2015 Legislative Session: Fourth 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, July 16, 2015

Morning Sitting

Volume 28, Number 2

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

THURSDAY, JULY 16, 2015

The House met at 10:03 a.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

Introductions by Members

Hon. R. Coleman: We’re joined in the House today by two members of the LNG alliance: the president, David Keane, and the director of communications, Jas Johal. David and I met a few years ago when we first started talking about LNG in British Columbia. He was with BG at the time and was one of the people to help educate and teach us a little bit about this burgeoning industry for British Columbia.

Of course, Jas Johal is no stranger to us that were on the other side of the camera a few times, with Jas asking the questions. He has now, as a director of communications, been the voice of, frankly, the education of the public on behalf of the LNG industry as we pursue this $36 billion, 4,500-job investment for British Columbia and other opportunities. Would the House please make them welcome.

K. Corrigan: It gives me a great deal of pleasure to welcome to the House my good friend Anne Kang, a Burnaby city councillor, who is here to spend the day hanging around in the precinct and watching question period and so on. I hope that you will make her very welcome.

Hon. M. Polak: Today in the gallery we are joined by Tom Pedersen and his 18-year-old son David. Tom is the executive director of Pacific Institute for Climate Solutions at the University of Victoria and also a valuable member of the province’s climate leadership team. Would the House please make him welcome.

[1005]

D. Eby: It’s not too often that a constituent makes the trek across the water, so it’s a always a pleasure to say hi. Margot Sangster is a dedicated human rights advocate. She’s just back from Afghanistan where she was working with the workforce development program there. Would the House please join me in welcoming her here and back to British Columbia.

Hon. T. Lake: I, along with the Minister of Transportation, would like to introduce Rod Graham and Doug Berger from Horizon North, joining us in the gallery today. Horizon North is a manufacturing and logistics company that provides world-class mobile workforce accommodation for resource development projects. They have their headquarters and manufacturing on the Tk’emlups First Nation industrial park and another location in the city of Kamloops.

Their camp accommodations have all the amenities of a hotel, including executive chef–prepared meals, in-house entertainment centres and fitness centre. Horizon North is one of the largest employers in Kamloops, with around 500 workers, including 100 skilled-trades apprentices. They employ close to 800 workers throughout British Columbia.

They are one of the companies situated in the interior of British Columbia that stands to benefit, creating well-paying, family-supporting jobs as a result of British Columbia’s LNG opportunity. They already have plans underway in Kitimat, Prince Rupert and Port Edward. They’re very interested in hearing the debate around Bill 30 here today. I hope the members of the House will please help me in welcoming Rod Graham and Doug Berger from Horizon North.

J. Darcy: It gives me great pleasure to welcome to the precinct today — I don’t know if they’re in the House yet, but I know that they will be in the precinct today — two prominent physician leaders in the province of British Columbia: Dr. Alan Ruddiman, the co-chair of the Joint Standing Committee on Rural Issues and the president-elect of the Doctors of B.C., in a recent hard-fought election; and Dr. Granger Avery, who is the executive director of the Rural Coordination Centre of B.C. and the president-elect of the Canadian Medical Association.

They’re here to talk about rural health issues and doctors in rural B.C. Would the House please join me in welcoming these prominent physician leaders to the Legislative Assembly today.

Hon. P. Fassbender: All of us take pleasure when we can introduce people in the House that are close to us, and I’m delighted today to welcome my much older and, he tells me, wiser brother, Joe Fecht, and his wife, Eileen Ford, who are here from Ontario, and the most important person in my life: my wife, Charlene. I ask the members to make them feel especially welcome.

A. Weaver: It gives me great pleasure to introduce five family members visiting the precinct from Toulouse, France: my brother, Anthony Weaver, who the Minister of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations will remember well from the 1985 Crimson Tide Caribbean rugby tour; his partner, Laurence Peugot; their children, Helene Weaver, Paul Weaver and Nicholas Weaver; and, in addition, their friend Theotim Martin. Would the House please make them feel very welcome.

Hon. A. Virk: It’s indeed my pleasure to introduce in the House today for their first time two individuals, seat-
[ Page 9036 ]
ed right up there, who I’ve gotten to know very recently. First, a young woman who worked as an intern in my office for the last six weeks. She’s from Fort St. John and is headed to UNBC to continue her studies in political science this fall — Nakisha Bauer.

Secondly, sitting next to her, a young woman who’s only been in my office for the last week, who’s jumped right into this legislative week as a student at SFU in political science and having grown up in New Westminster. I can speak for everyone in my office. We’re looking forward to having her here until the end of August — Meghan Malkowich.

I ask everyone to join me in making them feel welcome.

B. Routley: It is my pleasure this morning to introduce to this House a family visiting from Mexico and Arizona: the Elizaldes, Alex and Lourdes; their daughters, Ayleen and Tessy.

[1010]

They’re accompanied by folks that live right here in Victoria — a friend of mine, Dara Quast, and her parents, Regina and Rob Robson. Please join me in welcoming them to this legislative House.

J. Tegart: I’m very pleased to welcome two constituents of mine, who live in Ashcroft and are visiting Victoria and whom I’ve known since high school, which was just a short time ago. Would the House please welcome Barry and Sheila Corneillie to the precinct.

A. Weaver: I, too, wanted to join the Minister of Environment in welcoming Tom Pedersen and his son, David Pedersen, to the office. Tom Pedersen is a long-time friend and colleague that I’ve known since the early 1980s in his time as a professor at UBC when I was a grad student there. Would the House please again make them feel very welcome.

P. Pimm: I, too, would like to rise today and welcome a constituent of mine, Nakisha Bauer. Her parents have been long-time friends of myself and our family. Nakisha is an extremely strong young lady. She also has gone through what I went through. She’s gone through cancer. She’s a survivor. It has made her stronger. I want to say that she is a very, very strong young lady that will go far and to many places in this world.

Nakisha, welcome to this House.

I would like everybody to help me welcome her.

Tributes

ROD DEACON

M. Dalton: It’s with great sadness that I announce the passing of Rod Deacon. Rod was my legislative assistant, and an excellent one at that. He died very unexpectedly of a heart attack two days after the last session ended. Many of us knew Rod. He worked alongside B.C. Liberal members as a communications and research assistant. He also spent many years working in public affairs.

Rod began his career in journalism and in politics during the 1980s when he was a correspondent on Parliament Hill with the Thomson chain of newspapers.

Rod was a positive, outgoing, cheerful soul, who had many stories to tell from his days growing up in Hudson, Quebec until recent. He also had a passion for details and record-keeping on many issues, including decades of notes on the minutiae of his life, such as all of the times he mowed his lawn and the direction that he mowed or every haircut he had since the 1970s. In early pictures I saw of him he had very long hair, so I don’t imagine he had many haircuts then. In the past couple of decades, he’s been relatively bald, so maybe it was something that was very special to him.

Rod also loved dogs and was the president of the dog club in Saanich. I want to express my condolences to his partner, Marilyn Clayton, his friends, family and all those who knew Rod and cared about him. He’ll be sorely missed.

Introductions by Members

M. Hunt: It’s with great pride and joy that I would like to introduce to the Legislature one of the newest residents of this wonderful province of ours. With the slight hints of red hair of her father, they have called her Arbutus Krista Hunt. She came in on July 15 at 7 pounds, 15 ounces, and I would like the House to make her welcome to the province of British Columbia.

Introduction and
First Reading of Bills

BILL M226 — PROTECTING OUR LAKES
AND ECONOMY FROM INVASIVE
SPECIES ACT, 2015

S. Chandra Herbert presented a bill intituled Protecting Our Lakes and Economy from Invasive Species Act, 2015.

S. Chandra Herbert: I would like to move a bill intituled Protecting Our Lakes and Economy from Invasive Species Act for first reading now.

