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, November 20, 2014

Morning Sitting

Volume 18, Number 2

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

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 20, 2014

The House met at 10:05 a.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

Introductions by Members

J. Thornthwaite: I have a special guest in the gallery today — my friend Wayne Hunter, who was a district of North Vancouver council candidate. But he’s more famously known as the owner-operator and franchiser of Blue Smoke BBQ, which is one of the top five food trucks in Metro Vancouver. Would the House please welcome him to the gallery.

A. Weaver: It gives me great pleasure to introduce to the House today a young man, Stefan Higgins, who’s visiting question period for his first time and helping out downstairs as we develop some policy for the years ahead. Would the House please make him feel very welcome.

D. Donaldson: Visiting the precinct today is the B.C. winner of a national award announced September 8, the 2014 recipient of the tenth annual Council of the Federation Literacy Award, Anne Docherty of Storytellers Foundation.

She was recognized for blending popular and informal education practices that place people and literacy at the foundation of active citizenry, something that’s essential for people to take control of their communities, especially in the northwest, where development pressures are high.

I was very pleased that the Leader of the Official Opposition was able to congratulate the award winner in Hazelton last week, and I acknowledge that following that visit, the Premier issued a news release of congratulations as well.

Would the members join me in congratulating a 2014 recipient of the tenth annual Council of the Federation Literacy Award, and a person to whom I am a lucky husband, Anne Docherty.

S. Chandra Herbert: I would like to welcome Chrys Tei and Alexandra — whose last name leapt out of my mind as I stood in this House, but my colleague will assist me, I’m sure — to this House to mark and acknowledge Transgender Day of Remembrance, which I will be speaking about a little bit later. Great organizers who have helped spread the word and ensure that this community here in Victoria can adequately mark the day so that we can begin to make real change. Please make them very welcome.

Hon. J. Rustad: It’s a great pleasure today to introduce a couple of people, one who is in the precinct or has just left the precinct, who is President Mitchell Stevens of the Nisga’a Lisims Government. With him, and in the gallery here today, is Edward Allen, who is the director of communications for the Nisga’a. Would the House please make them welcome.

G. Holman: It’s a pleasure today to introduce two grade 11 students from Parkland high school in my constituency, Joel Satra and Anna Cragg. Both Anna and Joel have a keen interest in politics. That’s why they’re here today having lunch with me later on.

They’re committed to working within their school, being great students within their school and also volunteering in their community. They represent the best that Parkland has to offer, the best of our public school system. We’re in good hands with students like Joel and Anna coming out of the system. Would the House please make them feel welcome.

[1010]

R. Fleming: Let me just join the member for Vancouver–West End to introduce my constituent, somebody who does courageous work every day in their life. Alexandra Robin Clodge is here for the Transgender Day of Remembrance in the precinct and in question period in the gallery today with us. Would the House please make Alexandra welcome.

J. Horgan: I want to join with the member for Vancouver–West End and introduce a constituent of mine from Sooke, Chrys Tei. I’m very proud to have Chrys Tei here today to celebrate the International Transgender Day of Remembrance. Would the House please make Chrys very, very welcome.

Introduction and
First Reading of Bills

BILL M208 — WHISTLEBLOWERS
PROTECTION ACT, 2014

G. Holman presented a bill intituled Whistleblowers Protection Act, 2014.

G. Holman: I move a bill intituled the Whistleblowers Protection Act, 2014, and ask that it be introduced and read for a first time now.

Motion approved.

G. Holman: The Whistleblowers Protection Act, 2014, will facilitate the disclosure and investigation of serious matters relating to the public service that are potentially unlawful, dangerous to the public, demonstrate gross
[ Page 5454 ]
mismanagement of public funds or assets or significantly impact the environment. The bill will protect persons who disclose such information from retribution.

The bill calls for a mechanism to facilitate disclosures and requires an annual public reporting of all issues raised under the legislation. It empowers the Ombudsperson to provide oversight of the legislation and also be a source for disclosures. The bill also lays out a process to protect against unfounded or malicious complaints.

Hiding the truth from the public clearly does not serve the public interest. While this government is quick to indemnify and protect themselves and their political insiders in court, there is very little protection for whistle-blowers acting to defend the public good. This legislation would serve the public well in addressing the significant issues around the quick-win scandal, the tragic Babine and Lakeland mill explosions or the Mount Polley tailings dam failure.

The University of Victoria Environmental Law Centre, local First Nations and several other organizations have just requested the Premier to pass whistle-blower legislation to ensure that the Mount Polley inquiry gets all the necessary evidence it needs to do its job properly. We need to remove the risk and encourage dedicated public servants to come forward when they feel compelled to expose government irregularities or unacceptable conduct. The Whistleblowers Protection Act, 2014, will provide the necessary protection to allow such disclosures without retribution from government.

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

Bill M208, Whistleblowers Protection 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 M209 — FAIRNESS IN
FINANCING LOCAL GOVERNMENT
ELECTIONS ACT, 2014

M. Farnworth presented a bill intituled Fairness in Financing Local Government Elections Act.

M. Farnworth: I rise to table a bill intituled the Fairness in Financing Local Government Elections Act, and I move that it be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

M. Farnworth: The Fairness in Financing Local Government Elections Act would eliminate some of the challenges we have been witnessing in local elections throughout British Columbia. While there are current efforts being undertaken by this House to address local government campaign expense limits, there is no discussion about who can finance local elections.

While Vancouver local elections see millions of dollars pouring into campaigns, other local elections see hundreds of thousands of dollars. New Democrats recognize that in some communities running in local elections has become prohibitively costly. However, we believe that removing the perceived conflicts that come with large donations from unions and corporations would do much to enhance the fairness of elections. It’s quite simple: if you can’t vote, you can’t donate. Individual citizens, not institutions, should finance B.C.’s political process.

The principles of fairness and access to the democratic process require that there is a level playing field for all those who choose to put their name forward to run for office. Eliminating corporate and union donations from the process and only permitting individual donations is one way to ensure fairness.

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

Bill M209, Fairness in Financing Local Government Elections 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 M210 — ELECTRONIC
PETITIONS ACT, 2014

J. Shin presented a bill intituled Electronic Petitions Act, 2014.

J. Shin: I move the introduction of the Electronic Petitions Act, 2014, for its first reading.

Motion approved.

[1015]

J. Shin: It is my pleasure to be introducing this bill for a second time. While petitioning has played a central part in our parliamentary practice for centuries, only paper petitions are currently accepted in the B.C. Legislative Assembly. This bill complements this longstanding democratic tradition by allowing and recognizing electronically submitted petitions.

It’s imperative that our provincial government does its part to promote democratic participation by engaging British Columbians in the political process in every way possible. Thanks to modern technology, we now have the opportunity to enhance this tradition of petitioning with increased accessibility and efficiency. Electronic petitions can serve as a low-barrier entry point for our citizens, especially the youth, to communicate their concerns to this House.

Signatories will provide their name, phone number,
[ Page 5455 ]
mailing and e-mail addresses to validate their identities. E-petitions can improve the aspect of their legitimacy more so than their paper counterpart with built-in authentication measures against invalid or incomplete entries. Thus, this may reduce clerical work and be cost-saving.

