Pursuant to Standing Order 81.1, I can advise the House that the bills introduced today by the Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation and the Minister of Environment represent the final pieces of legislation that the government intends to introduce and seek passage of in this fall session. In the days ahead the hon. Opposition House Leader and I will endeavour to arrange a mutually agreeable schedule, but I wanted the House to be aware that that represents the legislative agenda for this session.

Statements
(Standing Order 25B)

GRAHAM HILL

M. Karagianis: After 12 years and four terms as mayor of the township of View Royal, Graham Hill has decided to take a most deserved retirement. This marks the culmination of a long and remarkable career that began in Staffordshire, England, his birthplace.

Graham trained as a metallurgist and came to Canada to work at his profession in the laboratories of Cominco. An industrial accident led to a career change, and for the next 35 years Graham was a computing expert in the private sector and for the provincial and federal governments.

He was a systems consultant and a manager with the RCMP, with Revenue Canada and Public Works Canada. In the B.C. government he was a director of the information systems for the Ministry of Forests, the Ministry of Small Business, Tourism and Culture, and the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries.

Graham was a member of the steering committee of the first View Royal official community plan and was subsequently elected mayor of the town of View Royal on December 2, 2002. Through it all, his mission has been to make a lasting difference, and he has certainly done that. In his time as mayor Graham oversaw improvements to Helmcken Road, the Old Island Highway, construction of the new Craigflower Bridge and the town’s new public safety building, which is now nearing completion.

Graham leaves behind a remarkable legacy of community service. I hope all members of the House will join me in thanking Graham for his exceptional public contributions and wish him well in the next chapter of his long and glorious journey.

CONTRIBUTIONS OF SENIORS

R. Lee: I’m very glad to rise in the House today and talk about one of the fastest-growing demographics in British Columbia: seniors. It’s easy to think that seniors are the ones who need support, assistance and care. Many seniors do reside in seniors homes and care facilities. In Burnaby North we have excellent facilities like the Seton Villa, Rideau Manor, Dania Home, Carlton Gardens, Finnish Manor and Fellburn Care Centre.

Yet many seniors, who may or may not live in seniors homes, are volunteering in our community centres, fundraising for charities, serving on boards of directors of community organizations and providing care for spouses or grandchildren. Some of them take up important con-
[ Page 5066 ]
sulting or even leadership roles in our society, utilizing their expertise and networks accumulated throughout the years.

[1020]

Recently I attended the Seniors of Distinction Awards ceremony in Burnaby, where four seniors — Rodger Konkle, Harminder Sanghera, Russell Moore and Mary Barry — were recognized for their contributions to our society in areas of leadership, volunteerism, arts and community services, respectively.

I am pleased to see the first seniors advocate in our province and in Canada has been appointed.

Making our community more accessible and providing supports to stay in their homes for as long as possible are certainly welcomed by our seniors.

We value our unique seniors population, and I would like all members of the House to join me in recognizing the contributions of the seniors in our communities and in our lives.

INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON
COLUMBIA RIVER TREATY

K. Conroy: Last week I attended the 2014 transboundary conference on the Columbia River treaty, held in Spokane, Washington. The theme, “The Columbia River Basin: learning from our past to shape our future,” inspired delegates to share memories of what happened when this treaty was developed and enacted over 50 years ago and what needs to be done now to ensure a positive future for the people of the basin and the river itself.

The conference, co-sponsored by the Columbia Basin Trust and the Northwest Power and Conservation Council, brought together 300 delegates, including passionate voices from both First Nations and the U.S. tribes. The conversation over the three days included many of the issues that were never part of the discussion when the treaty was enacted.

In 1964 the only purpose was flood control and power generation. There was no consideration for the substantial loss of people’s homes, the destruction of the ecosystem and an environment that was forever altered, the agricultural land lost and the many opportunities that were taken away from the people of the basin. There was some good — the permanent flood control, as there has never been another flood in the basin, and the downstream benefits returned to the B.C. government. But for some folks the entire process will never be seen as a positive one.

There were a number of themes throughout the three days: we must learn from the mistakes of our past governments, the effects of climate change, and energy conservation — or just turn out the lights, as one native elder said.

The overwhelming message, though, was the support of the return of the salmon to the Upper Columbia. The salmon were not kept from the river by the treaty but due to the building of the Grand Coulee dam back in the ’30s. However, all agreed, even my colleague from Kootenay East, that everything should be done to return the salmon.

There wasn’t anyone in the room that wasn’t touched as we watched Gord DeRosa from Trail playing guitar with his seven-year-old granddaughter, Neveah DeRosa Whyte, as she sang a song about the Columbia River. Nevah’s message to all of us was, “Me and my nono made this video in honour of keeping the river clean and returning the salmon to the Columbia River,” a sentiment that we can all share.

UNIVERSITY OF THE FRASER VALLEY

J. Martin: This year marks the 40th anniversary of the University of the Fraser Valley. The university — which now has campuses in Chilliwack, Abbotsford, Hope, Mission and Chandigarh, India — was first established as Fraser Valley College in 1974. Ceremonies and celebrations marking UFV40 have been taking place in our various communities for the last several months.

UFV has become a jewel within the Fraser Valley and a leader within Canada in so many areas. The institution owes its successes to outstanding community connections and support, which make this institution a world-class learning facility.

What started as a grassroots community initiative to provide post-secondary education opportunities for students of all ages and throughout all regions of the Fraser Valley has now become the centre of programs spanning masters and bachelors degrees, diplomas, certificates, apprenticeship world-class trades training, and continuing studies. Research activity has faculty and students working in partnerships, including those with NASA, the Surrey fire service, Natural Resources Canada and many more.

With more than 15,000 students, including 900 international students from 45 countries, 30,000 alumni and 1,500 employees, the University of the Fraser Valley is a driving force behind economic activity in Chilliwack, Abbotsford and elsewhere.

I’m proud to congratulate my friends and my former colleagues for many, many years at the University of the Fraser Valley. I encourage all members of the House to visit the new agricultural centre of excellence anytime they’re in the vicinity.

[1025]

INTERGENERATIONAL LEARNING
PROJECT AT UBC FARM

D. Eby: I’m thrilled to announce to this House that we have a program at UBC Farm that has just won a national science award from Canada’s Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council, NSERC, for their
[ Page 5067 ]
work promoting science in the Lower Mainland and in the Okanagan.

The intergenerational landed learning project at the centre for the study of sustainable food systems at UBC Farm has connected more than 2,000 school kids, ages eight to 17, with farmers and community gardeners for hands-on lessons in the science of farming, pest control and climate.