Motion approved.

S. Chandra Herbert: Imagine our lakesides covered in mussels so sharp that no one can sit on the beaches. Our freshwater fishery disappearing because there was no longer food in the water for the fish. Think of our water systems, our hydro infrastructure and other key critical infrastructure to our economy becoming so clogged with
[ Page 9037 ]
mussels they can no longer function.

What would that do to our economy? What would that do to our communities? It would be devastating. This is not a nightmare. This is what will come to British Columbia unless we take the threat seriously.

Other provinces take the threat of invasive aquatic species much more seriously than we do and have instituted mandatory border checks on all borders to stop boats carrying these species into their provinces.

[1015]

Meanwhile, the gaps in our defences are so wide that it’s not a matter of if a boat carrying invasives gets through; it’s a matter of when, unless we act now.

The Okanagan water board estimates the cost to B.C. of invasive species like zebra and quagga mussels to be $43 million each and every year just to slow the spread of those mussels. As Manitoba has learned, once they are in your waterways, you cannot get them out.

This act will enhance the detection, suppression, elimination and prevention of the spread of invasive species in B.C. It will ensure mandatory border checks and a strong enforcement regime to ensure our province is secure. If we are truly to live up to our provincial motto of “Splendour without diminishment,” then we must act now. I ask members for their support.

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

Bill M226, Protecting Our Lakes and Economy from Invasive Species Act, 2015, 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 M227 — LAND TITLE
AMENDMENT ACT, 2015

A. Weaver presented a bill intituled Land Title Amendment Act, 2015.

A. Weaver: It’s with great pleasure that I move introduction of a bill intituled Land Title Amendment Act, 2015.

Motion approved.

A. Weaver: I’m pleased to be introducing a bill that offers government one of the tools it needs to begin to properly assess and act upon the affordability and housing crisis affecting Metro Vancouver and emerging here in the capital regional district.

There’s been significant conversation in the past few months about the role that speculation is playing in our market. The government came out with a number of documents purporting that foreign investment wasn’t a factor. These studies were vague and lacked any links to clear, rigorous evidence that supported the claim.

It’s with this in mind that I bring this bill forward today. The bill amends the Land Title Act to provide the government with the means of determining who is purchasing property in B.C. This includes determining both foreign investment flows, the role that corporations are playing in purchasing property and if we have significant speculation coming from other places in Canada.

To be clear, this bill is not about identifying what specifically is driving housing prices to unsustainable rates but, rather, to ensure that government is informing itself so that any future policy measures are based on a better understanding of what is happening with our provincial real estate industry.

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 M227, Land Title Amendment Act, 2015, 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)

EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS VOLUNTEERS

C. Trevena: In every community it’s volunteers that make things happen, bringing together people and getting jobs done. Perhaps the forest fires that are blazing across our province have highlighted the vital work of those who are tirelessly dealing with emergency preparedness — drafting plans, working on the evacuation of neighbourhoods, ensuring that everyone knows what to do in the event of fires encroaching on their homes and ensuring there’s food and water for families. This is not easy, and it’s the volunteers that do it.

In Port Hardy when the Tsulquate fire was raging, two streets were evacuated. Dozens of people moved to the community centre for safety, for a place to sleep and for meals. The plan drawn up fell into place smoothly. People knew what to do and where to go, and the community turned out to provide home-cooked foods. Bannock and soup and sandwiches flowed for those who’d left their homes and for those out fighting the fires.

Volunteers working on emergency preparedness also get the plans together for what could happen in the event of an earthquake or a tsunami, a disaster that could leave many dozens, if not hundreds, of people homeless and communities potentially isolated. There’s often a tight-knit command structure and delegation to neighbourhood teams. There’s a constant effort to inform the community members of what to do, how to prepare and where to go.

A couple of months ago there was a day-long public information session by Quadra Island’s emergency pre-
[ Page 9038 ]
paredness team that attracted people from right around the region. Lots of useful information. But unfortunately for the volunteers, to share that information they have to pay for it. Sure, the provincial government does provide pamphlets and posters but only as a PDF. Then it’s the volunteers who have to download and pay for printing and reproduction.

They asked me where the money is going to come from — they are, after all, volunteers — in small communities, where there’s fundraising for PACs, for child care centres, for health centres and for community events and now to ensure community safety. Volunteers who are working on community safety and emergency preparedness are asking: “How much downloading can there be?” When it comes to public safety, it seems there’s simply too much.

[1020]

HOPS CULTIVATION IN FRASER VALLEY

J. Martin: As we know, agriculture has long been a significant fixture throughout the Fraser Valley, and nowhere is this more the case than in my own riding of Chilliwack. Now it would appear there’s a new industry re-emerging in the area: hops.

That’s right. Hops are on the comeback. These are the small cones that give beer its bitterness, its distinct aroma and its flavour. As the popularity of local craft beer in British Columbia is on the rise, so too is the production of local hops.

Once a dominant crop in the Fraser Valley in the 1940s, the Chilliwack Museum says B.C. was home to the largest hop-growing area in the British Commonwealth. Many in this chamber might remember, back in the day, driving on Highway 1, east through Chilliwack and beyond, and seeing miles and miles and rows and rows of hops.

Well, times changed, and market adjustments in the ’90s drastically impacted this industry. However, a number of visionaries in Chilliwack and the Columbia Valley are working toward its resurgence. Already the Sartori Cedar Ranch and Chilliwack Hop Farms are seeing great success.

Chris Sartori’s hops are exactly what Molson Coors was looking for when they decided to recreate their original iconic brew. Victoria’s Driftwood Brewery also produces a limited amount of wet hop beer known as New Growth Pale Ale using fresh Centennial and Newport hops from Sartori’s farms.

Rick Knight, John Lawrence and Andrew Adams of Chilliwack Hop Farms have started producing a fine selection of Centennial, Magnum, Mount Hood and Nugget hop varieties that have found their way into production at Surrey’s Russell Brewing and other places. These hop producers are fast becoming popular with homebrew, microbrew and brewpub communities that are always on the lookout for something special, seasonal and unique.

I’m proud of the courage these local agricultural business leaders have shown, and I’m looking forward to finding new ways to support and promote the growth of the hops industry. The resurgence of hop production in the Chilliwack area is a further testament to the diversified agricultural sector so important to the local economy.

KIDS FOR CHARITY

D. Eby: Kids for Charity started because Iva Jankovic believed there weren’t enough affordable arts programs in her neighbourhood. So two years ago, and though she was only 13 years old, she initiated a weekly meet-up for elementary school kids in the University Neighbourhood area to do arts and crafts together.

Not only was the arts meet-up free for participants, the kids sold their handmade holiday cards and donated all the money they made to charities. It was a great success. Suddenly, the group, made up primarily of young people between eight and 12 years old, realized they needed a new name. They called themselves Kids for Charity.

Starting with bake sales and portrait painting, Kids for Charity supported local projects like the Norma Rose Point School playground. They also built strong community support in partnership with the University Neighbourhoods Association and the Old Barn Community Centre.

Last year Iva was unexpectedly admitted to B.C. Children’s Hospital. During the week she was there, she saw firsthand the dedication of the doctors, nurses and volunteers, who all try to make their patients as comfortable as possible. Fully recovered and inspired, she left the hospital with a new mission: to raise funds for the B.C. Children’s Hospital.

Kids for Charity went full speed ahead with fundraising, including an animation workshop, a sidewalk chalk art exhibition and neighbourhood deeds for donations, such as washing cars, watering plants, fish-sitting and washing gates and fences.