An e-petition system is already implemented in many other jurisdictions, such as the U.K., the U.S. and Quebec. Federally, Canada has also moved forward, with all parties coming together to recently pass MP Kennedy Stewart’s motion on e-petitions. We have the chance to demonstrate the same collaboration in this House for British Columbians.

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

Bill M210, Electronic Petitions 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 M211 — GENDER IDENTITY AND
EXPRESSION HUMAN RIGHTS
RECOGNITION ACT

S. Chandra Herbert presented a bill intituled Gender Identity and Expression Human Rights Recognition Act.

S. Chandra Herbert: I rise to move a bill intituled Gender Identity and Expression Human Rights Recognition Act be placed on the orders of the day for first reading today.

Motion approved.

S. Chandra Herbert: It’s time, hon. Members. It’s time to explicitly protect our province’s transgender people, explicitly in the human rights code. For too long trans and gender-variant people in every one of our constituencies have felt unprotected by our laws, have felt invisible in our courts and communities. For too long many have felt the law is not there to protect them. This bill would help change that perception by explicitly protecting one’s gender identity and gender expression from discrimination.

While some judges have read into the law gender identity under sex, it is time we as legislators stand and put it there in law explicitly, so there can be no confusion, so that when our teachers teach the human rights code, there can be no question. When our business people and our government serve trans people, there can be no question. Most importantly, when transgender or gender-variant people face hatred, there can be no question. We are on their side, and we have their back.

I ask you, fellow MLAs, to join with me, to join with the official opposition, B.C.’s transgender community, Ontario, Nova Scotia, Manitoba and the Northwest Territories and pass this bill. Let us do this today for freedom, for equality, for justice.

This is the third time, hon. Members, that I am moving this legislation. Let this be the last time, and let us make this change. Let us make this change for good and for equality in our communities.

I ask for your support, hon. Members, and I move that this bill be placed to second reading as soon as possible.

Bill M211, Gender Identity and Expression Human Rights Recognition Act, 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.

Statements
(Standing Order 25B)

TRANSGENDER DAY OF REMEMBRANCE

S. Chandra Herbert: For the members assembled here today and all those at home, today, Thursday, November 20, is International Transgender Day of Remembrance. It is a day to mark the loss of transgender people in our communities — people who’ve been lost due to hatred; people who’ve been lost due to violence, poverty, ignorance; people lost due to denial.

Indeed, hon. Members, trans people and gender-variant people in our communities face rates of violence much, much higher than the general population. These are people who’ve been lost due to rigid gender roles that deny their existence and deny all of us their ability to be their true humanity.

Trans people are everywhere, in every community in this province. Yet too often in our health, education, justice, and economic systems, they’ve been marginalized into invisibility. Today is a day to speak out, to stand up and remember that when our community isn’t free, when one is made to feel lesser, then we are all less free and we are all made smaller.

[1020]

As we remember, as we mark today Transgender Day of Remembrance, we also must make a choice to act against the violence of denial, the violence of assault, the violence that continues to kill trans people at a much higher rate than the rest of us. We must make a choice to include trans people in our systems — in our health, education, justice systems — and, most importantly, in our communities.

We must also remember “Nothing about us without us,” as the trans community says. They must be made to be at the centre of these reforms, with their voice leading the way.

For too long there has been a paternalistic, top-down approach that denies their very fundamental human rights. Indeed, this Legislature has, until very recently,
[ Page 5456 ]
barely recognized transgendered people’s existence at all. In fact, I could find no recognition of trans people before 2008 in this Legislature. I ask that we mark this day and remember and act.

REMEMBRANCE DAY AND
HOLODOMOR COMMEMORATION

L. Reimer: Last week I, along with millions of other Canadians, participated in Remembrance Day events throughout our country. In Canada November 11 is a sombre day and a day to reflect on the sacrifices made by others for the freedoms we enjoy.

The month of November is also a time to remember, especially for people of Ukrainian ancestry. In 1932 and 1933 a famine gripped Ukraine. Now, this famine was not an act of God; this famine was deliberate. Men, women and children, innocent lives — up to ten million people died. This act of evil is known as the Holodomor, and in Ukrainian, this literally means death by starvation.

Grain quotas were set, and when villages were unable to meet the quotas, what they had was taken away, along with other food and even seeds for planting. Starving families who tried to flee in search of food were sent back. Laws were passed that made the theft of food punishable by execution. This was a genocide, and we must not forget it.

The Holodomor is marked in Ukraine as a national memorial day, and in 2008 an act was passed by our federal parliament that recognizes and commemorates the Holodomor on behalf of all Canadians.

This Saturday, November 22, is Holodomor Memorial Day in British Columbia and Canada. I ask everyone to please join me in solidarity with our Ukrainian community in remembrance of the millions who were killed in this genocide.

WITS ANTI-BULLYING PROGRAM

R. Fleming: Walk away, ignore, talk it out, seek help — use your WITS. These are the four strategies delivered through the WITS program in elementary schools by teachers, counsellors, parents and community members to help students identify and address bullying and peer victimization.

WITS began as a collaborative effort of Lampson Elementary School principal Judi Stevenson; founder of the Rock Solid Foundation, Tom Woods; and University of Victoria psychology professor Dr. Bonnie Leadbeater.

The WITS program is an evidence-based bullying prevention strategy taught to children in kindergarten through grade 6. It’s the only program which includes the valuable involvement of parents, teachers, police officers, firefighters, paramedics and other local community groups.

Beginning as a pilot in elementary schools in greater Victoria school district 61, the program has been widely recognized and adopted in over 600 schools across Canada and now into the United States. In 2011 the WITS program even expanded to offer a French program called DIRE.

This week is Bullying Awareness Week. In recognition of this week, I’d like to thank Judi Stevenson, Tom Woods and Dr. Bonnie Leadbeater for their dedicated work to prevent bullying and promote positive relations for school children across British Columbia and Canada. They have indeed enjoyed tremendous success in growing the WITS program, working with award-winning children’s authors in Canada and school leaders to reduce violent incidents in our schools and helps kids identify preventative strategies to bullying.

FACTS AND BELIEFS IN
POLITICAL DEBATE

G. Hogg: How do we know what we know? Daniel Moynihan said: “Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they’re not entitled to their own facts.” During our recent civic elections and even sometimes in this very House there are disagreements over facts.

[1025]

It seems that anyone can find information to support almost any point of view — information that, for them, turns their opinions into facts. Stephen Colbert coined the word “truthiness.” It denotes how smart, sophisticated people like us can go awry on questions of fact — ideas that seem right without reference to logic or intellectual rigour.

Moynihan’s words do not have the same resonance today that they once had. Many people now believe that they’re entitled not just to their own opinions but also to their own facts. How else can we explain the disagreements that occur amongst thoughtful, intelligent people like us? How can it be that we think we are reasonable and that those who disagree with us are not reasonable?

We believe that good information and good debate lead to good conclusions, to good policy, to good legislation. But Nobel Prize winner Daniel Kahneman has found that we tend to believe arguments because we believe in their conclusions. Experientially, there’s no difference between true and false beliefs and, subjectively, no difference between the experience of knowing something due to faith or knowing it due to science. We therefore think we know many things that are not true.