Supported by UBC, the University Neighbourhoods Association and a number of local sponsors, the project began in 2002. For the first two years it operated with just one teacher, a class of 18 grade 7 students and seven community elders with farming and gardening backgrounds.

Although thousands have participated since then, the original vision remains. Participating students visit the farm, where they cultivate the soil and grow food. There they engage in structured conversations with their teachers and elders about environmental and scientific issues, farming practices and the elders’ history working the land.

The project has expanded to the Okanagan Science Centre and has added an internship program under which high school students help build and maintain community gardens at four Vancouver secondary schools. The students participating in the program even take the produce from these community garden projects and sell it at local farmers markets.

Not surprisingly, the intergenerational landed learning project has won a number of awards, with this NSERC prize being just the latest. As a result of receiving this prestigious national award, the project will receive $25,000 to help fund their work, and their model will be promoted across the country.

Thank you to co-founder Jolie Mayer-Smith, as well as program developer Linda Peterat, program manager Stacy Friedman and the current staff — Kailee Hirsche, Carla Turner and Megan Severide — for all of their work in connecting kids and elders, teaching about science and promoting food security through a project that is not just a source of local pride but also national recognition. Congratulations.

140th ANNIVERSARY OF MAPLE RIDGE

D. Bing: Hon. Speaker, 140 years ago a Scottish Canadian by the name of John McIver invited 50 neighbouring families to his farm. McIver called his farm Maple Ridge because of a prominent row of maple trees on a ridge overlooking the Fraser River.

He invited them to his farm because he wanted to persuade them to ask the province for permission to form a municipality. They heartily agreed, and those present at this historic meeting decided to name the new municipality after John McIver’s farm.

The provincial government gave permission to the area to form the province’s sixth municipality. On September 12, 1874, the corporation of the district of Maple Ridge was formed.

If we fast-forward to September 10 of this year, the Premier and the entire government caucus met in Maple Ridge for its fall caucus meeting. The Premier used the opportunity to announce the birthday present — namely, that the community had been given permission, effective September 12, its actual birthdate, to change its designation from the district of Maple Ridge to the city of Maple Ridge.

From those humble beginnings 140 years ago, Maple Ridge is now the province’s 50th city and a thriving, vibrant community of 80,000 people. I ask the House to join me in wishing a happy birthday to Maple Ridge.

Oral Questions

IMPACT OF
FERRY SERVICE REDUCTIONS ON
ECONOMY AND TOURISM INDUSTRY

C. Trevena: When the government announced its cuts to ferry services last year, community leaders in the Cariboo knew it was a bad idea. So a working group made up of the tourism industry, business owners and local politicians came down to Victoria to meet with three ministers and tell them why. But as Jason Ryll, past president of the Williams Lake and District Chamber of Commerce, tells it: “We were met with disdain.”

To the Minister of Transportation: the government didn’t consult, and then it didn’t listen to people across the province who warned it would be the disaster it’s proven to be. I’d like the minister to tell this House whether he’s done any study at all on the economic impact of ending route 40.

Hon. T. Stone: I certainly always appreciate questions from the member for North Island, particularly as related to the ferry service in this province.

[1030]

As I have said on numerous occasions previously, there indeed have been tough decisions that we’ve had to make to ensure that the ferry service is sustainable and affordable. This side of the House certainly understands that there is a direct correlation between the affordability factor and the number of passengers that use the service.

That is why, in addition to a record level of investment from this government in B.C. Ferries — last fiscal $180 million…. That is why, in addition to supporting B.C. Ferries’ efforts to achieve over $54 million in operational efficiencies, we are also working with B.C. Ferries on a wide array of other initiatives, all focused on driving down the cost of ferry service in this province.

It would be nice if, for once, we could hear from the member for North Island and her colleagues if there is one concept, one initiative — whether it’s the conversion
[ Page 5068 ]
to LNG propulsion, whether it’s evaluating fixed links, whether it’s looking at alternative technologies, whether it’s looking to drive new revenue opportunities…. It would be nice if the member for North Island would stand up in this House and tell us what their ideas are to ensure a sustainable and affordable ferry service in this province.

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

C. Trevena: I take that as a no, that they didn’t make any economic studies, and they made what the minister calls tough decisions based purely on supposition and no hard information. What a way to run an economy.

Jason Ryll, who was with the chamber of commerce, the past president of a chamber of commerce, with his working group thought that the minister might want to know and have a few facts at his hand — a strange idea, obviously — and tried to explain to the minister about the number of vehicles that actually use the route, the number of people who are using the route.

But those facts that the working group brought to the minister were, Mr. Ryll said, met with disdain. The reaction from the government, instead of having a real conversation about how to get this economy working in the central coast, was basically: “Thank you for your information. Now out the door.”

Again to the Minister of Transportation, and maybe he’ll have the courtesy to respond to the question this time. If he’s not going to listen to the individuals or communities or politicians, will he listen to the economic analysis of chambers of commerce and fix the cuts? Chambers of commerce who know what is happening to their local economies….

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members will come to order please.

Please continue.

C. Trevena: Thank you, Madame Speaker.

Will he listen to the chambers of commerce who know the local economy and fix the mistakes that he has made in cutting this service?

Hon. T. Stone: Well, it’s refreshing to hear that perhaps there actually is a willingness on the other side of the floor to engage with chambers of commerce and listen to their problems.

I will remind the members opposite that the route in question, route 40, was losing $7.35 million per year. The vehicles on that ship were being subsidized to the tune of $2,500 per vehicle, and this was to move between 500 and 600 vehicles on the direct shot from Port Hardy to Bella Coola. We don’t believe that that’s sustainable.

Now, this past summer I decided to take my family on the Discovery coast circle tour. We went on the Nimpkish. We enjoyed the voyage, and we talked to tourists from all over the world that were on the ship, who were enjoying the voyage.

[1035]

I would ask the member for North Island this. While I was out touring on the Nimpkish on the Discovery coast circle tour — out of my own pocket, by the way — why was the member for North Island choosing to use that time to tour around on Washington State Ferries and billing $1,900 of expenses to the taxpayers of British Columbia?

G. Heyman: Not only do we listen to chambers of commerce, unlike the minister, we listen to the chamber of commerce when they point out that his figures of the 500 vehicles using route 40 don’t correspond with B.C. Ferries’ own figures of 2,643 vehicles. When we listen to them, we don’t treat them with disdain.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

Just wait a moment, please.

Please continue.