Most recently Kids for Charity had a 12-runner team in the five-kilometre child run, raising $1,000 for the hospital. Running were Sean Choi; Mateo Fiuza; Morris Ling; Iva, Vuk and Dar Jankovic; Sonia and Felix Mann; Anna Arr; Thomas and Forrest Van Alstine; and Gregory Zhdanovich.

Their next major event will be a bike parade around UBC where the participants will compete for prizes by fundraising, and voters will donate to vote for their favourite decorated bike. It will take place on August 29 at the UNA’s Old Barn Community Centre. I hope everybody can make it.

Thank you, Iva, and all the Kids for Charity for working together to make a difference in our community.
[ Page 9039 ]

SPALLUMCHEEN

G. Kyllo: I’m thrilled to take this opportunity today to speak briefly about a unique community in the Shuswap riding, Spallumcheen. It’s almost as difficult for outsiders to pronounce as it is to spell. The township of Spallumcheen is unique because its land area completely surrounds the city of Armstrong.

Incorporated in 1892, Spallumcheen is also the oldest rural community in the southern interior and the largest in physical size — almost 256 square kilometres, or about 99 square miles. Located in the beautiful, sunny Spallumcheen Valley, the township is first and foremost an agricultural community. The fertile valley supports all forms of agricultural and farming operations.

[1025]

Spallumcheen’s motto says it all: “Where farming comes first.” Indeed, the majority of the township’s land is within the agricultural land reserve, ensuring this lush, bountiful farmland will be protected for generations to come.

The community’s 5,000 rural residents conduct the vast majority of their daily business in Armstrong, but they are proud to call Spallumcheen home. The township is led by Mayor Janice Brown, now serving her second term as mayor after first being elected as councillor back in 1999. Mayor Brown and her council are dedicated to ensuring the sustainability of agriculture in their valley and protecting its charming, rural character.

It’s communities like Spallumcheen that remind us of a simpler time and reinforce the fact that we must continue to cultivate and celebrate our agricultural roots.

PADDLE FOR THE PEACE

L. Popham: As I made my way up to the point, I stopped to catch my breath. The warm air filled my lungs, along with the fragrant aroma of wild sage. I looked up and saw over 25 ravens circling above, riding the easy breeze that moved along the golden bluffs.

I carried on to the edge of the river, and the first thing I noticed was the movement of water — the force and the power, like it was alive. I looked down the river valley and saw the edges filled with crops like alfalfa, canola, oats and hay. We stood in silence, just letting it all sink in. I had come to the Peace River Valley to take part in the Paddle for the Peace, and in that moment I knew just why I was there.

The Paddle for the Peace began last Saturday morning, bright and early, with a pre-paddle breakfast sponsored by the West Moberly Nation. First Nations, residents, farmers, ranchers, scientists, geologists, business people and supporters all took to the water, and we paddled together.

I shared a canoe with Brian Churchill. He dipped a mug into the river and offered it to me. He said: “If you drink from the Peace, you will always come back.” As I sipped the water, I imagined how devastating it would be to return to the Peace if the flooding went ahead.

When we reached the takeout, we were drummed in by a dozen First Nations drummers. Then came the speeches. Grand Chief Stewart Phillip’s and Chief Bob Chamberlin’s words were clear: the flooding would be stopped. David Suzuki spoke and talked about the ecological goods and services that the free-flowing river provides, something irreplaceable. Richard Bullock, the former Agricultural Land Commission chair, spoke strongly: “Let the river run in peace. This river has given enough. This valley does not need to give another inch.”

We left the valley that night as the sun set. The reality of what we all could lose as a province became heavier, but the paddlers’ commitment to return to an unflooded valley became even stronger.

QUEEN ELIZABETH PARK

Moira Stilwell: Queen Elizabeth Park is Vancouver’s horticultural jewel, a gorgeous floral and arboreal display located at the highest point in the city. It is a popular backdrop for wedding photos and boasts some of the most spectacular views in the region that draw visitors from around the world. It is 52 hectares of serenity and calm, surrounded by lovingly landscaped gardens, exotic and native trees, and sculptures by the renowned artist Henry Moore.

This year marks the 75th anniversary of the park. But after three-quarters of a century Vancouver’s continued growth, coupled with new development encroaching on the park, has led to the loss of many of the features that have existed for decades. That’s why earlier this year saw the formation of a non-profit, community-based society designed to protect and enrich the park and ensure that it remain a place of beauty and relaxation within Vancouver’s bustling urban environment.

The Friends of Queen Elizabeth Park Society works with the public, government, local businesses and Vancouver park board to enhance the qualities of the park, protect its horticultural features and encourage multipurpose use of its grounds for sport, recreation and leisure. The society represents a wide spectrum of backgrounds and interests, but they are all united by a passion for restoring the park and maintaining its beauty.

One of their first projects will be to complete an inventory of the arboretum, which has existed since 1949 without any formal inventory of its trees, their locations or their condition. The society will also work to protect the migratory birds that use the park, promote the park through exhibits and nature-related events, and redevelop many garden features that have been lost over the years.

I want to congratulate all of the Friends of Queen Elizabeth Park for creating a powerful public voice for
[ Page 9040 ]
Queen Elizabeth Park. And I want to invite everyone to support them as they work to restore, enhance and protect its features for future generations.

[1030]

Oral Questions

CHILDREN AND FAMILY DEVELOPMENT
MINISTRY HANDLING OF CHILD PLACEMENT
CASE AND COURT ORDERS

J. Horgan: On Tuesday a scathing decision from the B.C. Supreme Court found that the director and staff, the Ministry of Children and Families, were “wanton and reckless and, at a minimum, grossly negligent.” They were “recklessly indifferent.” They displayed “intentional misconduct, bad faith, reckless disregard for their obligation to protect children.” Let that sink in for a minute, for all of the members in this place and all of the people in the galleries today.

Yesterday when we asked these questions to the minister, she said that child protection decisions are hard. I agree. They are hard. But it should not be a difficult decision to follow Supreme Court orders. It should not be a difficult decision to give full and accurate information to police conducting an investigation. But that’s exactly what the ministry did.

They said in the judgment: “The director improperly and maliciously interfered with and influenced the VPD investigation into the sexual abuse allegations.”

They disrupted an investigation. They disregarded a Supreme Court ruling. Most people expect the Ministry of Children and Families to put first and foremost the protection of children. To do so one would assume that you would follow and assist a police investigation and that you would follow the letter of the law when conducting your business.

My question to the minister she did not answer yesterday. How many other court orders has this government disregarded? How many other children have been put at risk because this government believes they’re above the law?

Hon. S. Cadieux: This situation has left very, very real impacts on a family. No one can hear the story and not feel empathy and sympathy. British Columbians deserve to know that their child welfare system is responsive, with the needs of the child first, and always guided by the best interest of a child and accountable for the decisions it makes.

Given the seriousness of the decision rendered by the judge, we will necessarily undertake a review relating to the nature of the case, from a policy and practice perspective as well as the HR implications. However, what form that review will take requires a plan that should not be rushed but must not be delayed.

I have directed my deputy minister to work with the Public Service Agency on what form of staff conduct review is appropriate in this situation — respecting, of course, public servants’ rights to be treated fairly and with due process. My expectation is that that plan will be brought to me with haste.

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

J. Horgan: I’m pleased to hear empathy, but I didn’t hear responsibility from the minister. The minister has a responsibility to protect the children in this province. Her ministry disregarded a Supreme Court order. Her ministry misled a Vancouver police department investigation, put a child in harm’s way, led to the sexual abuse of that child. This is very, very serious. It’s not good enough for the minister to say: “It’s a long judgment. We will some time to consider it.” Where was the consideration for the family? Six years this has been dragging on.