It seems that most things that we believe have been told to us by someone that we know and trust. The confidence that we have in what we know does not ensure that we are right. No wonder Bertrand Russell said that the whole problem with the world today is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves and wiser people so full of doubt. Of that, I have absolutely no doubt.
[ Page 5457 ]

DELTA HOSPITAL

V. Huntington: I’m not sure I even want to follow that.

Delta has the little hospital that could, and Delta has the people who make sure it can. For decades we tugged our hospital up a long hill until finally, one day, we had a facility that everyone was proud of, that provided the services we needed and that was supported by absolutely everyone in the community. It was the little hospital that did.

That little hospital ran in the black. It had specialists. It had critical care. It had emergency care. It had the services we needed to be confident that our primary care was supported and that most of our health issues could be handled at home. But nothing remains the same, and times change. We had to struggle back up that long hill, once again pulling the little hospital behind us. Holding hands around the hospital wasn’t enough to stop the changes, but it did keep our emergency room open, and we were grateful for that. But we needed to make our hospital whole again, and we have never stopped pushing it back up that hill.

The Delta Hospital Auxiliary donates $500,000 a year to our hospital. Millions of dollars have been raised in the Ladner thrift store. We don’t sell old things in Delta. We donate them to the auxiliary, knowing that every penny provides equipment our doctors need.

Our hospital foundation also raises millions of dollars during its fundraising drives and annual gala, which this year alone raised over $300,000. The foundation built the new emergency room, the new diagnostic imaging facilities — it purchased our CT scanner — and, working with the auxiliary, is contributing a combined $7.5 million towards a new diagnostic laboratory.

What more is wanted from us? Delta needs its hospital whole again. We want to get back the hospital services every other community of our size enjoys. The people of Delta deserve nothing less.

SEARCH AND RESCUE

R. Sultan: We are a marine province. Those of us on the coast, which is most of us, appreciate that this wonderful marine environment can also be a dangerous environment, and we can put the marine environment at risk if we aren’t careful.

In terms of the thousands of recreational people drawn to this feast of opportunity, more than a few get into trouble. I was recently given the honour to help dig a first shovel of dirt on a new Royal Marine Search and Rescue training facility at East Sooke.

[1030]

To give one example of what the members of this 1,000-volunteer organization are called upon to do, only 11 days ago this headline: “Cold, Confused Paddleboarder Rescued off Victoria” — one mile out into the Strait of Juan de Fuca in November. What is going on? Well, it goes on all the time, and frequently, the Royal Marine Search and Rescue is called upon.

Equally important in many ways is the care of vessels in distress. In the last little while North Shore MLAs were treated to the commissioning of four new Seaspan tugs, one of them Seaspan Raven — 5,000 horsepower and 80 tonnes of pulling power, designed to keep vessels safe in the harbour in Vancouver.

Who designs these magnificent modern machines? Well, typically it’s Robert Allan Ltd. Robert Allan Ltd. — an unknown organization, I’m sure, to most of us — is probably the most successful international competitor of any organization in Canada. It has a 38 percent market share, and he has many salty opinions on the safety of our marine environment. I recommend that we consult this expert.

Speaker’s Statement

ORAL QUESTIONS GUIDANCE

Madame Speaker: Before we begin this morning I would like to remind members that questions posed in oral question period should comply with the provisions of Standing Order 47A and the guidance provided in Parliamentary Practice in British Columbia, pages 139 to 144. In addition, questions directed to ministers should relate to their current ministerial responsibilities.

I thank you for your attention.

Oral Questions

REVIEW OF
HEALTH MINISTRY INVESTIGATION
INTO ALLEGED PRIVACY BREACH

J. Horgan: Two years ago the B.C. Liberals decided to fire eight dedicated health researchers. At that time, they dragged those individuals through the mud, they leaked information to the media, and they suggested an RCMP investigation was underway.

It was only when those individuals fought back against their government and a grieving sister of Rod MacIsaac came to this Legislature that the government did the right thing and apologized and then launched an investigation. The Premier said at that time: “It’s important that this review be thorough. It’s important that we get to the bottom of it.”

That’s the Premier’s words in this Legislature and to the people of British Columbia. But in correspondence from the Deputy Attorney General to one of the individuals involved in the firings, the Deputy Attorney General says the following: “The review is expressly not a fault-finding mission, nor is it a second-guessing of the termination decisions.”
[ Page 5458 ]

My question is to the Premier. If we’re going to get to the bottom of this, surely we have to find out who did what and why they did it. Isn’t it true that this review is designed to protect the Premier and her deputy minister, not to protect the public interest?

Hon. C. Clark: Let me say to the Leader of the Opposition: we are so glad you’re back. You will not believe what these folks got up to yesterday while you were away.

Let me speak directly to that question. Ms. McNeil has been retained to conduct a thorough investigation. We are all looking very much forward to those results, and we’ll certainly have more to say about that when she reports.

J. Horgan: For someone who is here as infrequently as the Toronto Maple Leafs make the playoffs, it’s a little bit rich for the Premier to make comments like that.

More to the point, when we have eight individuals’ lives who were tarnished and besmirched — one individual who took his life — for the glib Premier to stand and do all politics, all the time is reprehensible.

[1035]

Now we have correspondence provided by Graham Whitmarsh, who was then the Deputy Minister of Health when the firings took place. Mr. Whitmarsh is writing to the deputy now, Lynda Tarras, who is on her way out the door. Mr. Whitmarsh writes to Lynda Tarras — the author, in conjunction with John Dyble, of the terms of reference of the aforementioned review — the following:

“The Deputy Minister to the Premier, John Dyble, is seriously conflicted in this matter. You and I, both individually and together, briefed John on many occasions during the course of the investigation…. He was involved in some of the key decisions and the timing of some of the key events. In addition to that, he was the Deputy Minister of Health at a time many of the actions that were the subject of the investigation occurred.”

Again, the Premier, who knows what to say and even sounds sincere when she says it, at the time said that in her heart she knew these firings were heavy-handed. That’s her quote. But yet her response to that was to appoint an outgoing head of the public service who was involved and is, by statute, involved in major decisions such as this to write terms of reference in conjunction with the Deputy Premier who conveniently wrote a report to cover the Premier three years ago, and now he writes the terms of reference for a report that will cover him.

My question is to the Premier: isn’t it past time that an independent body looked at the reprehensible actions of your government?

Hon. C. Clark: I was here for question period yesterday. The member may not know that. He was here for the photo op in the morning. We all know that he likes his photo ops.

Let me reiterate my answer, though, because I know that the member is ready to try and tear apart the results and the comments of the report before it’s even been released. I think we would all be wise to let Ms. McNeil do her work and wait until we see the results of that report. I’m sure, at that point, he will find ample reason to tear it apart then.

We should wait and see once, in due course, this report is finished. It will be released on December 19, and at that point we’ll have more substance that we can discuss in this Legislature and outside it.