G. Heyman: International tourism operators told this government that shutting route 40 just before the tourist season was a terrible idea. But again, the government didn’t listen. Now, as Patrick Corbett of Hills Health Ranch and 108 Mile Ranch put it: “The international wholesalers who sell British Columbia are nothing short of being flat out angry.” They’re angry that the route was cut at short notice and doubly angry that the government is trying to sell the trip aboard the Nimpkish as a viable alternative, a vessel where someone in a wheelchair can’t even access the washroom.

To the minister. Initial figures show tourism is down 70 percent on some parts of this route because of the government’s reckless actions. Will the government acknowledge that this has a significant impact on the province’s economy and reinstate a comprehensive circle route?

Hon. T. Stone: Well, I think the first thing that would be helpful here would be an acknowledgment from the opposition members that every single time they run down this service…. They call out the Nimpkish, and they make outrageous claims about the quality of the service that’s actually provided. Every time they do that, they’re actually damaging the tourism brand in British Columbia.

It might also be useful if they were actually to get out and experience this service. If they were actually to go and do it, experience it firsthand, they would discover that the Nimpkish has been upgraded. The amenities are
[ Page 5069 ]
much, much more comfortable. There’s a nice selection of food available. The staff are friendly.

When I was on board with my wife and my three daughters — again, as part of a family vacation — I actually took a moment to take a look at the guestbook that was on board. In the guestbook there were entries from people all over the world since this service was changed. Here’s what Ms. Steiger from Switzerland had to say. They expected the trip to be uneventful but were pleasantly surprised. “We saw dolphins. We had great food. We had beverage service. It was a stunning and wonderful landscape. Greetings from Switzerland. We will do this trip again.”

They ought to help get the good word out about this service.

G. Heyman: It would be great for the tourism operators in the Cariboo and the coast if they could live off the minister’s fantasies, but unfortunately, they can’t.

As Mr. Corbett explained, these international operators don’t just sell trips to B.C. They sell trips to destinations worldwide. In other words, they have choices. As Mr. Corbett put it, when you’re mad at somebody, you look at other people to spend time with.

[1040]

We already know that over the course of a decade our province lost $2.3 billion, thanks to this government’s repeated ferry fare hikes. To the minister: how much more business will Cariboo and central coast tourism lose before this government listens to the people whose livelihoods you’ve put on the chopping block?

Hon. T. Stone: I will wait with bated breath to hear the personal experience of the member for Vancouver-Fairview or the member for North Island or any of the members opposite, who I would encourage to get out and actually do this service. The Discovery coast circle tour is still very much intact. It’s a viable tourism product. The ship has been retrofitted. The schedules have been synced. There is food on board.

On this side of the House we have extended our hand to the tourism associations and to small businesses through Bella Coola and the Chilcotin. My colleague the Minister for Tourism and Small Business has been there and has met with a number of the operators. I was there and met with folks as well. The sooner the members opposite stop running down this service, the sooner we can actually tell the world what a first-class tourism product this continues to be.

COURT CASE WITH PRIVATE CLINIC AND
SUPPORT FOR PUBLIC HEALTH SYSTEM

J. Darcy: In the last few weeks I’ve heard from over 1,500 people who are concerned about the threat to our public health care system from for-profit clinics like Dr. Brian Day’s. The government is now negotiating behind closed doors to settle a court case with Brian Day, and people are deeply concerned about what’s happening in those secret negotiations. They believe in a public health care system where you show your CareCard, not a credit card, and they want it to stay that way.

How can British Columbians trust this government to defend public health care when one of its own members, the member for Parksville-Qualicum, is openly advocating for private care for her constituents?

Hon. T. Lake: This government is, in fact, defending public health care. That is why we are auditing and have audited some private clinics that we feel have broken the statutes of the Canada Health Act and, provincially, the Medicare Protection Act. We are being taken to court by the operators of those clinics because we have audited them and asked for the taxpayers’ money to be returned.

We will stand up for public health care, as we always do in the province of British Columbia. I look forward to the ability to have a court date when we can stand up and make sure that, in fact, our public health care system is intact and continues to be the very best public health care system in the country of Canada.

J. Darcy: The fact of the matter is that the Brian Day clinic double-billed to the tune of $500,000 in just a 30-day period. We’re talking tens of millions of dollars over the last number of years, and this government has been letting them get away with it — not once or twice but for many years.

Now we have the member for Parksville-Qualicum, who is actually advocating, when people come to see her, that people go to the private system for critical screening for cancer. British Columbians believe that the quality of care you get should not depend on the size of your bank account, and they do want to keep it that way. They’re tired of this government saying one thing and doing another.

[1045]

Will this B.C. Liberal government commit today to ordering a full and comprehensive audit of all of Brian Day’s clinics? Will the minister commit to doing that today?

Hon. T. Lake: I’m not sure why the member opposite is confused about what we are doing. We are being sued. The province of British Columbia is being sued by a private clinic because we audited them and found that they were in contravention of the Medicare Protection Act. We are standing up for public health care. We’ll continue to do so and to make sure that British Columbians have the best quality health care that is publicly paid for and continues to be the best health care system in all of Canada.

STATUS OF PINE FREE CLINIC AND
HEALTH SERVICES FOR YOUTH

D. Eby: On Friday Vancouver’s only dedicated public health clinic for youth, the Pine Free Clinic, will
[ Page 5070 ]
close. The sign on the clinic’s front door refers youth to a primarily adult clinic that has only 20 dedicated youth hours per week and no youth hours on Saturday. That’s less than half of the time currently available to young people at Pine.

Remarkably, this restructuring that is leading to the Pine’s closure will cause this government to spend more money, not less, eliminating this regional youth clinic which has operated under governments of every stripe for 41 years.

Why is the minister closing this confidential and safe health care space for youth and sending the vulnerable young people who depend on it to adult clinics?

Hon. T. Lake: We have talked about the changes to primary health care in Vancouver Coastal in this House before. I have always said that health care must be dynamic, must respond to the needs of the population. These changes have been done very thoughtfully. They will allow even more patients in the Vancouver community to have access to primary services, including youth.

In fact, the Raven Song clinic will increase the hours of operation. It will go to five days a week, 12 hours a day, instead of the current eight hours a day, and then eventually will be open seven days a week, 12 hours a day — more than doubling the current hours that are available to vulnerable clients.

I know that over there the expression “change for the better” sometimes doesn’t work. But in this case this is change for the better.

Madame Speaker: Recognizing Vancouver–Point Grey on a supplemental.

D. Eby: Don’t take my opinion on this. This is a review — commissioned by Vancouver Coastal Health — by a family medicine expert from St. Paul’s. This restructuring is “likely to reduce access to primary care for many high-needs patients” — like the youth at Pine, who are now facing half the number of hours that they used to have.