The question I just asked the minister was a simple one. She did not answer the question. How many other court orders has this ministry disregarded? How many other children have been put at risk?

Hon. S. Cadieux: As I just stated, British Columbians, this family and the rest of British Columbia, deserve to know that the child welfare system is responsive and accountable for the decisions it makes.

[1035]

As such, I have, again, just said that given the seriousness of the decision and the judgment made by the judge in this case, we will necessarily undertake a review of all of the policy and practice implications. What form that review takes needs to be thought through, certainly. It can’t be rushed, but it won’t be delayed. And when that plan is brought forward to me, I will explain to the public what form that review will take.

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

J. Horgan: The ministry spent years in court action, millions of dollars of taxpayers’ money trying to cover up bad decisions that were made by the ministry with respect to this family. Six years of court action, millions of dollars spent, and concern for the children doesn’t seem to be at the top of the list for the ministry, with respect, certainly to this family.

We’ve asked the minister now six times: how many other children are being put at risk because the government believes it’s above the law?

I guess we don’t have an answer to that question, so I’d like to move to another question, keeping in mind this quote, again from the judgment: “intentional misconduct, bad faith, reckless disregard for their obligation to protect
[ Page 9041 ]
children.” I can’t imagine a more scathing indictment of this government’s activities and behaviour with respect to protecting children in British Columbia.

At a minimum, I repeat the question we asked yesterday. What steps has the minister taken to ensure that the appropriate supports are in place to get these children back on their feet, to protect them into the future? Are there counselling supports in place? We’re told there are not. Can the minister confirm that?

Hon. S. Cadieux: The member should know, given his time in the Legislature, that the ministry funds various agencies and programs to provide counselling to children that have suffered physical or sexual abuse or emotional harm. Those programs are available. Parents can access those services for their children by contacting the programs directly or through the ministry.

In circumstances where a family has an open file with the ministry, counselling services would certainly be offered, but ultimately it is up to a family to accept the help.

D. Donaldson: It’s difficult to overstate the magnitude of the wrongs done to these children and their mother. The way the ministry treated them wasn’t just negligent. At times it was outright cruel. Prior to being taken from their mother, the children enjoyed many extracurricular activities, including gymnastics and choir. After they were taken into care, the ministry refused to let the children participate in these activities, even though their mother offered to pay for them.

The legislation is clear. Children in the care of the ministry have the right to participate in social and recreational activities. Can the minister explain why on earth her ministry was so cruel and denied these children these simple kindnesses?

Hon. S. Cadieux: The member knows that I can’t speak about circumstances related to individual families or children in this House. He has the luxury of doing so; I do not.

However, as I have said and will restate for the member, everyone has heard the very real impacts this situation has left on this family and are impacted by those realities. British Columbians deserve to know that their system is responsive and accountable, and as such, a review will be undertaken into all of the policy and practice concerns raised by this judgment and the HR implications. But we will do so with due process.

Madame Speaker: The member for Stikine on a supplemental.

[1040]

D. Donaldson: We haven’t even heard an apology from the minister for the suffering these children endured due to what the courts described as recklessness and negligence of the ministry under this minister. It’s obvious that we can’t trust this minister and this government to do the right thing in this case. Her ministry decided it was more important to advocate for a sexual predator than the children in danger of abuse. Her ministry misled the Provincial Court in order to wrongfully remove the children from the home of their mother. Her ministry defied a Supreme Court order, leading to the sexual abuse of a toddler.

The facts of this case were known in 2012, when the first ruling by the judge came forward. Now the minister says she doesn’t even know the form a review will take three years later. Will the minister take responsibility for these failures? Will she at least apologize?

Hon. S. Cadieux: Any time a child is harmed, it’s concerning. It is especially concerning when that child is harmed when they have been in contact or in care of the ministry. This very serious judgment came down only the day before yesterday. I am reviewing it. The ministry is reviewing it, and we take it extremely seriously.

C. James: It was wrong for the minister to allow the ministry to ignore a B.C. Supreme Court order that was put in place to protect these children. As a result, a little girl was sexually abused. The minister is compounding that wrong by refusing to do the right thing and assure that these children have access to counselling and other supports.

Will the minister today do the right thing — not refer the mother to a website, not refer the family to very scarce resources and ask them to navigate the system? Will the minister today commit to ensuring that these children and the family get every bit of support they need to overcome the tremendous wrongs that were done to them by this government?

Hon. S. Cadieux: Again, in circumstances where a family is involved with the ministry, counselling service would certainly be offered, but ultimately, it is up to the family to take advantage of those services.

Madame Speaker: Victoria–Beacon Hill on a supplemental.

C. James: I’m sorry. It’s hard to even know how to respond. It’s hard to even know how to respond in a case like this. Surely, the minister will see that she should take personal responsibility through her ministry to make sure that those supports are offered and all of the resources are there for that family. That is basic.

These children were wrongfully taken from their mother 2½ years ago. They were sexually abused at the hands of their father, and they were ignored by this ministry.

The minister said yesterday that “it is our sole purpose in the ministry to ensure that vulnerable children and
[ Page 9042 ]
families have the supports and services that they need.” Again, I ask the minister not to refer a family somewhere, not to say that there’s a website and you can find the services. Will the resources be there for the family to access services and supports and counselling that they need? And will the minister apologize to this family for the wrongdoing of this government?

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: I will caution all members that the House needs to hear the answer and the question.

Hon. S. Cadieux: Every day child protection social workers in the ministry have to make very difficult decisions with the information they have at the time. They are making decisions with people’s lives. In this circumstance it is clear that there was very real impact when certain decisions were made.

[1045]

I take the decision of the judge and his commentary in his judgment very seriously. As such, there will be a review relating to the policy, the practice and the HR implications, and we will do that respecting due process.

ADOPTION PLAN FOR CHILD IN CARE

N. Simons: About six weeks ago the Ministry of Children and Families told a 6½-year-old girl at school one day that she would not be returning to the foster home she grew up in since she was four months old. Her adoption placement had been accelerated. The foster parents were called that morning and told to put her things in the carport. The child and her foster parents have not been permitted to see each other since that day.

There is absolutely no justification for this. Why did the ministry disregard the adoption plan that they had agreed to?

Hon. S. Cadieux: Once again, I’m not going to comment on specific cases in this House. What I will tell the House is that the member has been in contact with my ministry about this circumstance.

Madame Speaker: Powell River–Sunshine Coast on a supplemental.

N. Simons: Almost two months have passed, and the child and the foster parents who raised her have still not been able to speak.

The minister doesn’t want to talk about the case, but I will. The foster parents raised eight children of their own, four of whom they adopted. Seven children had gone through their home and were successfully adopted into permanent homes. Over 300 children in need of care were cared for by these foster parents. They know what they’re doing. While they had some questions regarding the adoption, they had signed on and agreed to the adoption strategy.

Will the minister commit today, if nothing else, to take this case seriously and to ensure that on her watch…?

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

N. Simons: I’m not sure why the members on that side aren’t agreeing with this egregious case.

Madame Speaker: Through the Chair.

N. Simons: Will the minister commit to ensure that adoption planning and adoption plans are adhered to when all parties agree?

Hon. S. Cadieux: Again, I’ll reiterate for the member that although he has the latitude to speak about cases in this House, by law I do not. However, what I will say — and I know the member knows this — is I am extremely committed to the children in this ministry. I am extremely committed to ensuring…

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Order.