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

J. Horgan: Again, the Premier knows what to say, and she sounds sincere when she says it. But that is cold comfort to seven individuals whose lives your government — through you, hon. Speaker — destroyed, one of whom took his life. Absolutely unacceptable for the Premier to say that she’s going to get to the bottom of it, when the Assistant Deputy Attorney General says: “The review is expressly not a fault-finding mission, nor is it to second-guess the termination decisions.”

The Deputy to the Premier was intimate with those decisions. The director, the Deputy Minister of Communications, Ms. Mentzelopoulos, was directly involved in meetings leading up to what became a leak to the media, with allegations of RCMP investigations that never took place. Surely to goodness the Premier recognizes that everyone around her is up to their neck in this file.

Wouldn’t it be more appropriate for her to do the right thing and find someone outside of her band of travellers to look at this most despicable case that involved the lives of eight dedicated British Columbians?

Hon. C. Clark: Well indeed, I, the Health Minister and the government stand by the comments that we’ve made throughout and earlier, particularly with respect to an apology to individuals who’ve been harmed.

I will, though, also reiterate…. I know that this has been talked about in this House when similar questions have been asked by the opposition. The revised terms of reference for Ms. McNeil clarify that she is independent of government. She is going to develop a formal response to the report, and that report and the response will both be publicly released.

I should add that the purpose of this review remains unchanged. It is to look at the steps that the public service took to investigate the misconduct allegations and the process the public service undertook to arrive at those termination decisions.

[1040]

We should allow Ms. McNeil to do her work independently. I’m sure the Leader of the Opposition will find
[ Page 5459 ]
ample reason to criticize the report when it comes out. But surely he should wait for the report to be released so we can understand its contents, know what it says and formulate a response — next steps, as necessary.

J. Kwan: The Premier’s handpicked deputy, Mr. John Dyble, had a role in setting the terms of reference of the government’s review of these wrongful dismissals. That’s the same Mr. Dyble who reported to the Premier and the public on the quick-win scandal before the election.

The Premier said yesterday that his report was complete and thorough, even though he had the information that he needed before him. But he somehow missed the story that the RCMP found after the election. Now Mr. Dyble is writing the terms of reference that will ensure that neither he nor the Premier nor his or her appointees will be accountable.

My question is to the Premier. When will we have a true independent investigation that will get into the involvement of the Premier’s appointees and hold them accountable for their conduct?

Hon. T. Lake: Ms. McNeil is an expert in labour law. She is independent of government. She has been assigned to take a look at the human resource processes that occurred and to ensure that dedicated public employees are treated fairly — something that is not happening by the members opposite, who are impugning the reputations of dedicated civil servants that have given their lives to the service of British Columbians.

This process is to make sure that public servants are treated fairly, and I look forward to seeing on December 19 the results of that report.

Interjections.

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

HEALTH MINISTRY REVIEW AND
INDEMNITY REQUEST
BY GRAHAM WHITMARSH

J. Kwan: The Premier’s deputy, Mr. Dyble, is responsible for the terms of reference. First, Mr. Dyble wrote a report to protect the Premier on the quick-win scandal. Now he’s writing the terms of reference to protect the Premier and himself.

David Basi, Bobby Virk and the Premier herself — what do all these people have in common? They have all sought and were given taxpayers’ dollars to help them fight their legal battles.

Mr. Whitmarsh has sought a similar legal indemnity from his government. Can the Minister of Justice tell this House if his request for a taxpayer-funded lawyer has been granted?

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members will come to order. Order.

Hon. S. Anton: The provincial government has had an indemnity policy in place for decades now. It offers legal assistance to people who have legal issues which have arisen during the course of their employment and their engagement with government. This is a proper process; it’s not a political process. The decisions are made by senior civil servants, senior public servants, deputy minsters.

I think the members opposite will know and be very familiar with this process because they, too, have availed themselves of it. It’s a well-known process, a well-defined process. It is a proper process for every government to have.

[1045]

HEALTH MINISTRY REVIEW AND
ROLE OF JOHN DYBLE

A. Dix: In Mr. Whitmarsh’s correspondence with the government he states: “John Dyble is also seriously conflicted in this matter.” He further states that he was involved in “key decisions and the timing of key events.” That’s what Mr. Whitmarsh says. He should know. He was there.

Yet in the correspondence, in the e-mail from Ms. Tarras in return, on behalf of the government, she says that John Dyble directed the review. Mr. Whitmarsh further says: “Lynda” — referring to Ms. Tarras — “was personally involved in many significant aspects of the investigation. Lynda Tarras was an active participant at these meetings. No actions were taken in this matter without not only the advanced recommendation of the Public Service Agency but also their approval, including Ms. Tarras.”

Yet Ms. Tarras writes the terms of reference at the direction of Mr. Dyble. They’re both conflicted. Mr. Whitmarsh was there, and he says so. So why don’t we have an independent investigation? And oddly, the terms of reference, the “limited terms of reference” won’t get to the bottom of any responsibility or deal with most of the important issues in this matter. They wrote it to protect themselves.

The Premier does what she always does — writes it to protect herself. Will the Premier do the right thing today and have a truly independent investigation, an inquiry into this shameful episode by the Liberal government?

Hon. T. Lake: The members opposite seem to want to pick and choose which public servants deserve to be treated fairly. The members opposite accuse the government of rushing to judgment. And we have said that in some cases, the treatment of some individuals….

Interjections.
[ Page 5460 ]

Madame Speaker: Order.

Hon. T. Lake: We have said that in some cases, some individuals were treated in a heavy-handed manner, and we apologize for that. That is why we have set up a review by an independent person to look at the HR policies that were carried out, to ensure that public servants are treated fairly with the HR processes that are in place.

Unlike the members opposite, we want to find out a better road to manage human resources in the public sector, and that’s what Ms. McNeil’s report will do. We look forward to seeing it on December 19.

Madame Speaker: Recognizing Vancouver-Kingsway on a supplemental.

A. Dix: The terms of reference were deliberately written by the people being investigated, to avoid any judgment at all. You don’t have to take my word for it. The Deputy Attorney General and the deputy minister currently responsible for the Public Service Agency say so explicitly in this correspondence with Mr. Whitmarsh.

In this House, the first day of the session, we asked the Premier about her deputy and his involvement in this matter, and the public was misled. Outside the House the media asked this Premier about this matter, and the public, the people of B.C., were misled.

The Premier said that they have an investigation to get to the bottom of the matter. The evidence today, the hard evidence from her own staff, is that the public was again misled — misled, misled, misled.

The Premier says in her heart…. Well, the only thing in her heart is her political interest, her deputy, her office. Ms. Kayfish came to the Legislature seeking justice, and this is a sham.

Will the Premier, who wouldn’t answer for her deputy that day, stand in this House and acknowledge that he was involved at every stage, he approved these actions and he is the person under investigation on this issue?

[1050]

Madame Speaker: Minister of Health.

Hon. T. Lake: Thank you….

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Minister of Health, please take your seat.

Members will come to order.

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

Madame Speaker, I would caution the members opposite not to do what they accuse us of doing: rushing to judgment. There is a report that is due December 19 by an independent person, an expert on labour law. Ms. McNeil will provide that report. That report will be made public, so I would encourage that member over there, who has no right to give lessons on ethics to anybody, to wait for that report on December 19.