As Vancouver youth began to organize to try to save their clinic, Vancouver Coastal Health undermined their efforts by releasing a misleading poster with a headline that said: “None of our nine community health centres are closing.” The Pine clinic was listed as one of nine community health centres on the VCH website.

Instead of engaging youth on this issue that affects them, giving them accurate information and asking them their opinion, this government released misleading information that frustrated their organizing efforts. How can the minister justify this?

Hon. T. Lake: I had the opportunity to tour Raven Song clinic, which will have expanded hours and availability to vulnerable patients in the Vancouver area.

Interjections.

Hon. T. Lake: It was the Health Minister who used to say that nothing should ever change in the NDP world, so I won’t say that, Madame Speaker. I have to be a little more original.

In fact, we must be responsive to the changing needs of the population. The expanded service of the clinics in Vancouver Coastal will allow vulnerable youth to have better and increased access to health care, including confidential sexual and reproductive health care and mental health care and addictions services.

[1050]

Raven Song will offer 60 hours of youth clinic services five days a week and then will expand to 84 hours a week in 2015. That’s an increase of 30 hours; Pine was open only 54 hours per week.

We are looking after the vulnerable population in Vancouver Coastal. We are making sure those services are available to youth. This really is change for the better.

SITE C POWER PROJECT COSTS
AND B.C. CREDIT RATING

A. Weaver: On April 19 of 2010, I, along with numerous others, travelled to Hudson’s Hope to hear the then Premier, Gordon Campbell, announce that the proposed Site C dam project was moving to the environmental assessment stage. In 2010 the projected construction cost for the dam was $6.6 billion, but by May 2011, that cost had increased to $7.9 billion, a 20 percent increase.

There’s considerable upside uncertainty regarding these costs that could easily reach $10 billion to $12 billion. The final investment decision with respect to Site C now rests with cabinet.

In the past our government has appropriately celebrated the fact that B.C. has maintained a triple-A credit rating. However, in May of this year Moody’s downgraded our outlook from stable to negative, citing concerns about the increasing provincial debt.

My question to the Minister of Finance is this. Is the minister as troubled as I am that the approval of the Site C dam could lead to the downgrading of our credit rating that, in turn, would raise the costs of servicing of all of our provincial debt?

Hon. M. de Jong: The member correctly identifies the pride we do have for our triple-A credit rating. It’s a form of report card issued by international agencies, a comparative assessment of how we’re doing, and the marks they have given us the past number of years places us in very, very exclusive company.

Commercial Crowns, like B.C. Hydro, are assessed as self-supported debt rather than taxpayer-supported debt. The other thing I can say to the member is that B.C. Hydro has over the past number of years been assessed
[ Page 5071 ]
a flow-through rating, which means they have the same triple-A rating as the B.C. government. Now, some rating agencies are now extending their analysis to extend to total provincial debt, including self-supporting Crown corporations.

The Minister of Energy has — and will, if given the opportunity — continued to point out the basis upon which a final decision on this project will be made, but I can assure the member and all members that affordability of debt will be one of those considerations.

Madame Speaker: Oak Bay–Gordon Head on a supplemental.

B.C. HYDRO MANDATE AND DEVELOPMENT
OF ALTERNATIVE ENERGY SOURCES

A. Weaver: We know there are affordable alternatives to Site C, and these alternatives would allow us to meet present and future energy needs without running the risk of incurring increased public debt and potentially damaging our triple-A credit rating.

The fact is that circumstances have changed since 2010. That’s why I no longer believe it’s fiscally prudent to move forward with this project.

In the last few years the costs of wind energy and solar PV have dropped dramatically. In addition, just last month the Canadian Geothermal Energy Association released a report outlining the unheralded potential of B.C.’s yet untapped geothermal resource.

My question to the Minister of Finance is this. Will the government consider expanding the mandate of B.C. Hydro to allow them to develop our geothermal resources? And will the government task B.C. Hydro with issuing new calls for power at a fixed price below the projected cost of power produced from Site C so that the market can prove up these cheaper alternatives — and, subsequently, protect the ratepayer from unnecessary rate hikes?

Hon. B. Bennett: Thank you to the member for the question. It’s actually, I think, a positive thing to be given the opportunity to talk about our electricity policy in the province and how we’re going to obtain the electricity that we’re going to need over the next 20 years. The estimate is that we’re going to need about 40 percent more electricity than we generate today over the next 20 years.

The province obviously has some choices. If you look at the ten-year rates plan that we announced a year ago, you’ll see that we’ve already made some choices in terms of priorities.

[1055]

Our number one choice in terms of meeting that new demand is conservation. B.C. Hydro is going to attempt to meet the growth in demand through conservation, to the extent of 78 percent of the growth in demand by conservation.

In reference to that same plan that we announced a year ago, we are also going to meet that demand by reinvesting in assets that were built a long time ago on the Peace River system and the Columbia River system and try to generate as much electricity as we can with the current generation assets that we have.

The third thing that we’re going to do is to allow a number of IPP projects that are already in the pipeline to be finished, to be constructed, and we will acquire that electricity as well.

Even after those three responses to this growth and demand, we are going to need at least 1,100 megawatts of electricity over on top of that, and the government has not decided how we’re going to acquire that 1,100 megawatts. I can tell the hon. member that we are, in fact, carefully looking at all of the alternatives.

MESSAGE FROM
SMALL BUSINESS MINISTER IN
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT NEWSLETTER

S. Robinson: I would like to know if the Minister of State for Small Business can tell the House the purpose of her Economic Development in B.C. newsletter and her letter that appears in it.

Hon. N. Yamamoto: I appreciate that the member opposite actually has seen it and read it. It actually isn’t my newsletter. It is done, actually, with the leadership of the Minister of Jobs, Tourism and Skills Training and Labour. I have a small portion of that.

I can tell you that regardless of who takes the lead in it, the purpose of the newsletter is obviously to demonstrate to whoever is reading it that economic growth in British Columbia is good, and that we have to find a way to saying yes, and with respect to my portfolio, small business, it’s absolutely critical, as 98 percent of all businesses in B.C. are small business.

Today we’re in October, so it’s Small Business Month. It’s to recognize and appreciate the incredible work that small businesses do in this province and in communities all over the world.

M. Mungall: I am glad that the minister laid out the purpose of the newsletter, but I was surprised to see that below the minister’s signature in the newsletter, which was mentioned by the member for Coquitlam-Maillardville, she added a link to her election campaign Facebook page. It reads “vote,” and then her name. Can the minister tell us why she used a ministry publication to promote her re-election website?