Hon. S. Cadieux: …permanency, and adoptions are a priority for this ministry, and that includes proper planning and execution of those adoptions.

AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND
METRO VANCOUVER HOUSING MARKET

A. Weaver: Earlier this year we learned that the U.S. short-sellers are betting on a Canadian housing crash, calling it an accident waiting to happen. One article quoted a high-profile U.S. short-seller who described the Vancouver housing market as “a mix of money laundering…low interest rates.” And he went on: “A house is something you live in, but in Vancouver you guys are trading them like penny stocks on Howe Street.”

Government often points to global forces as the main reason we need to be so careful and deliberate with our economic management. I’m left wondering: where is the careful and deliberate action to ensure that Metro Vancouver’s housing market doesn’t become the next housing bubble?

More and more British Columbians are taking on bigger and bigger mortgages as housing becomes less affordable. The economic consequences of a burst housing bubble would be profound.

My question to the Minister of Finance is this. Can he
[ Page 9043 ]
provide this House with an update as to what actions, if any, his government is taking to ensure that Vancouver’s housing bubble doesn’t burst?

[1050]

Hon. M. de Jong: To the member, the first thing I can do, perhaps surprisingly, is validate for him the interest, the curiosity, at times the fascination, that Americans have for the Canadian real estate market, the Canadian housing market, and that includes certainly the Vancouver market. That comes up frequently in the discussions we have with them.

I think it derives in large measure from their own experience and the trauma that they suffered after 2008. I think, further to that, it derives from the belief that if it happened there, it is destined and, therefore, must happen elsewhere.

What I tell them is this. I’ll respond, and I’ll tell the member and the House what I say to them. You do have to understand that there are some fundamental differences. The levels of equity that are involved in home ownership in British Columbia are, on average, very, very different than American markets. The rate of default and arrears thus far is very small, and the general stability of our banking system is different.

Now, I don’t say that at all to diminish or dismiss the concern, but this has been a high-value real estate market for a long, long time. What the government is doing is examining measures that may encourage first-time homebuyers to enter the market. We are, as well, through B.C. Housing, working to gather more information and more data. And I’m alive to the private member’s bill that was tabled today. We are also seeking to work with local governments to address issues around density that are a key part of the puzzle of addressing housing affordability.

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

A. Weaver: Thanks to the minister for his response there.

We’ve also recently heard from the Chinese consul general in Vancouver, Ms. Liu Fei, who suggested that the blame for the situation lies with “officials who monitor buyers, sellers and real estate developers.” She goes on to say: “People are blaming the buyer. It’s the wrong direction. I mean, the regulation here, nobody’s playing the role.”

Her point is that government must ensure that housing remains affordable and the bubble does not burst. Now, the first step towards formulating good housing policy is to ensure that the necessary information is available for analysis. For example….

Madame Speaker: A question.

A. Weaver: A question, I have. It’s a key question. Is the bare trust property transfer tax loophole that I have bought up several times here…? It’s actually incentivizing the speculative market.

My question then to the minister is: instead of rhetorical speculation contained in the reports that government released earlier this year, when the Finance Minister provided British Columbians with an outline of what data it plans to collect and analyze to determine what action is necessary to ensure that people retain access to affordable housing in Metro Vancouver, what plans does the minister have…?

Madame Speaker: Question.

A. Weaver: What plans does the minister have to gain and gather data to ensure that decision and policy is informed?

Hon. M. de Jong: To the member, I must first of all confess that officials representing the government of the People’s Republic of China may have an affinity for centralized control and management that I do not share. But be that as it may, I think there is value in gathering additional data, which is why I’m pleased the Minister Responsible for Housing, through B.C. Housing, is working with agencies to gather additional data.

I’ve mentioned earlier some of the other steps that the government has taken, I do believe — matters relating to density. I can provide the member with data and statistics about the average price of housing in Vancouver, which is actually lower than many people think. You can still purchase a home in Vancouver for under $400,000. About 30 percent of the homes that are exchanged or sold are sold for less than that.

I think a big part of this is driven by the general economic circumstances, and if….

Madame Speaker: Thank you, Minister.

Hon. M. de Jong: Madame Speaker, since I don’t expect I’m going to get a question from the official opposition about the state of the economy or the public accounts that were tabled, I will take this opportunity to advise the House what people are saying.

Madame Speaker: Thank you, Minister.

Hon. M. de Jong: The national bank says B.C.’s economy is relatively buoyant, the budget is balanced, and the debt burden is relatively low and falling.

Madame Speaker: Minister.

[1055]

Hon. M. de Jong: Little wonder B.C. is leading the way in Canada.
[ Page 9044 ]

HEALTH MINISTRY INVESTIGATION

L. Krog: Thar she blows, hon. Speaker.

For the past few days the Health Minister has tried to explain why he failed to tell the public, the House and his former employees that the RCMP closed the file on the health firings a year ago today. First, he said he wanted to be thorough. Then he said there was a comptroller general’s investigation. But through it all, he neglected to mention his own deputy minister’s investigation.

Here’s what the minister said about that investigation last month: “Once the investigation in terms of the Ministry of Health took place and my deputy subsequently came on and did a review of all the information, there was less interest, if you like, in terms of having the RCMP follow up.”

To the Health Minister, if he was not interested in having the RCMP follow up on the allegations his predecessor levelled in September 2012, why didn’t he relay that to the RCMP?

Hon. T. Lake: As I said in this House earlier this week, the RCMP certainly had expressed interest in the work of the comptroller general, who was looking at the contractual and procurement practices in the Ministry of Health. That work took longer than expected. The report was completed, I understand, in April of 2015 and was passed on to the RCMP.

My comments reflected the view that in terms of the data management practices, my deputy minister had reviewed that and we had come to agreements with some of the employees and contractors. Then the office of the comptroller general continued to do work in which the RCMP maintained a continued interest.

A. Dix: The Minister of Health — one year ago today his ministry was informed by the RCMP that they closed the file because the ministry hadn’t provided information it had repeatedly promised. What action did the ministry take at that time?

Hon. T. Lake: As I said, the ministry had been working with the RCMP. They exchanged information. Once the Deputy Minister of Health progressed with his review of all the work that had been done to date and came to arrangements with some of the employees and some of the contractors, the RCMP….

In terms of the Ministry of Health work, we were not following up with the RCMP in terms of further work. However, it was clear from communication between the RCMP and the Ministry of Health and the office of the comptroller general that the RCMP maintained an interest in the file in terms of the work that the office of the comptroller general was carrying out.

The hon. member knows that we have requested that the Ombudsperson take a look at all of this material so that it all can be laid out and fully understood in context and in a complete sense of the information available. I would say to the member: let’s let the Finance Committee do their work. I sincerely hope that the Ombudsperson will take this work and shed light on all of these questions that members from both sides of the House have and the public certainly has as well.

Madame Speaker: Vancouver-Kingsway on a supplemental.

A. Dix: I take it from that that when the RCMP informed the government that they were closing the file, the government took no action. The ministry took no action and continued to allow those employees and those agencies to be smeared.

I remind the minister, as he’s the Minister of Health now, that the press release they put out on September 6, 2012, said as follows: “The Ministry of Health has asked the RCMP to investigate allegations of inappropriate conduct, contracting and data management practices involving ministry employees and drug researchers.” They never provided any evidence. That was false.

[1100]

“Health Minister Margaret MacDiarmid said today that the ministry had provided the RCMP with the interim results of an internal investigation.” That was false. In fact, the briefing note, when the Premier’s communications team prepared this press release, said they wouldn’t be providing information until September 19.