BAN ON SALE AND TRADE
OF SHARK FINS

A. Weaver: Last year Boris Worm, an internationally renowned marine conservation biologist, published a paper in the Elsevier journal of Marine Policy, entitled “Global Catches, Exploitation Rates and Rebuilding Options for Sharks.” In it he and his colleagues produced three independent estimates of the average rate that sharks are killed per year. These estimates range from 6.4 to 7.9 percent, all exceeding the 4.9 percent a year that is the amount needed to keep populations stable.

Shark-finning is one of the leading causes of the decline of global shark populations. Finning involves cutting off a shark’s fin, throwing their still-live bodies back in the water. Finned sharks then suffer a slow, gruelling death through starvation, drowning or gradual predation.

There are 12 municipalities in British Columbia that have shark fin bans in place. All restaurants in Victoria have taken shark fin soup off their menus. Many have done the same in Vancouver, but there is still a long way to go to protect these iconic creatures from becoming extinct.

Madame Speaker: And a question?

A. Weaver: Will the government introduce legislation to ban the sale, trade and distribution of shark fins in British Columbia?

Hon. N. Letnick: Finally a question my constituents are talking about. Not about what you guys have kept talking about for the last two days. What a waste of time. Just a waste of time. I’ve never seen any poorer performance in the last two days than I’ve seen right here in question period.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Please take your seat.

Members will come to order.

Hon. N. Letnick: We understand the member opposite’s question, and thank you for the question. Obviously, there’s a lot of public concern with the harvesting and finning of sharks, and we are interested in looking at the issue.

We understand that the federal government has had a ban since 1994 on the practice of finning in domestic waters. It is controlled by CFIA, as far as the importation of fins into our province, into our country. The DFO, of
[ Page 5461 ]
course, controls the harvesting in our waters. It is federal jurisdiction. But I do want to say to the member opposite that I understand the question and I understand the concern.

[1055]

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

A. Weaver: In late 2012 CTV News reported that 76 percent of DNA-tested dried shark fins purchased in Vancouver fell in the threatened or endangered red list from the United Nations and International Union for Conservation of Nature. In fact, samples also indicated the presence of great hammerhead and porbeagle fins, both of which are contained in appendix 1 on the UN Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, to which Canada is a party.

Section 92(13) of the Constitution Act, 1867, grants powers to British Columbia to legislate, under “Property and civil rights in the province,” and section 92(16) grants powers to legislate under “Generally all matters of merely local or private nature in the province.”

I’m in possession of a legal opinion, which I will table later, that states British Columbia has the authority to ban the sale, trade and distribution of shark fins through constitutional provisions, pursuant to sections 92(13) and 92(16).

Madame Speaker: And a question, Member.

A. Weaver: My question is this to the government: will they commit to working with me and other MLAs in this House to develop a strategy that would eventually lead to banning the sale, trade and distribution of shark fins in British Columbia?

Hon. N. Letnick: Madame Speaker, I thank you, as well, for allowing me to answer the question.

As I said before, to the best of my understanding, it is federal jurisdiction. However, I look forward to seeing the documents that the hon. member will table after question period, and I’d be happy to meet with him next week to discuss the matter further.

FLU SHOT CLINICS IN
SENIORS FACILITIES

K. Corrigan: Two days ago the Minister of Health stood in this chamber and promised to reverse Fraser Health’s decision to cancel flu clinics for seniors. The minister said: “We will ensure that Fraser Health is doing clinics for seniors for influenza vaccine.” Just one day later he told media they’d only reconsider doing flu clinics at seniors centres that weren’t near a pharmacy.

Now, we know we can’t take this government at its word or this minister at his word. They’ll say one thing and then do whatever they want. So what should seniors believe: the minister’s promises — promises — in this House to reinstate flu clinics or his later statement to media taking them away again?

Hon. T. Lake: We all recognize that protecting seniors, particularly, against influenza is extremely important. They are very vulnerable. In fact, across the province over 500 people will succumb to influenza, resulting in death. Many of them are seniors. So we understand how important it is to protect this vulnerable population.

That’s why seniors in residential care all have free influenza vaccinations that pharmacists now are doing vaccinations. In fact, many seniors…. The trend is to get their vaccination at a pharmacy.

Fraser Health saw the numbers of seniors at their public health clinics declining, so they initially made a decision to concentrate on young children and their families. After I spoke with Fraser Health, they agreed to go back and contact all of the seniors centres that have had flu clinics in the past, and if there are identified gaps or needs in those seniors communities, they will, in fact, put those flu vaccination clinics on to make sure that no senior is left without the ability to get vaccinated in Fraser Health.

SUSTAINABILITY OF FERRY SYSTEM

C. Trevena: The Minister of Transportation told this House he’s making tough decisions to make ferry service sustainable and affordable. Is it sustainable? Well, ferry ridership is at its lowest level since 1991. Is it affordable? Well, they’ve increased fares by more than 100 percent on many routes.

[1100]

It’s costing business. The Cariboo-Chilcotin alone has lost $3.3 million in economic activity and almost $4 million in tourism revenue just this year. It’s costing families $75 to make a round trip from Vancouver Island to the Mainland, hardly sustainable or affordable.

Could the minister tell the House how much more fares will have to go up until he considers them affordable, and how much ridership will have to fall before he considers it sustainable?

Hon. T. Stone: Certainly, I will once again reiterate for the member for North Island exactly what this government is focused on with respect to B.C. Ferries. We are doing everything that we can to ensure that the ferry service is sustainable for the long term and that it’s affordable.

Now, the member for North Island likes to gloss over this issue and leave certain facts off the table. One of the critical facts, that we don’t…. There’s never any acknowledgment from the opposition. Perhaps if the member
[ Page 5462 ]
for Oak Bay–Gordon Head asked the question, we’d get a substantive question.

This government has invested $1.9 billion in B.C. Ferries since 2003. We invested a record level of investment in the last fiscal year, and we’re working on a wide range of other initiatives.

I think, fundamentally, the question needs to be asked to the opposition. On the one hand, you suggest, “Put more money in; put more money in.” Then every opportunity they get, they say no to economic development. Just recently they voted with the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head to delay the LNG opportunity in this province by six months. If we want to put more money in ferries, we have to grow the economy.

[End of question period.]

Madame Speaker: Oak Bay–Gordon Head.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Go ahead.

A. Weaver: Thank you, hon. Speaker. I can’t get a word in here, but I appreciate being given the floor.

Interjection.

A. Weaver: And I’m being insulted by my colleague from the Sunshine Coast here, which I’m quite offended by. [Laughter.]

Tabling Documents

A. Weaver: I’d like to table the report that I mentioned, the legal opinion, through the Clerk to you, hon. Chair.

Hon. S. Anton: I have the honour to present the following reports: the B.C. Utilities Commission annual report, 2013 and 2014, and the Oil and Gas Appeal Tribunal 2010 to 2013 annual report.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: Madame Speaker, continued committee stage debate on Bill 2.

[1105]

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 2 — GREENHOUSE GAS INDUSTRIAL
REPORTING AND CONTROL ACT

(continued)

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

The committee met at 11:07 a.m.

Sections 50 to 54 inclusive approved.

On section 55.