Hon. N. Yamamoto: I’m not aware of that link. If it’s there, it’s inappropriate, and we will have it removed.

M. Mungall: I appreciate the minister may have made
[ Page 5072 ]
a mistake in this situation. I mean, I assumed that she would have reviewed these documents, but I understand that she may have made a mistake. That being said, the responsibility for government communications lies with the GCPE.

Can the minister tell us: is Athana Mentzelopoulos, who was responsible for the government communications when this document was produced…? Was she responsible for approving these documents?

Hon. N. Yamamoto: As I mentioned, if, in fact, that link is there, it will be removed. It is inappropriate, and I was unaware of it.

[End of question period.]

Tabling Documents

Madame Speaker: Hon. Members, I have the honour to present the following reports. Office of the Auditor General, The 2014 Summary Financial Statements and the Auditor General’s Findings. Office of the Registrar of Lobbyists, Investigation Report 14-11, lobbyist: Benjamin Chin; and Investigation Report 14-13, lobbyist: Brenda Swick.

[1100]

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: Committee stage debate on Bill 2.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 2 — GREENHOUSE GAS INDUSTRIAL
REPORTING AND CONTROL ACT

The House in Committee of the Whole on Bill 2; D. Horne in the chair.

The committee met at 11:04 a.m.

On section 1.

Hon. M. Polak: I’ll just introduce the staff that I have with me. To my left I have Tim Lesiuk, the executive director of business development for the climate action secretariat. To my right I have our new head of the climate action secretariat, Susanna Laaksonen-Craig.

[1105]

S. Chandra Herbert: I appreciate the staff support. Obviously, they’ve worked hard to try and make this bill comprehensible to the layperson. I’ve learned a lot about different forms of emissions and potential ways to reduce them and potential ways that we aren’t reducing them as well.

I have quite a few questions around definitions. I know other colleagues do as well. So I ask the Chair for his forgiveness if sometimes we are a little repetitive, as we have questions which are trying to interpret the bill to the best of our ability.

I would also ask if the Chair could ensure that members of the House don’t be too loud, because I have hard time sometimes hearing the minister way down on the other side of the House here. I’ve noticed that challenge in this House.

First, happy birthday to the minister. I appreciate that this will be the best birthday party yet. That says a lot about birthday parties that I’ve been to anyway. Just kidding.

I first wanted to just move two amendments on notice. They will come up for debate later in the bill, but I just thought I should provide notice for the House of the amendments I propose to move. One is a proposed amendment to the schedule of regulated operations and emission limits, adding in the upstream side of the LNG equation to that section. The other is to eliminate the potential exemption of the carbon tax for LNG operations. I’ll just hand those to you now so you can have those for down the road.

Getting into the bill itself, I wondered if the minister might be able to explain the definition of “accepted emission offset project.” Does that require that all offsets purchased by B.C. LNG companies be from B.C. emissions reduction projects?

Hon. M. Polak: The director will make a decision as to an accepted emission offset project if the validation statement that the director receives is in accordance with the regulations and if it meets the prescribed criteria that are in section 9.

S. Chandra Herbert: I’m to understand, then, at this stage, as the regulations have not been written, conceivably regulations could be written to include offset projects outside of the province. Or is that impossible?

Hon. M. Polak: Our intent is to outline that in the regulation — that it would be a requirement for them to be purchased in B.C.

S. Chandra Herbert: ust so that I understand and so that anybody at home or at work watching this debate understands, the possibility, then, very much exists that this government or a future government could change those regulations to allow offset projects to be anywhere else but B.C.

Hon. M. Polak: It’s quite conceivable that in the future, given the work that we’re doing internationally, there may be other jurisdictions in the future that meet the criteria that we have with respect to offsets.
[ Page 5073 ]

[1110]

At some time in the future it might make sense to allow the purchase of offsets outside B.C. Right now it doesn’t. But we believe it’s appropriate to allow that flexibility to be in regulation so that if the circumstances do change, we can adapt.

S. Chandra Herbert: Well, the minister will know, of course, that international rules and regulations require that emissions be counted where they are produced, and we have a legal requirement to reduce our emissions by 33 percent by 2020.

The concern many have is that while the Premier may say reducing coal emissions in China is good, not being able to be definitive that that wouldn’t happen anyway…. Would that be the kind of thing that the minister could consider as an offset in the future — in China — to count towards B.C.’s emission targets and legally required reductions?

Hon. M. Polak: It wouldn’t operate that way. It wouldn’t be possible. The offsets have to follow strict accounting rules which would not allow for us to count as offsets any impact that it had on reducing emissions in other parts of the world.

S. Chandra Herbert: So “accepted emission offset project.” A director, with whatever the regulations the government decided, could be, though, conceivably — just so I’m absolutely clear…. Let’s say an offset reduction project in China could be funded by B.C. offset dollars from LNG projects, should the government structure the regulations that way. Is that possible? I just want to make sure that I understand that correctly.

Hon. M. Polak: That concern is precisely why, at the current time, staff have been directed to develop regulations that require those offset purchases here in B.C. The idea of having that in regulation, though, is…. I’m sure the member will be aware that there are many occasions, with older pieces of legislation, that we find ourselves here debating relatively small-sized amendments because times have changed. Yet, because it was put into legislation, one has to come back here to the House. The idea is to allow for that ability to change it in regulation.

We have no intent at this time to be using taxpayers’ money to be funding purchase of offsets in other jurisdictions around the world. We want the LNG industry here in B.C. to be generating revenue for people here in B.C. and certainly for offset projects like First Nations offset projects here in B.C.

S. Chandra Herbert: The minister will be well aware that the Auditor General pointed out that offsets can be challenging. She will likely know that many international financial agencies and others have pointed out that offsets can be gained, that white-collar crime has been a challenge in the offset world. It is a very challenging thing to regulate to ensure that an offset is a new, real offset as opposed to something that would have happened already.

For those watching at home, if you don’t know what an offset is, it is, of course, if you pollute and you stop somebody else who is planning on polluting…. The argument is that they can offset each other because you’ve stopped increased pollution on the one side and, in a sense, balanced it out.

I’m just curious. Given that approximately 70 percent of the offsets the government used to justify and to argue as carbon-neutral one year, including the Darkwoods project and the Encana project, were shown to be quite convincingly not additional, not convincingly new — they were projects that were likely going to happen already — what kind of assurances can the government give that an offset will be real, as opposed to something that was already going to happen?

[1115]

Hon. M. Polak: The member will be aware that, while we disagreed with the conclusions of the Auditor General in his report, we responded positively to all the recommendations. That entire process of offsets has been restructured within government.