Then the third sentence — this will be of interest to the minister, given his response earlier in the week — smeared researchers at the therapeutics initiative, Alzheimer’s drug therapy initiative and EQIP at the University of British Columbia and UVic.

What they did was smear people knowingly, and they knew at the time, knowingly, that they hadn’t provided the RCMP with anything. They blew through six deadlines after that.

Does the minister not think that he has to answer for that conduct by his ministry other than in investigations? Does he not feel that he needs to answer to the fact that his ministry and his government at the highest levels — including the Premier’s office, including the Ministry of Health, including the Ministry of Justice — allowed those researchers to be smeared for 2½ years? Is that anything other than completely unacceptable?

Hon. T. Lake: I said earlier this week that the Ministry of Health investigator, along with officials from the office of the comptroller general, met on a number of occasions with the RCMP in both 2012 and 2013. Officials met with the RCMP and made information available to them.

Additional communication between government officials and the RCMP about the status of the comptroller general’s investigation took place in 2014 and 2015.
[ Page 9045 ]

The member knows that all of this information can be reviewed and assessed in terms of the Ombudsperson. I would say to that member: why is he not supporting a quick review by the Ombudsperson so that those questions can be answered fully for him, for me and for all the people of British Columbia?

[End of question period.]

Petitions

M. Mungall: I rise to present a petition. Here I have 323 more signatures, adding to the 12,423 signatures I’ve already presented in this House, for the retention of in-house hospital laundry services in the interior of British Columbia — bringing to a total of 12,746 people who are speaking out for local jobs.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: Committee stage debate on Bill 30.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 30 — LIQUEFIED NATURAL GAS
PROJECT AGREEMENTS ACT

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 30; D. Horne in the chair.

The committee met at 11:05 a.m.

On section 1.

B. Ralston: I want to begin, first, with a few comments and just clarify the nature of the endeavour that we’ve embarked upon.

The minister has said, in debate, that at section 2 the contents of the negotiated project development agreement in respect of Pacific NorthWest LNG will be open for questions. At that time, he also tabled a number of other documents — the liquefied natural gas environmental incentive program, some adherence agreements. There was an appendix. There was an amendment to section 2.6.

I just want to clarify and confirm that at section 2 not only the agreement itself but all the other documents that were tabled as part of the package will be before the House as part of the legislative scheme that’s being advanced here.

Hon. M. de Jong: Yes, that is the intention. That’s why the documents were tabled and made public and forwarded to the member and his colleague a week prior, I think, to us sitting.

I will attach this one caveat, and that is: on some of the matters I will take advantage of expertise provided by people other than those gathered at the moment. Those people are the deputy, Peter Milburn; Pat Parkinson, to my immediate left; Paul Flanagan, behind me; and to your right, my left, Mathew Taylor, who has also been a key part of crafting some of the documentation. But yes, I am anxious that we have an opportunity to explore all of the documents that were part of the package tabled here and made public earlier.

Just for the record, we did have a conversation earlier, and my sense is that section 2 is probably the appropriate section within the legislation to conduct that examination.

The Chair: Further to the minister’s comments, as well, while section 2, I do believe, as Chair, is the appropriate place to be canvassing those comments and questions on the agreements themselves, just for greater clarity for all members, we will not be going on a section-by-section review through the agreements.

We will be entertaining any and all questions on the agreements, but we will not be going through the agreements on a section-by-section basis.

B. Ralston: I’m a bit surprised by that, because the logical way to proceed through an agreement is to go section by section. Rather than jumping here and there, step-by-step proceeding through the agreement is usually the best way to focus debate, bring clarity.

Given that the minister has agreed and I would see that as the logical way to proceed, I’m wondering if the Chair — with the greatest respect — could clarify why he has chosen to rule in that manner.

The Chair: The Chair is in the hands of the committee, but that being said, it’s Bill 30 that’s currently before this committee. While in section 2, obviously, the agreements themselves form a natural part of that and it’s indeed the first agreement, it is not the agreement itself that this committee will be passing.

[1110]

So while I agree with the member that a chronological or a section-by-section questioning of the agreement would be the most appropriate way to do it, we will not be passing each section of the agreement. The member is welcome to ask the questions in any order that the member would like to ask those questions.

B. Ralston: I appreciate that clarification. I’d understood that, indeed, there would not be votes on individual sections of the agreement. Thank you. That’s very helpful.

I want to begin with the definition of “carbon tax change.” Mr. Matt Horne, who is a senior researcher at the Pembina Institute and appointed by the Premier to the climate change task force that was reviewing the climate change policy of the government — who were due to report on Thursday, but I gather are not going to re-
[ Page 9046 ]
port this Thursday; that’s been changed — has said, in relation to carbon tax change, that this definition of change does not rule out a general change applicable across the board to all emitters but eliminates “the option of focusing a future phase of the carbon tax on LNG terminals.”

Given the volume of emissions from a single plant, given the length of the agreement, which is 25 years plus a certain period of a number of years depending on when the commercial operations date takes place, if it ever does…. It could be up to 30 years. Can the minister explain why he has ruled out the option, given that this is a global industry, given that there are a number of countries involved in this, given that technology change over that period of time could potentially be revolutionary? Why would he preclude a change to carbon tax resulting from the arrival of new technology through this definition of change?

Hon. M. de Jong: I’m sure the member will expand upon this, but my short answer is we have precluded no such thing.

The definition of “carbon tax change” is significant because it is one of the four change events that may be specified in an LNG project agreement. That is certainly the case. A change event — one of those four — can trigger other provisions of the agreement, specifically indemnification agreements.

What has been disincented is a discriminatory change event that would apply to the LNG sector, or an LNG facility specifically. I don’t know that I follow the argument that says we are disincenting the employment of newer technology. Presumably, the application of the carbon tax…. Certainly, part of its rationale at its birth was to incent technology and lower emissions, and its application to this industry presumably maintains that incentive.

B. Ralston: Mr. Horne — and I think he’s considered to be fairly authoritative; certainly the Premier thought enough of his knowledge and skills to appoint him to the task force on climate change, the recent review — has said: “They are also eliminating the option of focusing a future phase of the carbon tax on LNG terminals.”

[1115]

I know the minister generally doesn’t like to engage in hypotheticals, and I understand that reluctance. Suppose there were a change in technology which the operators here refused to implement, and the change would dramatically reduce emissions. In order to incent that, one policy option — I’m not necessarily saying that this would be the only one — might be to increase the specific tax on the old technology in order to incent the transition to a new one, if the operator were reluctant to do that.

Now, I appreciate that’s a hypothetical, but as Mr. Horne says, that’s being ruled out. Can the minister explain why that decision was taken to rule out such a use of a policy tool over a period of 30 years?

Hon. M. de Jong: Let’s consider not just the possibility but the probability of evolving technology, not just with respect to this industry but in the sphere of emissions generally. It may well be that a future government, confronted by that evolving technology, decides that it wishes to encourage or amplify the attractiveness of that technology to emitters. And this sector, depending on how they’re operating, could be significant emitters.

The option of a general increase — and I hasten to add that it is not…. When we talk about this in the hypothetical, in the abstract, it is not something that is in the mind of this government today. But the option of a future government to apply a general rate increase to encourage adoption of that evolving technology remains. There is nothing in the agreement that would mitigate or discourage a future government or penalize a future government from making that decision.

B. Ralston: The further definition in (b) applies to “an enactment that creates a tax that applies only to greenhouse gas emissions resulting from liquefaction activities.” “Liquefaction activities” is defined as it is in the Liquefied Natural Gas Income Tax Act. Clearly, as I recall, the definition — and I’m sure the minister does too, because our debate on it was not so long ago — really begins at the inlet pipe at the liquefaction plant.