S. Chandra Herbert: This section, as I understand it, repeals the Greenhouse Gas Reduction (Cap and Trade) Act. I just wondered if the minister might speak about why her government has decided to repeal that act and what consequences that could have.

Hon. M. Polak: That act was intended to cover industrial emitters, and this new act will cover industrial emitters. There’s no point in having the duplication.

While I have the floor, I’ll just briefly respond to two requests from previous sessions. The first with respect to FOI, I can confirm that the technology fund will be subject to FOI provisions. In addition to that, the member had asked for background related to the calculation of emissions in the upstream. I have that and can provide it to him afterwards.

S. Chandra Herbert: Thank you to the minister for getting me those answers.

I wondered: is there anything in the original cap-and-trade act — whether or not it’s certain industrial sectors, whether it’s certain regulation-making powers — that was not transferred through to this new legislation?

[1110]

Hon. M. Polak: There’s nothing directly left out — the main reason being, of course, that just like the cap-and-trade act, this will cover all industrial emitters, but it adds liquefied natural gas.

The most significant change, though, is to the manner in which we handle targets. If you cast your mind back to the last few days of discussion we had on this, there is now an elaborate means of setting targets and then managing them.

We discussed the whole crediting of units and all those kinds of things in the previous act, based on what people anticipated cap-and-trade was going to look like. It was an allocation of allowances. It’s a difference in how we manage that target-setting.

This responds much better to what we have seen evolve in the cap-and-trade world and in the offset world since the time when the cap-and-trade act was brought in.

S. Chandra Herbert: I must say it disappoints me that we are repealing the cap-and-trade act.

The reason, as the minister has spoken, is that we are shifting from what the then Minister of Environment at the time, Barry Penner, argued for, which was a hard cap on emissions — the understanding that we cannot go above certain numbers if we are going to continue to
[ Page 5463 ]
lower the emissions in our province. Whereas now we’re coming into more of — as they say in Alberta — an intensity target, saying: “You can pollute this much, and more and more, as long as you’re only doing it at this much per unit.”

That’s a real challenge. I think the International Energy Agency, the World Bank, the United Nations, the IPCC — organization after organization on the industry side, environment side, society side — all argue that we’re going to have to have a hard cap on emissions. We’re going to have to reduce the emissions over time. By eliminating a hard cap and instead replacing it with intensity targets, we’re making that job much, much more difficult.

It could be argued, yes, we have a law that could act as a hard cap, and certainly, I hope it will. There are no penalties, though, if the government does not meet its emission reduction goals — legal goals, I should say.

[1115]

By getting rid of that principle, in a sense, of a hard cap and that certainty that goes with a hard cap, I think we are weakening our resolve and weakening our ability to fight climate change — absent any plan, absent any new action from government to show that we have a finite amount of carbon pollution we can put into the atmosphere. It is something that greatly disappoints me.

I know Quebec, the Liberal government of Quebec, and, of course, the state of California — whose population and economy really rival the whole country of Canada — both decided to connect through the Western Climate Initiative and to be involved in the cap-and-trade program, because they feel it will be good for their economy, and it will be good for the environment.

I’m wondering why this province and why this government has still refused to be involved in the cap-and-trade program with Quebec and California.

Hon. M. Polak: The cap-and-trade act did not set hard caps. It didn’t do that. In fact, it gave them an allocation allowance that they could then trade, but it didn’t set hard caps.

This will be, now, a cap measured through intensity. We have gone over extensively what is then created in terms of incentives, the ability of those industries to then operate within those incentives, participate in the technology fund — incentives to drive down emissions in other areas, including in the upstream.

I also should correct the member that we are still a part of WCI. I have met with the Minister of Environment from Quebec. There’s ongoing collaboration. I also was in San Francisco to witness the meeting of the Premier and the governors of Washington, Oregon and California, at which they signed on to the accord of the Pacific Coast Collaborative.

It’s worth noting that another reason for combining all these efforts into one piece of legislation — and we’ve discussed many sections; section 44, for example — is the enabling of a future role for trading in offsets amongst different jurisdictions. We have reviewed a number of sections that relate directly to how a framework like that could operate and could be established.

S. Chandra Herbert: I didn’t say the government was not involved in Western Climate Initiative. I said they weren’t involved in the cap-and-trade program with Quebec and California. There’s a difference.

In fact, the government did talk about hard caps being a very important part of the cap-and-trade legislation. It’s in the speaking notes in this Legislature from the Minister of Environment at the time. It’s in the press releases from the Western Climate Initiative. It’s in press releases from the Premier of the time, Gordon Campbell, about how important hard caps are.

That language is no longer used by this government. In fact, they are now talking about what is an intensity target. That being what it is, I do think this potentially weakens this. I do think the government does need to say there is a hard cap on emissions and be very clear about it.

Trading schemes are one part of that, absolutely. That’s what a cap-and-trade is. But the values can be very different if there isn’t an actual cap on the amount of emissions you can produce in the entire society.

I don’t support this section, but I am done with questions on this section for now.

[1120]

Hon. M. Polak: I was simply going to point out that while there was a suite of legislation introduced together — and perhaps that’s why the comments are being attached together — it was the GHG Reduction Targets Act that contained reference to provincial targets. The cap-and-trade act did not set hard caps on industrial emitters.

Section 55 approved on division.

On section 56.

S. Chandra Herbert: I find this section problematic. My understanding is that it gives the cabinet the ability to exempt industries regulated by Bill 2 from the carbon tax.

The minister has spoken at length about how important the carbon tax will be to reduce climate change emissions, even though the government has also committed not to increase the carbon tax, and each year that goes by we see the actual ability for it to incent decrease, as we have inflation. Yet this section exists, which could provide exemptions for the payment of tax or for refunds, etc., which basically would allow the government — it could with the LNG industry, could with any industry — to just say: “No, actually, you don’t have to pay it.”

I think there can be an argument for ways to support industries that have different challenges with the carbon tax. But certainly, being able to just exempt willy-nilly,
[ Page 5464 ]
especially when we’re speaking about a government that seems set to rapidly increase our carbon emissions with LNG — if they get 19 plants, as the minister sometimes talks about — without any plan to actually reduce emissions. To be able to just exempt, potentially, that industry itself from the carbon tax sends the wrong message.

I wonder why this is in the bill. Do they have intentions of exempting the LNG industry? What is this section in the bill for?

Hon. M. Polak: The exemption aspect of this, actually, isn’t changing. That already exists in the Carbon Tax Act. What is changing is, firstly, with respect to mention of the Greenhouse Gas Industrial Reporting and Control Act, this new act, as opposed to references in the existing section, in subsection 84(3)(n), that currently refers to the Greenhouse Gas Reduction (Cap and Trade) Act, the Environment Management Act. So the issue that the member is concerned about, the issue of exemptions being provided, already exists in the current act.

S. Chandra Herbert: The question I’m interested in: have there been any conversations about exempting the LNG industry from the carbon tax? Has that been requested? Is that a consideration, to the minister’s knowledge?

Hon. M. Polak: We’re not considering that.

S. Chandra Herbert: Are there other industries that are currently advocating to be added to the list of exempted industries?

[1125]

Hon. M. Polak: We only have coal-fired plants and LNG on the schedule. And of course, there are no coal-fired plants.

S. Chandra Herbert: Why is this section in the legislation?

Hon. M. Polak: Again, it’s already part of the existing act. Of course, we are streamlining and putting a number of different acts together. This provision is already in the Carbon Tax Act. As I read out, the exemption part already exists, but this takes into account the changes that we are making in terms of which other acts apply. Of course, we’re repealing the cap-and-trade act, and we are putting in place this act.

Again, this is all about simply making the various acts that are being brought together make sense together as opposed to the existing section, which makes mention of…. It might be helpful if I just read the existing section. It’s word for word the exemption portion.

This is the existing act: “providing for exemptions from the payment of tax, or for refunds of all or part of the tax paid, with respect to a fuel or combustible that is the source for greenhouse gas emissions that are subject to….” Then, as I say, it goes through and references the Greenhouse Gas Reduction (Cap and Trade) Act, which we are repealing, and then also goes on to make reference to the Environmental Management Act.

Well, in this case we’re streamlining the various provisions into this one act. So the change here is to take out those sub-sub-subsections that mention those different acts and instead, in the new section, refer to the Greenhouse Gas Industrial Reporting and Control Act. But as the member will have noted from my reading of it, the existing section is identical.

S. Chandra Herbert: Well, I don’t find that very persuasive. Climate change already exists, but we don’t just say: “Well, it exists. So we’re not going to do anything about it.” We actually are trying to address it. Just because it’s already in an earlier piece of legislation doesn’t make it good, doesn’t make it acceptable, doesn’t make it something we should endorse.

I want to know why it’s in the legislation rather than just because it’s there. What is the government trying to do with it? Why do they advocate and think it’s important that they be given the right to exempt, in this case, the potential coal-fired plants or the LNG industry from the carbon tax?

Hon. M. Polak: I remind the member this is from…. This all relates back to the original establishment of the various acts that we are now pulling together. I am reminded that when this section was put into place, the concern was and still remains that as approaches to dealing with climate change evolve, as public policy evolves, it is possible that a future federal government may adopt a carbon tax. At that point we in British Columbia may need the ability, as legislators, to adjust what we do here so as not to subject our industries to a double taxation.

It’s an enabling provision. It’s not something that we have previously used, and it’s not something that we have an intent to use with respect to exempting LNG. But it is a power that is important for government to retain in order to protect our industries and our competitiveness in the case that there was a kind of overlay like that.

S. Chandra Herbert: The minister will have to forgive me. Given that when we look at the science, when we look at all evidence about how we’re dealing with climate change, in this province and indeed across the country and across the world, we need to be more aggressive, not less so. We need to take a much more forceful move to reduce emissions now, not provide ways to get out of reducing emissions.

[1130]

If a federal government came forward with a carbon tax, and they wanted to do a carbon tax just like they wanted to do the harmonized sales tax or any other
[ Page 5465 ]
agreements, there are provisions, timelines, etc. that can be brought in to give a government time to change what it wants to do. If it requires legislative change, etc., that’s how these legislative agreements work between federal and provincial governments, as the minister well knows.

I just find it challenging to accept this provision as, clearly, the federal government right now has no interest in addressing climate change in any substantive way — no interest in a carbon tax. They have no plans to address climate change except to increase climate change from this country. To bring this in — a potential exemption from one tool, almost the only tool the government can point to now for addressing climate change — is challenging.

It’s something that I don’t think is required. I think it’s something that the government could negotiate down the road, if they needed to do that, with the federal government, rather than saying, “Okay, we’ll find a way to exempt companies from the carbon tax” for whatever reason.

Maybe it’s a federal government move. Maybe it’s because the government wants to get more support from a certain industry that it’s deciding to include in such a legislation.

It’s hard for me to accept this. We’ve been talking for years about the need to deal with upstream emissions — the emissions that are coming from upstream in the gas world that the government has steadfastly refused to deal with. To have this here, when a government has such a weak record in terms of action in the last number of years to address climate change…. They had a brief spurt of interest. Ever since the current Premier came to town, has refused to do pretty much anything…. I have a real challenge with including a plan or a chance to exempt industries from one of the only policies the government really has to address climate change with given industries right now.

I don’t support this plan because the government has not made a convincing case why they should be allowed to exempt industries, in my view.

Hon. M. Polak: Let me re-emphasize. This section already exists, word for word, the same in the Carbon Tax Act. If we do not make this change, then what remains is a reference in the Carbon Tax Act to legislation that no longer applies. The only change here is…. Essentially, it’s a consequential amendment to include the name of the new act instead of the old act. The provision already exists.

The other choice, if one wanted to ensure that you could protect industries from some future action, would be to have to completely rewrite the Carbon Tax Act in that case. I’m sure the member is not suggesting that, in order to protect the competitiveness of industry in the case of some future action like that, we should leave off giving ourselves the ability to respond and, instead, have to come back with a complete redraft of the overall carbon tax, rather than just having a simple provision, which has existed since the beginning of the legislation for the carbon tax was put in place expressly to allow government to be able to respond in such a case.

I take no issue with the member with respect to current federal government intentions around carbon pricing — and I don’t have any anticipation that we’re going to see that any time soon — but the reality is that this section already exists. The change we’re making is simply to change the reference from acts that are now referenced that will no longer exist. That’s the only change that’s taking place here.

Section 56 approved on division.

Sections 57 to 65 inclusive approved.

On the schedule.

[1135]

S. Chandra Herbert: I would like to move an amendment to the bill.

The Chair: Proceed.

S. Chandra Herbert: I’ve provided it to the Chair and to the Legislature.

[SCHEDULE, by adding the text shown as underlined:

On the amendment.

S. Chandra Herbert: This amendment, which is in the Chair’s hand and has been provided to the government as well, does exactly what the Liberals promised to do. It’s something they should all support, since they all said that this is what they plan to do, which was to include the entire life cycle of natural gas production of liquefied natural gas as the cleanest in the world.

That was the promise. It was made to the people of this province. It was made subsequently in document after document. Many of the ministers have probably stated it
[ Page 5466 ]
at community town halls, in press releases, ad nauseam — “cleanest in the world.” You don’t get liquefied natural gas if you don’t have natural gas. Instead of dealing with the cleanest LNG in the world, they have decided to deal with the cleanest L — refusing to acknowledge that natural gas production itself can amount to up to 70 percent of the greenhouse gas emissions. Maybe it’s 40 percent, 50 percent, 60 percent, 70 percent. Whichever percent, depending on how you do the processing, is a lot of climate change. That’s a lot of pollution.

To draw a circle around just the letter L, the liquefication, and completely neglect natural gas, breaks this government’s word, breaks their promise to the people and needs to be rectified. Liquefied natural gas can be a great opportunity for the province if done well, if done wisely, if done in understanding the impact it would have on climate, on the land, on the air, on the water.

This amendment plans to add “natural gas extraction, processing and transport operation for liquefication” to ensure that its emission limit would be lower or equivalent to the lowest carbon dioxide emissions produced globally for similar operations. This was the promise the government made. This was the promise the government said again and again and again they would do. Then, after the election, the Premier decided to break her word and decided to suggest that, well, no, she just meant the letter L. She just meant liquefication. She had no interest in the natural gas side of things.

This legislation would ensure that, indeed, the government fulfilled its word. When you run an election, you make promises. I know some have said, as the Premier did, “Well, we all say things to get elected.” I think it’s important that when you say something, you actually mean it. This legislation would put the actual action behind the Premier’s words, behind the minister’s words, behind the Liberal government’s words and ensure that we had the lowest carbon dioxide emissions produced globally from our natural gas sector.

It would make sure that we gave them the opportunity to be the world leaders that they want to be. Many companies I have talked to want to do better. They want to do more. But when they have companies sitting right beside them that don’t, that are just after a quick buck, they cannot justify it, given that their shareholders and others would say: “Well, wait a second. Why are you increasing costs while our competitor is eating our lunch?”

This sets a standard for the industry. It sets a standard that would make B.C. a world leader. It would give us the opportunity to sell our technology around the world as well as to be able to continue to use the natural gas that so many of our province rely on to heat their homes, to use in industry and so forth.

The government could have come forward with a slightly different version. I admit that this may be challenging. I don’t imagine the government is going to support it. I move this more as a symbolic gesture to say that this is what the government promised. This is what they should have been working hard to deliver, and they have refused to. I think that if the government had been serious, they could have worked with the industry to develop a timeline, to develop a set of steps, to develop support so that the industry could continue to be strong and continue to innovate and develop these technologies to ensure that we did get to the lowest greenhouse gas emissions for the world, for the industry.

The government didn’t do that. They didn’t provide a timeline. They didn’t work with the industry to ensure that the upstream emissions were adequately captured in this legislation, leaving them out entirely.

I think this amendment is, while I don’t expect it to pass, exposing what was an untruth in the campaign, what was: “We said it, but we didn’t mean it.” It’s important, hon. Speaker, that when you say liquefied natural gas…. You can’t get liquefied natural gas without natural gas, but that’s what this legislation proposes to do by claiming to be the cleanest in the world when clearly it is not.

I ask for the House’s support. I don’t expect I will get the Liberal government’s support for this as they go back on their word.

[1140]

I move that this amendment to the bill be placed on the orders…

The Chair: You move the amendment.

S. Chandra Herbert: …for discussion and a vote.

The Chair: Member moves the amendment. Anyone speaking to the amendment?

Hon. M. Polak: Just briefly. I won’t be recommending this to members to vote in favour of. The member is inconsistent if he is going to, on the one hand, argue that what motivates these companies is a quick buck and yet completely discount anything that we have done by way of incentives for investment in the upstream. There’s a big difference between what’s happening with proposed liquefaction plants — by the way, not liquefication plants — and what’s happening in the upstream.

Liquefaction plants are a brand-new industry. They are newly being constructed. The benchmark that we have set is certainly the cleanest in the world. There is no question about that. When it comes to the upstream, the upstream is currently subject to the most aggressive carbon tax in North America and one of the most aggressive in the world.

If the member believes that you can slap an existing industry, one that is already established — equipment, facilities are already in place — with new regulations at a time when their commodity price is dropping worldwide, if he thinks he can do that and not shut down the natural gas industry, then, he doesn’t know a lot about the natural gas industry.
[ Page 5467 ]

The fact is we have put forward an incentive plan that responds to precisely what the member said. These companies are looking at their bottom line. It gives them a bottom-line incentive to be investing their money, not taxpayers’ money, into improving the upstream.

Electrification, carbon sequestration and storage — there are all sorts of opportunities in the upstream that are already being explored and are already having an impact on the emissions in the upstream. We’re committed to that. We believe the incentive program that we have outlined is the best way to achieve that.

A. Weaver: Just briefly, I’d like to speak in favour of this amendment. The minister points out that, in fact, there are incentives for upstream efficiency and so forth. But the reality is that when we talk about LNG, we’re talking about new production. The reality is that the existing natural gas industry in British Columbia will not feed the promised five LNG facilities that were proposed by the government in their election campaigning.

This piece of legislation here does what the member for Vancouver–West End was outlining. It’s saying that if we’re going to have an LNG industry that is going to be vibrant and is going to be the cleanest in the world, it’s going to mean new natural gas extracted from the ground and this new natural gas being extracted from the ground must also be done in the cleanest way.

I will be voting in support of this amendment, and I certainly encourage members of the other side of the House to do so as well.

[1145-1150]

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 33
Hammell	Simpson	Robinson
Farnworth	Horgan	James
Dix	Ralston	Corrigan
Fleming	Popham	Kwan
Austin	Chandra Herbert	Huntington
Macdonald	Karagianis	Eby
Mungall	Bains	Elmore
Shin	Heyman	Donaldson
Trevena	D. Routley	Simons
Fraser	Weaver	Chouhan
Rice	Holman	B. Routley
NAYS — 41
Sturdy	Bing	Hogg
Yamamoto	McRae	Stone
Fassbender	Oakes	Wat
Thomson	Virk	Rustad
Wilkinson	Pimm	Sultan
Hamilton	Reimer	Morris
Hunt	Cadieux	Lake
Polak	de Jong	Clark
Coleman	Anton	Bennett
Letnick	Barnett	Yap
Thornthwaite	Dalton	Lee
Kyllo	Tegart	Throness
Larson	Foster	Bernier
Martin		Gibson

Schedule approved.

On the title.

A. Weaver: At this stage I’d like to move an amendment:

[TITLE, by deleting the text shown as struck out and adding the text shown as underlined:

On the amendment.

A. Weaver: We had in this debate, at third reading, a number of amendments put forward to try to improve the legislation. They’ve all been defeated. We’ve just had the most recent amendment put forward by the member for Vancouver–West End — a nice amendment that was designed specifically to make this the cleanest LNG in the world.

In framing a title, it’s very, very critical that the title actually reflect the legislation that it is actually representing. What we have here is a title that says Greenhouse Gas Industrial Reporting and Control Act. The reality is there is no control in the greenhouse gas emissions associated with this act, so the amendment that I put forward is to change the title to the greenhouse gas increase and industrial reporting act, as I submitted and put on notice a couple of days ago.

S. Chandra Herbert: We will be supporting this, as the government had the choice to ensure that this legislation actually led to the cleanest LNG in the world. They have not done that. The Premier has decided liquefied natural gas only refers to the letter L, ignoring that natural gas has upstream emissions.

Well, liquefied natural gas is actually three letters when you call it LNG — each one important in dealing with climate change emissions. While the Premier ignores that, the reality is quite different. We will be supporting this, as this government has abandoned its leadership position on addressing climate change. We need true leadership to address climate change today. There is no plan from the B.C. Liberals aside from stepping on the gas and increasing climate change at this time.

[1155]

Amendment negatived on the following division:

Title approved.

Hon. M. Polak: I move the committee rise and report completion of the bill without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:56 a.m.

The House resumed; Madame Speaker in the chair.

Report and
Third Reading of Bills

BILL 2 — GREENHOUSE GAS INDUSTRIAL
REPORTING AND CONTROL ACT

Bill 2, Greenhouse Gas Industrial Reporting and Control Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. M. de Jong 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