I can tell the member that the new offset system has some important new requirements to it — project registration, offset issuance, positive list protocols — and, in fact, is accredited under the Canadian Standards Council as well as the American National Standards Institute. That takes us to the international standards for offsets.

S. Chandra Herbert: The minister will have to forgive me. For the list of things that she said that the government is going to do to ensure that offsets are credible, if she could go into a little bit more detail. Some of the phrases I’m not completely familiar with and I understand others who are not experts in offsets would be even less familiar with.

Hon. M. Polak: Just a friendly suggestion — that might be a more productive discussion under sections 8 and 9.

S. Chandra Herbert: If the minister prefers to get to that under section 8 or 9, I can understand that. I guess the question is as well: what kind of discretion will the government be giving the director around these standards? We’ve had this debate before. What one government says they’ll do by regulation, if there’s a cabinet change or a change in government, can be undone and changed again.

How do we ensure the highest standard of offsets? My preference, as I said before, is just not to do the pollution if you can. But I understand there is definitely a role to
[ Page 5074 ]
play for offsets. It’s just not the first role. If you can drive the emissions down first, that’s the best way. If you can’t, offsets have a role to play, and certainly there have been good offset projects as well.

I just want to ensure that the highest standard is met so that we don’t get into the situation of thinking we’re fighting pollution when, in reality, we are just creating more of it but patting ourselves on the back, assuming we’ve done something good, when the reality is that we haven’t actually changed a thing.

Hon. M. Polak: The director would have no discretion to accept offsets that weren’t accredited under the scheme that I just outlined.

S. Chandra Herbert: I guess the question is: what discretion does the director have to change that scheme? Or the minister could, I suppose, through order-in-council. What kind of process…? How quickly could that be done?

Hon. M. Polak: That’s actually covered in the legislation, so it would require a legislative change.

V. Huntington: Most of my questions have now been asked, except that I would like the minister to confirm that the B.C. carbon standard will not be used to verify a project.

Hon. M. Polak: We’re not clear to what the member is referring.

[1120]

V. Huntington: Well, the Pacific Carbon Trust used a B.C. carbon standard that hasn’t been accepted globally. The minister mentioned that the Canadian Standards Council and the international standards would be used to verify a project. I am asking, then: the B.C. carbon standard is not part of that verification?

Hon. M. Polak: That was actually a standard by which products could be sold to the Pacific Carbon Trust. It no longer exists. Again, the current requirements are probably more easily discussed in sections 8 and 9. But the B.C. carbon standard wouldn’t apply here.

S. Chandra Herbert: I’m just curious. To give me greater faith that the government is moving towards real offsets and professional offsets, as opposed to ones that you can’t really feel confident in…. The minister said the government disagreed with the Auditor General’s findings around carbon-neutral government although argued that they would implement what the Auditor General said should be done to improve the standards.

I’m curious what the minister disagreed with, in the sense of the Darkwoods project, a project that had already been purchased prior to the creation of the Pacific Carbon Trust, by the Nature Conservancy of Canada. By law, they were required not to clearcut the forest. They were required by law not to liquidate logs, which was the assumption that Pacific Carbon Trust made, despite it not being anywhere founded in reality.

What with that did the minister disagree with? It’s a pretty fundamental project and a pretty fundamental understanding of what an offset is and if it’s credible or not.

Hon. M. Polak: I’m going a bit from memory and a bit from staff’s memory — because, of course, I was not minister at the time. My recollection of the statements from the Environment Minister at the time was that government disagreed with the conclusion of the Auditor General that found that government was, in fact, not carbon-neutral. Government, of course, was backed up in that by independent accrediting agencies internationally. But all the recommendations for improvements that the Auditor General made we have completed.

S. Chandra Herbert: I can understand that the minister was not the responsible minister at the time. However, the government continues to argue it was carbon-neutral at the time, despite looking at the international standards and comparing them to what was actually done in both the Encana and Darkwoods projects. It’s hard for me to understand how they could be seen to be additional, that they could actually be an offset, when the standards that the Pacific Carbon Trust used at the time made assumptions which were not based in fact and which were not based in law.

It is very troubling that that would be counted as an offset. Now, I’m not going to downplay the significance of the project. It certainly was important for bear habitat. It certainly was important to the people in the Kootenays and, indeed, across the nation. That’s why it had been purchased prior to the government’s carbon-neutral government decision. That’s why they had been fundraising: to purchase it completely from the bank so that it wouldn’t be logged. But there had been no intention to liquidate, log it. It was actually not possible under their legislation.

The other one, I guess, would be the Encana project, which was shown that rather than wasting gas, the company could make millions with a slight technological change so that they didn’t waste gas and instead could send it through the pipelines so people could use it to heat their homes and do those kinds of things. While the government may want to say it was carbon-neutral at that time, I can’t see how the facts back it up.

[1125]

I’ll leave that there. We can have a difference of opinion on that, but it is a challenge for me to accept when the government says it’s carbon-neutral or that an offset is a
[ Page 5075 ]
real offset, given the problems — the very fundamental problems — that the government refuses to acknowledge with those two offset purchases.

I don’t have any more questions on accepted emission offset projects at this time. I understand my colleague does, and we’ll continue from there.

Hon. M. Polak: Just to say that certainly, differences of opinion are fine, but it is important to note that while we employed accredited professionals to review the evidence of offsets that were purchased, the Auditor General, in his review, did not employ accredited professionals.

We still rely on the advice of accredited professionals. If we were not to do that, I’m not sure what other standard we would choose. Going forward, we continue to do that.

S. Chandra Herbert: I would just say that of course, the Auditor General did use accredited professionals in the auditing field. Now, the minister may argue around carbon offsets — that they weren’t accredited in the carbon offset world — but just to be clear, they were, of course, accredited auditors in the Auditor General’s office.

I would say that they should be accountants. They may not be offset accreditors. My point is that they still had professional accreditation in their fields.

The Chair: I note that the member for Saanich South is not in her place.

L. Popham: Sorry about that.

It’s always nice to share a birthdate with someone, so happy birthday, Minister.

My question is around the accepted carbon offset projects, specifically around the agricultural land reserve. Could the minister tell me how many thousands of acres of agricultural land reserve land are currently being used in accepted carbon offset projects?

[1130]

Hon. M. Polak: Let me just describe the process here. I understand there is an issue, certainly, of concern around the potential loss of farmland if that land is indeed used for tree-planting and, therefore, those are used for offsets.

Those that I am most familiar with…. I’ll start just by saying we don’t have figures on whatever acreage — I guess it’s hectarage now — would actually be used at this point, although we’re aware that some international purchases and agreements have been made. But those are all private sector.