Can the minister explain why the decision was made to draw the line of division there — only applying to liquefaction activities and not to any other aspect of the operation of the system?

Hon. M. de Jong: Hopefully, this answers the member’s question. In short order, the line that he refers to that derives from the applicable definitions relates to the fact that the upstream portion of what will drive this industry is an established industry in British Columbia and has been so for many decades now. The new part of what is occurring here and attracting the new investment, and the new sizeable investment, relates to the liquefaction facility. In general terms, that’s what accounts for that line that the member has referred to.

[1120]

B. Ralston: In the definition of “greenhouse gas regulatory change,” there’s a reference in sub (a)(i) to an amendment to either the Greenhouse Gas Industrial Reporting and Control Act itself or regulations enacted on or before December 31, 2015. It also goes on in (b) to talk about “a modification or termination of an incentive program.”

Now, in the agreement, there is a definition in clause 2.6, and then there’s a subsequent document which amends section 2.6. That’s an amending agreement. I don’t have a…. There’s a copy signed by Mr. Culbert, but it doesn’t appear to have been signed by the minister. I assume the minister signed it later and that it would be in the original copy. It speaks of deleting 2.6 of the
[ Page 9047 ]
project development agreement and sets out what is referred to in the same language that is used here about the legislation.

It refers to regulations under the GGIRC and the effective date of those regulations. Can the minister explain how that amendment relates to this section? Is that the regulations and amendment of those regulations that’s being spoken of in this amendment to the project development agreement? I will have questions more specifically about the regulations and the incentive program later, but I just wanted to make sure that this is the section that’s being spoken of.

Hon. M. de Jong: What I thought I would do is first offer up to the member and the committee an explanation for the amendment proper to the PDA, and then we can get back to the substance of the section.

In the original clause 2.6 of the PDA, the terminology there, “The parties acknowledge and agree that the baseline legislation for the purposes of clause 3 shall be the acts…that are….” The words in there were “in force.” It was correctly identified after signature that they aren’t actually in force just yet, so the words are replaced with “enacted at the effective date.” There was a similar issue with respect to the regulation. That’s why that amendment — a fairly technical one about what was in force at the time and what wasn’t. That’s the amendment to 2.6.

Now, I’m certain that the member has questions about the definitions section, and I’ll wait to hear that again.

[1125]

B. Ralston: Just for clarity, then, (b): “a modification or termination of an incentive program.” By the “incentive program,” there’s a definition set out in that. Just for confirmation, is the document that was tabled in the House on July 13 — of which a copy was provided as an appendix with the package of documents tabled along with the agreement — what’s being referred to there, then?

Hon. M. de Jong: Yes, that is correct. I suppose I should word that correctly. That is an example and the one that we have before us.

B. Ralston: Now, in section (a)(ii): “regulations under that Act” — referring to the Greenhouse Gas Industrial Reporting Act — “enacted on or before December 31, 2015.” That empowers the creation of regulations prospectively but with a specific deadline.

The regulations. I understand from the agreement that there is a process in place whereby the proponent and the government will be sitting down to discuss and to negotiate those regulations with a view to concluding them — given that this is statutory language — before December 31, 2015. Is that the process that is being referred to here?

Hon. M. de Jong: I’ll start by, perhaps, just correcting this one thing that the member included in his question. I believe he referred in passing to this definition section as representing the authority for the regulations. I just want to make clear — and I think he understands this — that the authority for regulations under the Greenhouse Gas Industrial Reporting and Control Act, the specific statutory authority for those regs, exists within that act. So the work that is being undertaken is being undertaken pursuant to that.

The member is correct, by the way. There are consultations ongoing. He is also correct when, I believe, he said that we can interpret the presence of this section and the date as an indication of the government’s intention to conclude that work and post regulations pursuant to the act by the end of this calendar year.

A. Weaver: I have three questions on the definition with respect to “greenhouse gas regulatory change.” I’m exploring this definition with the idea that I’m wondering whether the government has actually thought through some of the potential ramifications of international or other policy that could happen and what it would mean to future governments in British Columbia.

The first is that internationally there’s something called the Global Methane Initiative, which is gaining momentum. In there, specifically, it’s targeting methane emissions as opposed to carbon dioxide emissions.

The question with respect to that is: if international jurisdictions or international agreements come to start to differentiate between global warming potential in terms of pricing, as opposed to combustible carbon in terms of pricing — which is what happens in B.C. — does this, under this “greenhouse gas regulatory change” definition, preclude any government from making the appropriate changes without actually triggering the indemnity that would essentially reward the LNG proponent now?

[1130]

Hon. M. de Jong: Thank you to the member for the question. No, as long as the change applies as a general law of application.

A. Weaver: Following on that line, government recently announced — on Monday, I believe, of this week — regulations that exclude the carbon dioxide in the gas stream at liquefication when it’s compressed. You want to vent that stuff off because you don’t want it to be in the liquefication process.

That is no longer presently subject…. Those are fugitive emissions which a company can now exclude as it moves towards gaining credit towards the 0.23 and 0.16 tax break targets that government is trying to incentivize towards. Those emissions are not presently subject to the carbon tax. It is possible that a carbon tax will come to those emissions. That would then exclusively apply
[ Page 9048 ]
to the LNG liquefication facility, because those fugitive emissions only exist there.

My question to the government is: if government introduces legislation there, to what extent is it feeling confident, and does it have legal opinion, that Petronas cannot take government to court, arguing that this is actually targeting them through pricing fugitive emissions at the liquefication site, where those are vented off into the atmosphere?

Hon. M. de Jong: I can advise the member and the committee of this. The government is confident that there are no restrictions on the ability of a future government to alter the methodology utilized to calculate the carbon tax. The key qualifier, the key aspect of this, is: as long as it does so in a way that applies generally. If that prerequisite is met, then it does not trigger a change event or qualify as a change event.

A. Weaver: Just as a follow-up to that — with respect, of course — for fugitive emissions, you can apply it generally, but it only applies to one industry. Therein lies my concern: the interpretation. I would argue a legal opinion could be made on either side of this — that if you are taxing fugitive emissions, you are solely taxing the LNG industry.

To be honest, if I were a multi-billion-dollar multinational, I’d take the government to court. The reason why I’d do that is because I’m sure I could find legal opinion that would support it. This government and the revenues associated with a legal case with a multinational would simply not…. It would cost millions. So I’m not convinced that the government has thought this through.

I reiterate the question. Does the government truly believe, for the record, that if it is to tax fugitive emissions, this is considered sectorwide when, in reality, fugitive emissions only apply to one sector? That is the natural gas sector. I would argue legal interpretation would say that that’s punitive.

[1135]

Hon. M. de Jong: I’m reminded of a couple of things, and this is the moment to explore these concepts and principles. That’s important. The notion of where fugitive emissions might occur and how future governments might choose to deal with them is something that is provided for, contemplated, has been thought about. There are no constraints on the ability of a future government to deal with that without triggering the indemnification provisions.

I observe that the member correctly points out that technologies may change and circumstances may change but then, I think, prefaces his remark with “fugitive emissions only occur in this circumstance.” Well, they certainly occur along the pathway that is the natural gas sector, and they may occur elsewhere in the future.

We are endeavouring — and the member is, quite properly — to consider what may change and the ability of future governments to respond to that change. That has been very much in the minds of the government and the officials we have charged with the task of drafting and constructing both the agreement and the legislation that we have before us now.

The government is confident, on the strength of the advice that we have received, that we have not constrained the ability of future governments to respond to those circumstances without triggering the change event in the indemnification as long as it does so in a way that applies generally. What I can’t do is speculate about what a future government’s drafting might look like and whether a specific provision would pass that test. But the concept is sound, embedded and purposely designed to maintain maximum flexibility for future regimes.