We don’t actually manage the offsets. That’s not something that we do. The issue would rest in the question of whether or not the Agricultural Land Commission would decide if that is actually an acceptable farm use.

I know the member is well familiar with that — and happy birthday to her as well.

In this particular scheme that we’re discussing today, what we would look to is the criteria as outlined in sections 8 and 9. As to whether or not it should be on agricultural land, I know that’s an active discussion right now within those departments of government that deal with agriculture. It wouldn’t be a decision that we would make. But I certainly acknowledge and understand the concern and the issue.

L. Popham: I know the minister is aware of the situation. I guess I just wanted to state that having an incentive of a carbon offset program, there are unintended consequences of that for agricultural land, and it’s becoming more and more clear. From Prince George up through the Cariboo there are thousands of acres that are being affected.

One of the stipulations on the carbon offset programs, I believe, in this bill is that it has to be a B.C.-based offset company, although the older companies are going to be grandfathered. A lot of the companies that are involved that I’ve researched are foreign companies that have purchased this land. It’s being changed from agriculture land into sivilcuture land. That is the concern I just wanted to put on the record.

Hon. M. Polak: To be clear, what we look to in terms of accreditation and evidence is the offset itself, so not just the company, right? They might be a B.C.-based company; the offsets have to be B.C.-based. That’s our intent in terms of the regulation.

But yes, I certainly acknowledge the concern. It’s a discussion that is alive and is happening. But it is ultimately a land use decision as to whether or not that kind of use should be acceptable as a farm use.

A. Weaver: To build up on the previous member’s question, is the government considering the development of in-house protocols for offset credit for land use change within farms — for example, tilling practices or perhaps the use of biochar or other types of farming practices that have been used historically to try to enhance the carbon content of farming soils?

Hon. M. Polak: We’re certainly open to all those kinds of opportunities. It would be our responsibility to approve the protocols that would guide that. But we’re certainly open to all those opportunities.

[1135]

V. Huntington: I’m extremely pleased this issue was brought up by the member. I can’t say strongly enough to the minister and her colleagues that this could become an extremely serious issue throughout the province and that agricultural productivity could become of real concern to the industry itself.

There may be some ways in which you could — in areas, for instance, like Delta South, which is so agricul-
[ Page 5076 ]
turally based — work out how an offset might work and be beneficial to the land and the community and wildlife, etc.

But I would strongly urge the minister to ensure that her colleagues in the Ministry of Agriculture work very closely with the public on this. I do not think that removing agricultural land from productivity without the consent of the public in this province would be something that people would appreciate in order to benefit an offset project. I strongly urge the government to consider this step very closely.

Hon. M. Polak: Let me be quite emphatic that it is in no way our intent to see this kind of practice expand in the way in which it has been happening in some of the communities of concern.

I take the member’s point that it’s conceivable someone may come up with an agricultural offset that makes sense and maybe improves agriculture land. But the way that it’s been occurring to date is something that certainly concerns all of us.

For us in our department, even if we were to go to…. No, I’ll say it a different way. The issue becomes one of who can control what might be done from another jurisdiction. The projects, for example, that I’m familiar with are ones where companies are seeking to have offsets recognized in other jurisdictions. The issue then becomes a land use one. It is one that we’re taking very seriously, and we are looking at what appropriate policies need to be in place.

It’s an emerging issue and one, certainly, of concern to all of us.

V. Huntington: Just one follow-up question and then a comment — well, two questions.

One, I hope that those policies are canvassed with the public. This is not something I believe the government should deal with, in terms of its agricultural land, behind a closed door — an issue of regulation that hasn’t been strongly canvassed with the public and with the industry.

Secondly, is the ministry and is the government looking at the ramifications on the forestry industry if offsets within the forests of British Columbia are purchased and bought? Do they ever see a scenario where the forest industry, the logging industry itself, could suffer as a result of an offset within that land use area?

Hon. M. Polak: To the first point, I agree with the member in principle. I would say, though, that if the decision of government or the Agricultural Land Commission is to prohibit that kind of use on agricultural land, and if there’s a timing issue in terms of wanting to stop that activity quickly so that it doesn’t proliferate, I leave it up to the Agriculture Minister and others to determine what the best process is for that. But that is something that we are going to have to address quickly and make sure that we do things the right way.

When it comes to the forest industry, yes, in fact there has been involvement of the forest industry in a number of different areas. The member will be aware of things such as Great Bear rainforest and atmospheric benefit agreements that we have with First Nations around land that won’t be forested.

But there are also huge opportunities in the forest industry around replanting, with respect to pine beetle kill and things like that. We’re always cognizant of the arrangements we make — for example, with First Nations around offsets that they can sell — and what impact that has on harvestable timber and the availability for the forest industry.

V. Huntington: On replanting schemes, then, it would remain Crown land, and the offset would be the benefit of the replanting?

[1140]

Hon. M. Polak: I’ll do my best to explain the idea that is currently being worked on. The carbon would be owned by the planter, if that’s what we wish to call them, and the trees, the harvestable timber, would be owned by the Crown still.

S. Chandra Herbert: Obviously, there are impacts, potentially, with offset schemes that could impact agricultural land, agricultural jobs, food productivity and food security in the province. There are also potentially impacts in the forestry sector, with possibilities of, on the one hand, protecting forested land, which people would want to protect — it could be for environmental reasons; it could be for cultural reasons, what have you — but, on the other hand, potentially causing an impact on jobs in the forestry sector.

I’m just curious. Given the amount of offsets that could be required if you had ten or 18 LNG facilities, as the government has sometimes said are possible, what kinds of studies or cross-ministerial work has been done to prepare for that possibility for accepted emission offset projects? I just want to make sure, as the minister said…. She agreed that we should be out in front of it, get ahead of the challenge on the agricultural side — although I understand, according to my colleague, there are a number of farms that have already been purchased as potential offsets prior to this legislation even being introduced.

Hon. M. Polak: Again, to the agricultural question. What we’re talking about here, though, is an issue of land use at this stage. I mean, it’s an emerging issue, but it is not currently an issue where we are looking to accept offsets that would be constructed in that form, where you’ve planted trees, used agricultural land. That’s not our intent. It’s not what we’re contemplating.

The issue that has emerged, which the member’s colleague described, right now rests largely — or entirely, as
[ Page 5077 ]
far as I am aware — with companies that have purchased land and are developing offsets that are accepted in other jurisdictions. They’re on British Columbia land, so the question, really, at that stage is one of land use.

When it comes to the issues around forestry or, indeed, other industries on the land base, those, again, wouldn’t be an issue for policy acceptance by us. We’re looking at the evidence for an offset and whether it’s valid. Whether or not something is appropriate in terms of forestry policy, agricultural policy, mining policy is a question for those ministries and how they manage things like tenures and licences and things like that.

I think a better example to use…. It is evident in the move toward an incentive program and encouragement of purchase of B.C. offsets. Many of the liquefied natural gas companies are integrated companies, so the facilities won’t be the only thing they own in British Columbia. Many would own pipelines. Many would own large operations in the upstream.

What I’m sure the member can appreciate would be very valuable is if an offset took the form of a company investing back into improved technology in the upstream, for example, to deal with fugitive emissions or a new technology that maybe we’re not even aware of today. Those are the kinds of things that could have a major positive impact on industry. They won’t be the only ones, I’m sure.

It’s not our intent to step into the realm of other ministry departments and determine their land use. We’ll deal with the evidence on the offsets, and then we’ll certainly work with the other departments in government to ensure the right policy structure is in place so that we don’t see a proliferation of unintended consequences.

[1145]

A. Weaver: Hon. Chair, prior to our break for lunch, I’m hoping to put three proposed amendments on notice via the Clerk, through you, so that when the appropriate time comes in section 1, I will speak to them then.

The Chair: If you pass them to the table, that would be great.

S. Chandra Herbert: The minister’s last answer was helpful to me. I appreciate it. I think the challenge, of course, is when you’re dealing with international offset schemes, potential international agencies wanting to purchase land in B.C. — currently not with the future possibilities of offsets here being the reality. I guess I don’t have more questions on the accepted emission offset project — aside from one. The minister can direct me as to if this should be discussed later or not.

Over time, as has been pointed out in the government’s own climate change strategy, policies can lose effect due to inflation. The carbon tax over time becomes less of an effective tool as you see inflation happen in our economy — something that the government itself pointed out.

Around accepted emission offset projects, I’m just curious. Is there any concern around — maybe this is not the right time to talk around the technology fund — the potential of the offsets losing effect over time as maybe inflation occurs or maybe the emission standards aren’t successful enough? Are there any concerns about them losing their effectiveness over time? Or do we think this is acceptable at this point?

My final question would just be…. If the minister could point out to me where I should best deal with the technology fund, that would be helpful as well.

Hon. M. Polak: To the question around the technology fund, it’s probably best discussed in and around section 11, with the funded units.

With respect to the effectiveness, I think what the member is getting at is probably the price of them, the $25 per unit. It’s no different than any other kind of fee structure that we put in place. From time to time they may need to be adjusted.

In this case, of course, we expect that much of that would also be taken into account in the agreements that were ultimately signed with companies — again, not different than many other fees, etc., associated with industrial development. If there was a need to adjust, we could adjust those through order-in-council, but likely those would also be governed by agreements that would be reached with companies.

S. Chandra Herbert: Thank you for the guidance around the technology fund. Certainly there will be a number of questions, as that’s one of the least fleshed-out parts of the bill. I understand why, but there are a number of questions to ensure it could be effective in the short term, as opposed to, potentially, long term.

[1150]

Given that our need to bring down climate change emissions certainly is…. The sooner we do it, the better. The benefits of emissions reduction way down the road are much less than emission reduction today, according to the best science — and mathematics, when you do the numbers.

Moving down to “administrative agreement,” I’m just curious — “registry operated outside government.” What was the thinking in terms of deciding it should be an outside agency, an outside entity, as opposed to within government?

Hon. M. Polak: In regards to having an outside agency, we could develop our own registry within government. But there are also outside agencies that operate registries. At this stage we have not decided which would be the best route for us to go. This allows us the ability to work with an outside registry if we felt that that was appropriate. Again, this looks to the long-term nature of it. That circumstance may change over time as well.
[ Page 5078 ]

A. Weaver: The definition of “administrative agreement” here directs us to section 16(2). I also note that in section 17 that provides direction for another administrative agreement. So I’m wondering if the minister could please explain how administrative agreements will differ if it’s for a registry inside government or for one outside government.

Hon. M. Polak: Section 17 is there to explicitly outline that no powers are conferred onto the registry administrator, that they’re not an agent of government.

A. Weaver: Perhaps the minister can actually explain to me what the purpose of these administrative agreements is.

Hon. M. Polak: There’s a series of sections that lay out, if we were to enter into an agreement, what activities that agency would be performing. It’s explicit what they’d be expected to perform and also what the requirements of such an agreement would be. We can go into that in more detail, perhaps, when we get to those sections.

S. Chandra Herbert: Attributable. Moving down to the definition: “‘attributable’ in relation to greenhouse gas emissions, means attributable under the regulations to an industrial operation.” On the face of it, I can understand it. I guess the challenge comes to when we say: “…means attributable under the regulations to an industrial operation.”

When the Premier first started speaking about LNG, she said very clearly: “The cleanest LNG in the world.” The government’s LNG strategy said that included the life cycle of LNG. The Premier then later backtracked and argued that there was no LNG without the letter “l” — without the liquefication — and argued she really meant that cleanest LNG life cycle only applied to the liquefication process, as if only the letter “l” mattered — when, of course, there was no LNG without the letters “n” and “g” as well, using the Premier’s argument.

[1155]

I would argue that when you talk about a life cycle, that includes the entire life, not just the last 30 percent of the emissions, as this bill continues to do.

My question is really…. It “means attributable under the regulations to an industrial operation.” As the minister earlier said, many of the potential LNG companies are integrated, so they go from the well to the waterline. The question I have, really, is why the government, say, instead of including the entire industrial operations from well to the waterline, is only focusing on the actual liquefication process when under the Premier’s previous words, it included the entire life cycle of the cleanest LNG in the world.

Hon. M. Polak: Noting the hour, I will attempt to make my answer very short.

For other industrial activities, there are already regulations under the current cap-and-trade act, and our intent would be to move those over to support this act. For LNG specifically, it would cover electricity generated on and off site for the purposes of liquefaction.

One of the challenges that I should point out to the member with respect to the idea of using this act or another one to create a power that would extend, as the member says, from wellhead to waterline, is that while many companies are fully integrated and have assets in all those areas, not all do. And it is the company that owns a facility for which those emissions would be attributable. I’m sure the member can see the challenge, then, in terms of making one company account for emissions that are owned, if you will, by another company.

I move that the committee rise, report progress and seek leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:58 a.m.

The House resumed; Madame Speaker in the chair.

The Committee of the Whole, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. M. Polak 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 11:59 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