A. Weaver: My final question on this definition is with respect to the potential that present or future governments might recognize. An issue that has not been discussed much with this debate about LNG is that if we are going to develop an export market, without any question, the price of gas in British Columbia is going to go up because we have excess capacity. When you commit to long-term export, the price is going to go up because the supply is going to go down.

My question to the minister, through this definition, is: if the government actually incentivizes domestic use at the expense of export, would that actually trigger an indemnity clause? I could imagine a situation where, let’s suppose, hypothetically, Petronas believes it has such a good deal here, because they’re not going to have to pay anything to British Columbians, that they actually go gung-ho on this and just take the gas out of the ground at the Montney play as fast as they can, which jacks the price up of natural gas in British Columbia.

Then the next government says, “We need to incentivize our domestic market and actually bring more supply to the domestic market,” which would then affect the export capacity. Is this going to trigger an indemnity clause?

[1140]

Hon. M. de Jong: I have the member’s point, which revolves around basic principles of supply and demand. The only caution or qualifier I might attach is we are very pointedly not a British Columbia market. We are a North American market right now.

I’m hesitant to speculate at this point about the degree to which the development of an offshore capacity is going to impact — in the short, medium and long term — pricing. It may well. But my crystal ball is pretty foggy on that point. I do know this. The prospects for this sector absent developing an offshore capacity are not bright. That is partially motivating the government as well.

My view, and I have canvassed with the officials that
[ Page 9049 ]
are present here, is that the circumstance, the situation or the scenario that the member has described — to the degree I understand what he has described for the committee — would not trigger any of the indemnification provisions. The only thing that triggers is: they must fall within the narrow band of the four matters contained within the definition. But I appreciate the question.

B. Ralston: I’m looking at the definition of incentive program in (b), where it refers to “an incentive program, in respect of liquefaction activities, substantially the same as the program referred to in paragraph (a).” Presumably, that suggests the possibility of substituting some changed program, and the operative phrase would be “substantially the same.”

I’m wondering how that is distinguished from, in the definition of greenhouse gas regulatory change, “a modification”? Then it goes on to talk about termination, but that doesn’t apply here. What is the distinction that’s drawn between a program that’s substantially the same yet to be distinguished from a modification of the program? Can the minister explain what the nuances of that distinction are?

Hon. M. de Jong: If we deal with it in this order, hopefully I can be of help to the committee.

[1145]

I think the member has correctly identified the significance of “incentive program” and the fact that the legislation contemplates the incentive program that we have tabled, or one that is substantially the same. So that’s one thing.

However, the way that the definitions would work together…. If you seek to modify the incentive program or one that is substantially the same, that modification can trigger a change event and what flows from that, and then there are the thresholds and all of that. But that’s how the definitions would work together.

An incentive program or one that is substantially the same. But if there is a modification of that incentive program or one that is substantially the same, that is significant because it can trigger the change event.

B. Ralston: This may be useful too. I think what is being referred to in more detail is in section 3.5(e) of the agreement itself. There is reference to, in (ii): “the repeal and replacement of the GGIRC…with any other form…that is a law of general application.” I suppose the key interest focuses here, given these definitions.

I’m wondering if this is…. I presume it’s consistent with the definitions that are set out in the act. “The creation of a separate category of greenhouse gas or carbon emissions regulation that is specific to the processing in British Columbia of natural gas by liquefaction…where such category forms part of a greenhouse gas or carbon emissions regulatory scheme that includes similar and proportionate categories for one or more…industries.”

At the outset it says that would not be a discriminatory GGIRC event, and the incentive program forms part of that. Is that what is meant by an incentive program that’s substantially the same? Is (e)(iii) where, although there is a change, and it’s specific to a “regulatory scheme that includes similar and proportionate categories for one or more other industries”…? Presumably, the threshold is that it has to apply to one other industry besides the LNG industry in order to be a substantial change but without triggering the compensation mechanism.

Hon. M. de Jong: Although there is a relation, I don’t think the relationship exists in quite the way that the member has alluded. In (e)(iii) this actually represents a narrowing of the general concept contained in the legislation. The legislation is referring to, for the moment, the incentive program, and (iii) seeks to narrow. It doesn’t refer specifically to that, but it is a narrowing of the concept.

I don’t want to leave the impression with the member that there is a direct linkage between (e)(iii) and the specific incentive program contemplated in the act.

[1150]

B. Ralston: Well, to the reader — that is myself in this case — the incentive program refers specifically to regulations regarding emissions and sets some standards, the 1.6 and the 0.23, and one can well foresee the possibility of modification to that. Is that what’s being referred to? Or I take it from what the minister is saying that given that that’s in the incentive program, those are specific regulatory thresholds. This (e)(iii) does not refer to matters such as that.

Hon. M. de Jong: I apologize if I inadvertently added to the confusion. Let me try this and start by going to sub (e)(iii) in the agreement that the member has referenced and point out that that relates specifically to the GGIRC Act. It is a further definition of limiting, if you will, what does not constitute a change event. These things — sub (i), sub (ii), sub (iii) — do not, for the purposes of the agreement, constitute a change event, and that relates to the act itself.

The incentive program operates and exists separately and apart from the act. That’s where I’m trying, rather clumsily, to make the distinction for the purposes of the question as it relates to both the legislation and the section of the agreement.

B. Ralston: Since we’re considering this point, and particularly the focus on liquefaction activities at a terminal, I am reminded of what Mr. Matt Horne posed in his paper about the agreement itself, which again relates to some of the changes that may be contemplated at some point in the future. He poses this question.
[ Page 9050 ]

“Would other approaches to improving environmental performance, such as requiring LNG terminals to use more renewable energy or mandating them to inspect for methane leaks more frequently, trigger compensation?”

He does get to section 3.5(e)(iii), so that’s why I’m citing it here.

“The response to this question is more complicated. The scope of the agreement appears to be limited to the LNG terminal. In that case, new regulations or policies could be developed for upstream sources of carbon pollution without triggering compensation. For the terminals, clause 3.5(e)(iii) could potentially prevent the province from implementing stronger climate policies that apply exclusively to LNG terminals — e.g., a regulation requiring a specified percentage of their electricity be sourced from renewable sources. It is ambiguous if such a scenario would trigger compensation.”

Can the minister respond to the observation of Mr. Horne, referring to this specific section?

[1155]

Hon. M. de Jong: It’s kind of a two-part answer on this. First of all, I will say, and probably repeat this a few times during the course of our exchange that I think the member…. I will say this once, on the record, and I believe the member will agree. What he and others are endeavouring to do is provide examples of what could happen in the future. These are hypothetical examples. I will deal with them as such and hence make clear that they are not necessarily things the government is contemplating nor even the member may be contemplating, necessarily.

When you hear about a hypothetical case or proposal or draft regulation or law that begins or ends with “and this shall apply exclusively to the LNG sector” or “this shall apply exclusively to an LNG liquefaction facility,” that is admittedly a signal that you are now entering the territory where indemnifications may become an issue.

There is a second part to that analysis, which is that the step, the measure must fall within one of the four areas that qualify as a change event. It doesn’t automatically follow that it triggers, but when you hear the phrase or if a document or a proposed law were to include language that particularly specifies LNG facility to the exclusion of all others, you are now getting into that second part of the analysis, to be sure.

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

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:59 a.m.

The House resumed; Madame Speaker in the chair.

Committee of the Whole (Section B), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

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 11:59 a.m.

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

Copyright © 2015: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada