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, November 5, 2015

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 31, Number 3

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

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 5, 2015

The House met at 1:32 p.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

H. Bains: In the gallery is my very good friend Bruce Ferguson, who is the president of the retiree council of his union, the Construction and Specialized Workers Union. He’s a long-time labour activist. Even in his retirement, he hasn’t stopped. Along with him is Merrick Walsh. She’s the recording secretary of his union’s retiree council. Please help me to give them a very warm welcome.

D. McRae: November 5, 2009, was a pretty good day for me, Madame Speaker. I was sitting just behind where I am today. I got a phone call, which I’m not supposed to take in the Legislature, and I ran out into the hallway. My wife said: “Get home. I’m having a baby.” So I ran home, and she waited enough time, to November 6. We’re not here in the House tomorrow, but I want to wish my daughter Chloe McRae a happy sixth birthday.

Point of Privilege
(Reservation of Right)

D. Eby: I’m rising at the first opportunity to reserve my right on a point of personal privilege in relation to remarks made by the Minister of Small Business during question period today.

Madame Speaker: So noted.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Polak: I call second reading on Bill 40, the Natural Gas Development Statutes Amendment Act, 2015.

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 40 — NATURAL GAS DEVELOPMENT
STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 2015

Hon. R. Coleman: I call second reading on Bill 40.

I’m pleased to present the Natural Gas Development Statutes Amendment Act.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Bill 40 will amend provisions on four statutes: the Petroleum and Natural Gas Act, the Oil and Gas Activities Act, the Residential Tenancy Act and the Strata Property Act.

Changes to the Petroleum and Natural Gas Act deal with carbon-capture-and-storage projects, where carbon dioxide is taken from industrial sources and stored underground, effectively reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Petroleum and Natural Gas Act amendments will allow the carbon capture and storage to move forward. Our laws will be aligned with international best practices, and they will allow for the storage of carbon dioxide produced from a range of oil and gas operations in other industries.

[1335]

Oil and Gas Activities Act. Like all underground oil and gas operations, carbon capture and storage will now be regulated by the Oil and Gas Activities Act. The amendments will ensure that the B.C. Oil and Gas Commission has the authority to regulate all the phases of carbon-capture-and-storage projects. The changes will provide the foundation needed for carbon capture and storage in British Columbia.

Although we’ve had a look at it over the years and have actually had projects that looked like they might go ahead at some point in time, we find that we don’t have the overall regulatory framework to actually allow and be successful with CCS.

The other part of the act that’s being changed is just basically an authorization of related activities, and that’s to strengthen B.C.’s single-window regulatory approach. Amendments will give the commission the power to authorize preliminary work, where necessary, before a company applies for the oil- and gas-related permit.

As we’ve done our work with regards to our files, we have found that there was a lot of pre-work that needs to be done, particularly in large projects like LNG, where that pre-work needs to be permitted and looked at but doesn’t fall into the permitting process related to a final plan, because final investment decisions sometimes aren’t completed. Therefore, the pre-work is actually exploratory work, but we still think we need to have a position on a way to permit and regulate it.

The notification requirements are being changed as well. Amendments will also improve the manner in which landowners are notified about oil and gas activity on their land. For instance, they will remove the need to notify landowners living a long distance away from small work activities such as maintenance on pipelines.

Under the current structure of the Oil and Gas Activities Act, commission employees of the Oil and Gas Commission can be named personally in lawsuits related to their decisions. That is unusual across the practices of government. So the amendments will protect the commission’s employees, who make decisions in good faith, while keeping in place existing liability provisions for the commission and the province.

In addition, we’re also giving cabinet the power to publicly disclose applications for oil and gas activity permits, which we would be able to do, once we do this, to im-
[ Page 10100 ]
prove and increase and continue the transparency to the public of the industry.

The next part of the bill deals with the Residential Tenancy Act. Before I explain this one to the House, I would like to thank the current Minister of Social Development and Social Innovation, who brought this issue to me a couple of years ago. We’ve done the work to see how we could address it.

In some of the residency stuff that takes place in British Columbia, people are in leases. They are fixed-term leases where the two parties have gone into a relationship, and at the end of the lease, the lease is done. However, one of the flaws we find in the system is that some people could enter into an extensively long lease with regards to a form of care or permanent living or in a lease of a building where there’s a fixed-term tenancy by a tenant, and that tenant can no longer live in that location.

The two examples that were brought to us initially were these. One is a case where somebody is in an abusive and a violent situation and can actually — they need to leave their residence for their own protection and the protection of their children — continue to be charged by the landlord for the duration of the lease, to be paid in spite of the fact that they can’t actually live there safely.

The other is that we find more and more with an aging population that people, as these leases continue along, will sometimes find out that an elderly member of the family who is in a lease ends up in long-term care. However, the continuation of the cost of that lease, in spite of the fact that they’re moving into long-term care, cannot be ended early. Currently that can’t be done without financial penalties unless a landlord agrees.

Now the tenant will be able to provide one month’s written notice to the landlord and a written third-party verification, which could include police, health people, doctors. We will work through it as we do the regulations so that we’ll be able to have that verification in place so those folks can actually live safely and not be doubly penalized because they’ve moved into care and can no longer live where they are.

These will be professionals that will be doing this assessment. They will do the assessment based on risk of safety related to family violence or the need for long-term care. This is something that people have asked us to do — people with regards to looking at reducing and getting to a violence-free B.C., along with families, particularly of older parents, who find that they are stuck in a lease when their parents can no longer live there simply because they’re now in care.

[1340]

There is broad support for these amendments. I’ve been asked by members on both sides of the House to be able to do this, to bring this legislation forward. The regulations will be developed in consultation with the stakeholders, including the folks that are actually the leaseholders.

In addition, there’s one other amendment, within this particular piece of this bill, to the Residential Tenancy Act. That’s an amendment that allows landlords to pay the security costs and pet damage electronically, which, ironically, is not permitted today under current legislation. People can do electronic banking, but our laws need to be changed to match up to that so we can actually return a damage deposit electronically without having to do a paper cheque.

This supports our goal — everybody’s goal — of reducing red tape but also supports changing technology and bringing the act into modern operation.

Finally, this bill amends the Strata Property Act. Some strata corporations in British Columbia are more than 50 years old. Many of these strata corporations want or need to be wound up. This may be because the building is at the end of its life cycle or the owners have found a better or, perhaps, more profitable use for the land or want to redevelop it and gain that benefit and stay there.

Right now in British Columbia, unlike most Canadian jurisdictions, a unanimous vote is needed to voluntarily terminate a strata. It is very difficult to get unanimous agreement. It can also be a challenge getting everyone to vote or locating absentee owners. So what we did with this, when this came to us a couple of years ago, is — at our request — we asked the B.C. Law Institute to review the rules around terminating strata corporations.

They recommended to us that the vote be changed to…. Eighty percent of all voters must vote in favour to voluntarily terminate a strata rather than 100 percent. They recommended that, after the vote, a court order be required in order to make sure that the courts would give legal precedent with regards to this. This is so the courts can ensure that the interests of any dissenting owners and charge holders are considered.

There was strong stakeholder support for these recommendations in strata properties and across the strata ownership piece, as we did our consultation.

This bill also includes three strata-related housekeeping amendments. One clarifies the voting requirement for a court application for a special levy. The second removes the confusion about what “all eligible voters” means. The third adds explicit authority for regulations on permitted investment for funds collected by special levy.

I am pleased to now move second reading.

D. Eby: It’s a pleasure to rise and speak to this bill. Thank you to the minister for bringing it forward.

While I thank the minister for bringing it forward, I do note that the structure of this bill, Bill 40, defines exactly how this government sees the issues surrounding housing that British Columbians face. It’s called the Natural Gas Development Statutes Amendment Act, yet in it are significant housing reforms, both for tenants and landlords and for owners of strata units. It’s a natural gas bill that, oh yeah, includes housing.
[ Page 10101 ]

Now, why do you see a housing bill called the Natural Gas Development Statutes Amendment Act? Well, for this government, housing issues aren’t sufficiently important to require their own bill because they aren’t sufficiently important to require their own minister. We don’t have a full-time housing minister in British Columbia.

We don’t have a full-time housing minister in British Columbia, despite the fact that we’re facing a crisis in housing across the province. We’ve got tent cities in Abbotsford and Maple Ridge of the homeless. And 1,593 people used an emergency housing shelter in Prince George last year, and 49 people in Prince George are chronically homeless.

Further north: 64 homeless in Terrace last year — the count itself was higher than expected. This year: 74 homeless in Terrace, British Columbia.

In response to this, do we see a bill today where the minister responsible for natural gas and, oh yeah, housing…? Is he mandating and standardizing a provincewide count of the number of homeless to see what kind of progress, if any, we’re making in reducing the impact of this serious social issue — an issue of conscience as we go into winter? No, he does not. He’s probably too busy. After all, he’s also the Minister of Natural Gas. Things haven’t been going too well in that portfolio, either.

[1345]

For a provincewide crisis of housing, we have a part-time minister. Insufficient rental housing, rents skyrocketing — taking, in some parts of the province, more than half of residents’ incomes. In the Lower Mainland, major concerns about the impact of international capital on the residential housing market for families hoping to buy homes, let alone two bedroom condos, who are priced out of a market that increasingly has no connection to the amount of money that they can earn in British Columbia and for developers watching future condo site prices spike well beyond what current sale prices for condos can support.

Why? Because of international speculation. It’s the issue of the day, and this government is totally absent. Well, not totally absent. The minister responsible for natural gas and, oh yeah, housing thinks that housing in the Lower Mainland is actually “pretty affordable.” Astounding. He was quoted saying this, despite Vancouver being listed as the second most expensive city for real estate in the world by the U.S. think tank Demographia and the most expensive city in Canada.

So we get this bill. This bill reflects the extent of the work on housing we’ve seen in this Legislature, from this government, to address these issues. Yes, this is indeed a natural gas bill that is, oh yeah, about housing too. It’s an afterthought for this minister and the Premier because, according to them, things are pretty great in housing.

The Premier, in fact, said people concerned about high housing prices in the Lower Mainland should move to Fort St. John. In Fort St. John, housing is so expensive they’re having trouble recruiting doctors. This Premier is out of touch on housing issues. She places such a low priority on housing as a concern of her government that she doesn’t even think the issue needs a full-time minister.

What do we see from the government in this natural gas and, oh yeah, housing bill anyway? A very commonsense change recommended by West Coast LEAF a long time ago to allow people to end their lease early if they’re fleeing family violence or if they receive a long-term care facility placement. Makes sense.

The Strata Property Act. If 80 percent of the people in a strata vote to dissolve the strata and sell the building, they can do that if they get the approval of the B.C. Supreme Court. Sure. That makes sense.

You can receive your tenant deposit back by electronic payment. A good idea.

But you look at this — the most substantive piece of housing legislation we have seen come forward from this government, I think, since the election. And what’s not in this bill? Any indication that the government is concerned at all about the cost of rent or the purchase of housing across the province — prices almost completely disconnected from people’s incomes.

What else is missing? Any indication that this government understands that the residential tenancy tribunal system is broken, with chronically excessive wait times for landlords and tenants, decisions that are practically impossible to enforce, inconsistency between decisions and insufficient protection from renovictions or abuse of fixed-term tenancies in tight rental markets.

What else is missing? Any show of interest in ensuring that this government has the legislative tools it needs to measure, quantify and, if necessary, restrict the billion-dollar flows of international capital into our residential housing market. Absolutely nothing in here.

What else is missing? Any indication from this government about the growing problem of homelessness and tent cities, to the point that courts, two weeks ago, recognized the right of people to camp in city parks in British Columbia. This government is telling cities: “There’s nothing we can do. You better give up your parks, because the homeless are not going away.” Now there’s a right to camp in those parks — an empty victory for housing advocates who were hoping for so much more.

Is there anything in this bill about that, any indication in this bill that they’re preparing to address that issue, that they heard about the court decision, that they’re worried about what’s happening to cities, that they understand the close connection between mental health and addiction and the crisis being faced by cities throughout the province on homelessness?

[1350]

Nothing. As usual, for this government, housing issues for families and individuals throughout the province are an afterthought. Just as housing is an afterthought in the minister’s job description as the Minister of Natural Gas
[ Page 10102 ]
and for Housing. Just as housing is an afterthought in the text of this bill, this natural gas bill that’s about — oh yeah — housing as well.

We can do better, hon. Speaker. Thank you for the time to address this bill.

G. Kyllo: I’m pleased to stand on behalf of my constituents of Shuswap and voice today my support for Bill 40, the Natural Gas Development Statutes Amendment Act. Natural gas and oil exploration has been taking place in British Columbia for more than half a century. It is now necessary to update the province’s laws and demand that the safest, most environmentally smart practices are in place for the industry.

These amendments will also affect the Petroleum and Natural Gas Act and will allow the practice of carbon capture and storage, otherwise known as CCS, as a permanent solution for disposing of carbon dioxide in B.C. The amendments will ensure carbon-capture-and-storage projects are safe, environmentally responsible and are in line to meet best practices that are accepted around the globe.

Allowing the oil and gas industry to go ahead with CCS projects will reduce greenhouse gas emissions because carbon dioxide is not released into the atmosphere. Instead, industry will be able to remove carbon dioxide from industrial sources such as raw natural gas and inject these emissions safely and permanently in rock formations deep underground. Once injected into the ground, the CO₂ remains permanently trapped in deep rock, effectively reducing global greenhouse gas emissions.

The Oil and Gas Activities Act will improve B.C.’s rules and regulations for oil and gas activities. They will provide authority for the B.C. Oil and Gas Commission, or the OGC, to authorize work needed to determine the location and feasibility of well sites, pipeline routes and other oil and gas activities. As well, notification protocols are being updated to remove impractical requirements such as alerting landowners miles away from small work activities such as maintenance on a pipeline. Statutory immunity provisions will be clearly defined so the OGC and the provincial government are the agencies responsible for the decisions made by individuals under the Oil and Gas Activities Act. There’ll also be regulations to improve the transparency of oil and gas activities throughout the province.

These amendments strengthen industrial oversight in preparation for more large-scale projects such as the construction and operation of pipelines and LNG facilities. Amendments are also being introduced to provide the Oil and Gas Commission with the authority to regulate carbon-capture-and-storage projects in B.C., including oversight for all exploration, storage and monitoring activities.

This legislation is a first step to putting concrete regulations in place to allow CCS projects to proceed in B.C. It can help B.C. reach greenhouse gas reduction targets and maintain leading standards for an environmentally responsible natural gas sector. The Petroleum and Natural Gas Act already allows for underground storage. However, we need strong regulations in place to ensure that carbon capture and storage are conducted with the highest standards possible and in order to remain a leader in safe, responsible natural gas operations and environmental oversight.

New regulations and more amendments will be made in the future to address site selection, monitoring and long-term stewardship and liability. Clear regulations will provide certainty for industry and will allow projects to go ahead. There are, as yet, no carbon-capture-and-storage projects in B.C. However, our province has a long history of safely storing natural gas and its by-products deep underground.

Our province supported Spectra Energy’s Fort Nelson CCS project as a feasibility study to advance carbon-capture-and-storage research in B.C. and to gather technical data. Initial research was successful and indicated that storage reservoirs are present in the area. This natural gas processing facility remains in operation, but a decision about the next phase of the CCS project has yet to be made. Consultations are ongoing and include First Nations and significant parties representing natural gas and oil producers in B.C., including the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers and the B.C. LNG Alliance.

[1355]

British Columbia is Canada’s fastest-growing natural gas–producing province. We’re introducing amendments that ensure the provincial regulator, the Oil and Gas Commission, will keep operations safe and put the best modern practices in place for carbon capture and storage.

With respect to the third statute, with respect to affordability of housing and the work that’s been undertaken by government, I’ll leave that to my other colleagues to provide further comment.

S. Chandra Herbert: Well, I must say when I heard about this bill, when I heard some of the contents, I got very excited. Then I thought about the name — the Natural Gas Development Statutes Amendment Act — and, you know, I think it’s misnamed. It’s really a housing bill. It just demonstrates, as my colleague from Vancouver–Point Grey so ably put it, that this government’s interest in ensuring affordable, accessible housing is a much, much lower priority than their interest in gas.

But, you know, even with the gas, they’re talking about providing a home for carbon, for pollution — sequestering it under the ground in an attempt to try and stop some of the worst climate change, which is already staring us in the face. Maybe it’ll work; maybe it won’t. I think the question is largely, as well, not just the technology but the economics of it.

Now, I’m going to focus more on the housing side, be-
[ Page 10103 ]
cause for my constituents that’s their priority — housing. How do we fix this housing crisis that British Columbia currently is facing — not just affordability but security and safety in their homes?

First, I will give some credit to the minister. I’m glad he responded to the plea, which has been around for years. It’s taken a long time coming, but he finally acted, and that’s to try and at least fix some of the worst situations facing people facing family violence in their homes, where they might have a fixed-term tenancy, which, I might add, is a minority, a very small minority, of those who are currently renting in British Columbia.

They may be able to leave and escape horrible situations without having to pay a massive penalty to a landlord for escaping and leaving a fixed-term lease. It’s the right thing to do. Or for seniors in my community and in communities across B.C. — not just seniors but anybody facing an illness that needs to be in long-term care — they can escape the penalty of having to pay massive amounts of money to get out of a fixed-term lease. On that, I want to say thank you. It’s the right thing to do.

I do have questions about this section. I don’t understand, for example, why it’s only on fixed-term tenancies, why it doesn’t apply to the vast majority of tenancies in British Columbia, which are month to month. I don’t understand why this would only apply to those with fixed terms. Now, I understand the penalty wouldn’t be as great for those escaping a month-to-month tenancy, because they would have to issue two months’ notice and so forth. However, that is still a penalty, which, if you’re low income, if you don’t have any money….

Maybe the person you live with has provided most of the income through your life. You’re a renter, and all of a sudden…. Or perhaps, as is often the case, unfortunately, you’ve been abused for so long and you try to escape it, and your partner decides to try and stick you with a two-month rent bill or a penalty because you weren’t able to pay the rent because you had to escape out into the streets, often, into a shelter, and so on, with no income. This bill doesn’t fix that. This bill continues to leave that problem in place. Hopefully, the minister will address that in the committee stage — why he decided to make that choice.

It also doesn’t necessarily help folks who have roommates. In my community and in many communities now, folks are starting to have roommates live with them, in two bedrooms, one bedroom and, in some cases, bachelor suites, to try to deal with the unaffordability of the rent. In some cases, those people get violent.

In a fixed-term tenancy situation, my question is: what happens to those people, the ones who are being attacked and abused by their roommate, by somebody who shares their home with them who is not family but is somebody that shares the home with them? Are they expected to pay the penalty?

It could be thousands upon thousands of dollars of rent to get out of a situation where their roommate is abusive, because this bill continues to allow that practice, continues to allow those people to be stuck in tough situations, situations that none of us would ever, ever hope to be in. But unfortunately, as we know, many of us could face that situation in this province, depending on how the odds go, how the dice roll. Again, there’s no fix to that.

[1400]

While this will help a minority of renters in that situation, in fixed-term tenancies, it doesn’t help those who are not and who are, in the majority of situations, which is a month-to-month tenancy.

Now, just to stay on the theme of fixed-term tenancies, that’s the other thing this bill does not do and that the minister so far has dismissed as not being of any need. It doesn’t deal with the challenge of a fixed-term tenancy, where you might live and have signed a tenancy, as constituents of mine do. They sign it because — with the housing market the way it is, with vacancy rates at near-record lows, with no housing, effectively, for many of them to go to — they’re told by their landlord: “Here, this is a tenancy agreement. Sign it today. Yes, yes, I know it says it’s a year-long tenancy, but don’t worry. After that you can continue to stay here. It’s just a formality. Sign here now.”

Well, when you have a lineup of people behind you waiting for that very same suite and you’ve looked at apartment after apartment or house after house, often people will make that choice. They’ll say: “Well, I’d rather have a tenancy which continues into a month-to-month tenancy.” Many people don’t understand the difference, even, between that kind of tenancy and a fixed term. They’ll sign.

In my community of Vancouver–West End, we’ve had constituents who’ve been told by landlords — who very clearly said you can continue in month-to-month despite this saying that it’s a year-long lease: “Well, you know what? You can continue, but your rent is going to have to go up 50 percent. Sign here today, and then we’ll negotiate in another year. Don’t worry about that.”

Or: “Sign here today, and it’ll become a month-to-month tenancy. Yes, your rent will go up. Okay, okay. I’m a nice landlord. I’m only going to increase it 30 percent. Oh, you don’t like that? Okay, 20 percent. How’s that for a deal?” You’ve lived in the community, you have a home, and that’s what you’re faced with.

When I raised this with the Minister for Housing, he said, “Well, tough,” basically. “Too bad for those people. They signed something. Tough, tough for them.” Now, I should say fixed-term tenancies can have a role, do have a role — in a home, for example, that is not going to be available after a year. Maybe your grandmother is going to move into it after a year, and you’re clear with the person. A fixed-term tenancy can work. They understand the terms, and that’s okay.

But this is not supposed to be abused by a few bad apples — that’s the minister’s term for landlords who
[ Page 10104 ]
break the rules, “bad apples” — who then say: “We’ll jack the rent up again.” No, my belief in the spirit of the law is that if you try that, if you come to your tenant and say, “Well, you continue on, but you need to pay a 20 percent rent increase now, just because” — or 50 percent, or what have you — that should disqualify that fixed-term tenancy, and it should become a month-to-month tenancy.

That’s how I understood that the law was supposed to work. It wasn’t supposed to be used as a way to get around the yearly allowable rent increase. No, this was supposed to be about security of tenure and understanding that people don’t often — unless, I suppose, they’re a deputy minister in this government — get 20, 30, 40 or 50 percent wage increases. No, often they don’t get wage increases at all. In fact, for many of my constituents, their wages have been flat, if not declining in real terms.

So this minister, and this Liberal government, ignore the plight of those people — those facing massive rent hikes, dislocation and eviction, essentially, from their communities — ignores the affordability concerns of people renting in this province and ignores the challenge that is currently in fixed-term tenancies.

That’s not it; that’s not all, of course. Many of these things, of course, relate to homelessness, because if you lose your home and if you’re given a big debt bill because of the fact that you pay on a month-to-month and you might be escaping a partner or escaping a roommate who is abusive, you often end up on the street.

I’ve met those people. I’ve met them in the woods at Stanley Park. I’ve met them on the front steps of the 7-Eleven and up and down Denman, Davie, Robson Street, sometimes struggling with mental illness because they’ve been on the street so long, sometimes because they’ve had to escape horrible situations. No, this bill doesn’t address those concerns. It also doesn’t address the continuing affordability concerns which drive people to homelessness.

You can’t end homelessness if you don’t deal with the causes of homelessness. You can’t end homelessness unless we invest in affordable housing — something, again, that is a real challenge for this province.

[1405]

What else do we need to fix here? We’ve had one change to the Residential Tenancy Act here, despite the fact that we’ve been advocating for years. It’s been over seven years now. I’ve been in this House asking the minister to finally act for renters, to finally act for those people who are facing evictions, illegal rent hikes, massive rent hikes, real problems in their families, and the minister does nothing. He’s made one change here.

What else does he need to change if he’s truly interested in dealing with problems facing British Columbians — a massive number who rent? Well, he needs to deal with the abuse of the Residential Tenancy Act, whereby people — not just renters, not just landlords, but they both do it — abuse the law. They tie up the residential tenancy system again and again — something, I might add, we all pay for through our taxes.

There’s no attempt by this government to crack down on those people who abuse the law — none. I’ve looked it up. The minister stood in this House, slightly before I joined this place, and said: “We’re going to crack down on bad apples. Those people that break the law — they’re going to pay the price. We’re going to make sure that those people who break the Residential Tenancy Act actually have to pay.”

So they introduced what they called administrative penalties. You know how many times those have actually been used, hon. Speaker, in this province? Once. And what was the case? Well, it was out in Surrey, I believe. Yes, the hon. member for Surrey-Whalley acknowledges that and of course has been an advocate for those people.

Well, what did they do? That landlord let the suites, let the apartment fall into such disrepair that it was a danger to human life. What did the government do? They said, “Well, you need to fix the building,” after a tenant fought each and every step to try and get the government to acknowledge this. They said: “Yeah, yeah. Landlord, you need to fix the building. We’re going to give you a big penalty — hundreds of thousands of dollars you’re going to have to pay because you broke the law. You put people’s lives at risk.”

It sounded good. I thought, my goodness, they’re going to start to use the law. They’re going to finally stand up for renters. But then what happened? They said: “Oh, all is forgiven. You don’t need to pay those penalties because, you know, you’re going to try and actually start to follow the law, and you’re going to clean up your building.”

Well, the law said he had to maintain a building, keep it safe, keep it habitable, look out for human health. Would we ever accept this any other place? Would we say: “Well, you created a massive, massive risk to human life. You’ve made people sick. You did all these kinds of things. Oh, you’re sorry? You promise to not do it again, and you’re going to just kind of fix it over there? Oh well. All is forgiven.”

We wouldn’t accept that, yet this is what the Liberal government expects tenants to accept. It’s a shame, and it’s not how we should treat British Columbians. Landlords want action. Tenants want action. The staff in the ministry want action.

You know the other side to that coin, hon. Speaker? What should be in this legislation and should have action from this government is, again, those people that pick on small landlords, those that might own a unit or two. They’re not big landlords with big lawyers. They don’t have all the money in the world. No, these are small mom-and-pops — if there’s another name for it, I’m not sure — small landlords. Maybe there’s somebody who’s decided: “I know how to game the system. I’m going to not pay them rent. I’m going to damage the suite, and then I’m going to skip town. Then I’ll go to somebody
[ Page 10105 ]
else and do it again and do it again.”

I hear from those small landlords, and they want action too. They say they do this because they believe that people should have housing. They do this because they make some income from it. But for them, the abuse of the system by a few people makes them want to stop providing housing and further minimizes the kind of stock of housing that we have in this province.

Does the government act on that? Do they use administrative penalties to try and stop people from gaming the system, costing landlords tens of thousands of dollars, costing taxpayers tens of thousands of dollars? No, they don’t. Again, they’ve never actually collected a dime from somebody using the fine penalties and administrative penalties, again showing that they like to talk tough about those bad apples but when a bad apple is in the bunch, making the whole other thing stink and rot: “Oh, well. I’ll just spray some perfume in the air and hope nobody notices the smell.”

That’s what they do around housing in this province, and it’s a real, real shame. It hurts our economy, it hurts our community, and it means that we have less resources to dedicate to helping solve some of the big social challenges of our time.

[1410]

Other issues. Of course, you’ll have heard me in this House numerous times talking about things like renovictions, where people pretend that they need to renovate a suite, but, really, what they want to do is evict the person, put on a coat of paint and then jack the rent. In some cases, it’s somebody who’s lived in the suite for 25 years.

I can think of constituents of mine who have lived in their home for 35 years — good tenants, always paid their rent, always followed the rules. A new person buys the building and decides: “We need to get them out.” Why? Not because the building is not making money. It’s a profitable asset. No, simply because they want to make more.

They don’t think about the social cost of that person losing their home. No. They try all sorts of means to evict them and to bully them out of their home, often abusing the law. Unless those people have an advocate, unless they know the law, which often they don’t, they either move and lose their community or they get evicted and don’t know what to do. In many cases, I’ve seen them end up in long-term care, in hospital — again, a cost we all bear because this government won’t enforce the law. They won’t ensure that those people have security in their homes.

This is the Liberal government’s record on housing. This is their record of a complete lack of care for the people who are facing these situations.

What you could do is you could be very clear in the law about what is an acceptable renovation, an acceptable way for somebody to have to leave their home. Ensure that there are provisions that they can get into another home or that there’s some sort of a support for them so that — they may have been paying this much, and the market rate has gone up to this much in their community — they don’t lose their entire sense of community and their entire home.

There are all sorts of ways that we could help landlords and tenants ensure that they can both thrive in this province. This government sits on its hands, looks the other way, sprays perfume in the air to hide the stench of their lack of action and the pain and challenges facing renters in this province.

We’ve talked about right of first refusal. We’ve talked about renovictions. We’ve talked about enforcing the law. We’ve talked about changes to the law required to stop the abuse of the law, to help people facing violence in their homes in month-to-month tenancies, which this government has not done with this act. People who are not focused on by a family member but by a roommate — again, something that I think needs to be addressed.

This could be a win-win for everybody. This doesn’t have to be a partisan debate. It becomes one because one side of the House is not interested in ensuring renters and landlords have a great chance of success together. They simply don’t focus on it, aren’t interested in it, don’t want to fix the law so that it really works.

I don’t understand it. I hear from Liberal voters. I hear from Conservative voters, Green Party voters, New Democrat voters, independents — all thinking that this is something any government would want to address so we are not losing tax money on endless residential tenancy hearings which go nowhere and which then have to go to the courts and on and on.

They don’t understand why this government likes to waste that kind of money. They don’t understand why this government likes to allow tenants to, in a sense, be abused because they don’t support enforcement of the law. They don’t understand why this government likes to let small landlords lose tens of thousands of dollars because, again, they won’t enforce the administrative penalties in the law.

I don’t understand it. It’s not acceptable. It’s not how this government should be treating people. It’s not how we as a society should be treating people. Renters and landlords deserve better. My constituents deserve better. Eighty percent are renters. Most of them have good landlords. The vast majority treat their renters well. Why? Because you can make a good, steady income.

They’re good business people. They understand it’s better to have a long-term tenant who treats your building well rather than a revolving door because you just keep trying to kick people out to jack the rents and then flip the property to make more money. They have a belief that housing is both a job, providing that housing, but also a community effort. They do things like ensuring tenants who maybe are a little bit late on their rent because they lost their jobs can actually stay in their homes. They find a way to make it work.

Most landlords do that. For those who break the law,
[ Page 10106 ]
who abuse the law, continually and continually, we need to act. I don’t know what it’ll take. Maybe a change in government. I hope that it happens sooner than that.

[1415]

I think, fundamentally, that this is about helping people. It shouldn’t be just about one party winning and one party losing. It should be about helping people together. That’s what we were sent here to do, and that’s what I hoped this bill would do to greater effect, rather than just the small part it has connected to, which, I should say, is important, but small. Very specific.

That’s what I would like to see in this Legislature — some government that would actually take care, listen to the people who have been crying out for help for years, rather than dismissing them while pretending to act.

D. Plecas: On behalf of my constituents in Abbotsford South, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill 40, the Natural Gas Development Statutes Amendment Act.

This bill will affect three different provincial statutes. The first of those is the Petroleum and Natural Gas Act. The amendments in this bill will put the foundation in place to allow for carbon-capture-and-storage projects to move forward in B.C. Carbon capture and storage is a globally recognized approach to reduce carbon dioxide that would normally be released into the atmosphere.

This act will allow carbon capture and storage as a permanent solution for disposing of carbon dioxide. These amendments will ensure that these projects are safe, environmentally responsible and aligned with internationally accepted best practices.

In particular, this legislation will add rights management to the Petroleum and Natural Gas Act and allow underground reservoirs to be used for carbon dioxide storage. Allowing industry to move forward with carbon-capture-and-storage projects means we will reduce greenhouse gas emissions because carbon dioxide will not be released into the atmosphere.

This legislation is the first step to putting concrete regulations in place — again, to allow carbon-capture-and-storage projects to move forward in the province. As well, completing these regulations is part of the government’s ten-year natural gas strategy.

The second statute this bill affects is the Oil and Gas Activities Act. With these amendments, we are strengthening the Oil and Gas Commission’s authority in multiple areas. It will provide the authority for the B.C. Oil and Gas Commission to authorize work needed to determine the location and feasibility of well sites, pipeline routes and other oil and gas activities.

These amendments will streamline regulations in preparation for more large-scale projects moving forward. These projects may include construction and operation of pipelines and liquefied natural gas facilities. The amendments will also provide the B.C. Oil and Gas Commission with the authority to regulate carbon-capture-and-storage projects.

The third statute in this act, importantly, will be the amending of the Residential Tenancy Act and the Strata Property Act. These amendments will support the personal safety and health care needs of people with fixed-tenancy agreements. We are doing this by allowing people to end their leases early if they are fleeing family violence or if they’ve been accepted into a long-term-care facility.

This change supports our commitment to a violence-free British Columbia and also supports our vulnerable seniors. As Parliamentary Secretary for Seniors, I have spent time travelling around the province, speaking to people and listening to their concerns. One of the main things that I hear is that seniors value their independence. They want to stay at home as long as possible. We want to make sure that proper supports are in place so that can happen.

While it is a priority to enable seniors to stay healthier and in their homes longer, it is important to have a mechanism in place to support seniors as they transition to long-term care. A long-term-care facility is one that provides continuous care to a person who can’t live independently. This includes community care facilities, continuing-care facilities, private hospitals and extended care areas in hospitals.

[1420]

Assisted living is not included, because these amendments are for people who are no longer able to live independently due to their care needs. Seniors who choose to live in assisted-living residences are often still able to live independently.

These proposed changes will allow for the early end of a fixed-term tenancy or a lease by a tenant who has been accepted into a long-term-care facility. Currently, if a tenant leaves a lease early, they may face a financial penalty. We want to change that. That is exactly what this bill does.

We are also ensuring that landlords receive proper notification. Tenants will need to give their landlord one month’s notice along with a written form completed by a third-party verifier, confirming that there are grounds to end a tenancy. This third-party verifier will determine the safety or the health needs for the tenancy to end early.

We’ve consulted extensively with landlord and tenant associations, legal advocates, and anti-violence and victim-serving organizations. Clearly, this bill provides a number of amendments that are making life better for British Columbians.

V. Huntington: I want to thank the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head for permitting me to switch our spaces in the lineup. I’m pleased to add my comments to debate on Bill 40, the Natural Gas Development Statutes Amendment Act, 2015.

Given the nature of this particular ministry, we are faced with a strange animal. Natural gas and housing are not natural roommates, and what we have here is more in
[ Page 10107 ]
the nature of an omnibus bill. Bill 40 contains everything from carbon capture and exploration for carbon storage opportunities to residential tenancy and strata corporations — a mixed bag, if ever there was one.

There are some important changes in the bill, some good and some that are a cause for concern. While a very good briefing from ministry staff provided answers to a number of my questions, there are a few that remain outstanding.

One of my concerns lies with the amendments to section 30 of the Residential Tenancy Act. These amendments give landlords the option of repaying deposits by electronic means. The section being added here simply says that a landlord may repay a deposit “by using any form of electronic (i) payment to the tenant, or (ii) transfer of funds to the tenant.”

I realize the intent is simply to recognize that the world has moved on and that much of society does its financial business electronically. The intent of the amendment is clearly an effort to make things easier for both landlord and tenant. The problem is that the section also raised a number of flags for my research officer, who, quite properly, became concerned not only about individuals who might be marginalized but also about those people who may not have access to electronic communication. If you don’t have Internet access, you cannot receive an e-transfer. And if you don’t have a bank account, receiving the electronic transfer is impossible.

The ministry staff were categorical that would never be the case, stating that the Residential Tenancy Act requires the tenant receive a deposit repayment regardless whether it’s a cheque or an e-transfer. The problem is that that confident language doesn’t appear in these amendments. I therefore assume it is covered elsewhere in the act and trust that the minister will explain at committee stage just how that requirement is communicated to landlords.

Similarly, I recognize the amendments are attempting to formalize what is likely a present informal practice. The problem is that there appears to be no criteria for how these direct deposits or e-transfer repayments will take place. Given the stringent requirements for serving other types of documents, including cheques, that we find in section 88 of the act, the amended informal apparent obligation to repay electronically may not be sufficient.

The amendment uncovers yet another issue that may be related to e-transfers. It is an issue of equity and opportunity. A cheque is valid for up to six months. Most e-transfers are valid for up to 30 days. That is a significant difference that can strongly work to the disadvantage of a tenant receiving an e-transfer. What if that individual is unable, for some reason, to cash the e-transfer within 30 days? What is their recourse if they missed their opportunity to cash that deposit? Is there any good reason to deny them the same grace period available to tenants who receive a cheque? Is it even legal to deny them the same opportunity?

[1425]

It is my opinion that the government ought to consider amendments or regulations that would ensure tenants have six months from the date they receive the e-transfer to actually cash that financial instrument.

Perhaps we need a discussion about a number of other issues. When, for example, will an e-transfer be considered received or repaid? Have landlords fulfilled their duty after an e-transfer is e-mailed, or does it need to be received by the tenant, or does it need to be cashed? How do we deal with code words that are often associated with e-transfers? The legislation is vague in these areas, and I look forward to the minister’s answers to these questions as we explore the act in committee.

The above concerns stated, I must add that I am supportive of the remaining amendments to the Residential Tenancy Act. Enabling individuals fleeing domestic violence to cancel a fixed-term rental agreement is a compassionate and supportive change to the legislation. Similarly, for those individuals entering long-term care, the changes are equally reasonable and supportable. These amendments have long been advocated by tenant groups, and I’m pleased to see that the government has acted upon those recommendations.

One question I will ask during committee is how the government intends to communicate these new provisions to not only tenants who may fall into these categories but also to all those workers and landlords who may be involved in the care or security of the individuals in question.

Additionally, many tenants are unaware of the current rights under the Residential Tenancy Act, and it is quite likely that individuals caught up in a domestic dispute will have no idea that they may be able to exit a fixed-term agreement without financial penalty. Hopefully, the government has considered the need for a communication plan following the adoption of the bill.

I also support the changes to the strata winding-up resolutions, and I am encouraged by the fact that there are protections for minority or dissenting owners. I would have preferred a less extensive appeal process than an application to the court, and I’m curious whether government has considered extending this function to the impatiently awaited civil resolution tribunal. Certainly, that is what strata owners desperately awaiting the launch of the tribunal will be thinking.

Now with regard to the resource section components of this bill, all I can say is that this ever-growing regime surrounding natural gas development in this province is an insatiable beast. I continue to be concerned about the inherent conflicts of interest that are part and parcel of the Oil and Gas Commission permitting and enforcement arm. It has been my long-held opinion that no organization should have both permitting and the enforcement of those permits in a single entity.

When one talks to the individuals involved, they seem
[ Page 10108 ]
absolutely unable to see the conflict, which is a common response whenever and wherever this issue arises. People do not see that their activities can appear to be in conflict. People do not understand that perceptions of conflict are important and can apply to them personally. Human beings are funny things. We never see ourselves as we see others. It isn’t the fact that you will act in a conflicted manner, it is the fact that you can act in a conflicted manner. The two authorities should be separate and distinct.

Regardless, carbon capture and storage seems to be an important method of helping to mitigate the impact of the significant emissions generated by a growing industry. Time will tell whether we do harm or not.

The growth of emissions that are anticipated in the processing of LNG are matched by the anticipated growth in upstream emissions from the production sector serving the processors. In 2013, the industry emitted more than 15 percent of all greenhouse gas emissions in this province. Venting CO₂ from natural gas–processing plants and wells made up almost a full quarter of that sector’s emissions.

These upstream emissions need to be addressed as responsibly and safely and permanently as possible. I just hope the science supports the long-term carbon storage option that industry seems to see as it’s saviour.

I look forward to hearing additional details on Bill 40 during committee. With that comment, I conclude my remarks on the Natural Gas Development Statutes Amendment Act, 2015.

M. Morris: Before I start reading from my notes here, I just have to comment on a couple of comments made by the member for Delta South. I’ve also heard it from members opposite throughout the initial part of our discussion here.

[1430]

The member for Delta South described this bill as a strange animal, with natural gas and housing. She doesn’t see where the connection is. I heard similar comments from the members opposite.

I just want to go over where that connection is. When the people in the east end of Vancouver, the people in Surrey, the people in greater Vancouver get up in the morning and they turn their thermostats on so that they can stay nice and warm and cozy in their homes, that gas is coming from northeast B.C. So natural gas and housing have a permanent connection in this province.

[R. Lee in the chair.]

The member for Delta South also comments about the GHG emissions in northeast B.C. and the fact that they account for 15 percent — I think I got it right there — of the total emissions in the province. A lot of the other emissions come from the urban centre of British Columbia down here.

We’re doing our best to try and electrify urban B.C. with Site C, the W.A.C. Bennett dam and some of the other clean energy generators that we have across the province to try and make housing a lot more comfortable and a lot more affordable for people living in the urban part of the Lower Mainland here. If we have to generate a little bit of GHG up in the north in order to make life great for the people down in urban B.C. here, then I guess we’re going to have to do that.

B.C. has a rich abundance of natural resources, including natural gas. Our government manages industry’s access to natural gas on behalf of British Columbians. We collect a portion of revenues from the natural gas, known as royalty payments, and use them to fund the vital programs that we have, right across the province, in health care, education, infrastructure developments — like our transportation systems, like our bridges, like our ferry system, like many other infrastructure programs that we have down here.

Let me address the carbon-capture-and-storage provisions of this bill. We’re pursuing natural gas development with the environment in mind — not just the environment in British Columbia and Canada and North America, but the environment worldwide. Carbon capture and storage is a globally recognized approach to reduce carbon dioxide, which would normally be released into the atmosphere. Once injected into the ground, however, the CO₂ remains permanently trapped in deep rock, effectively reducing global greenhouse gas emissions.

Completing the regulations is part of the government of British Columbia’s ten-year natural gas strategy. This bill will amend the Petroleum and Natural Gas Act to allow carbon capture and storage as a permanent solution for disposing of carbon dioxide in British Columbia. Amendments will ensure that the carbon capture projects are safe, environmentally responsible and align with internationally acceptable best practices.

This practice will reduce greenhouse gas emissions because the CO₂ is not released into the atmosphere. Instead, industry will be able to remove the CO₂ from industrial sources, like raw natural gas, and inject these emissions safely and permanently underground in the rock formations. The Petroleum and Natural Gas Act governs the issuance and administration of natural gas and oil subsurface resources in British Columbia, including underground storage reservoirs. This act will allow carbon capture and storage as a permanent solution for disposing of carbon dioxide in British Columbia.

The Petroleum and Natural Gas Act already allows for underground storage, by the way. But we need strong regulations in place to ensure that carbon capture is conducted with the highest standards possible and in order to remain a leader in safe, responsible natural gas operations and environmental oversight. New regulations and more amendments will be made in the future to address site selection, monitoring, long-term stewardship and lia-
[ Page 10109 ]
bility. Clear regulations will provide certainty for industry and will allow projects to move forward.

The amendments that we are introducing address regulations for carbon capture only. They do not address commercial or market factors, including the crediting, offsetting or verification of emission reductions. We’ll need to have discussions with industry and look for opportunities to eventually require industry to conduct carbon-capture-and-storage operations.

[1435]

There are no carbon-capture-and-storage projects in British Columbia yet. However, B.C. has a long history of safely storing natural gas and its by-products deep underground. Our government supported the Fort Nelson carbon capture project by Spectra as a feasibility study to advance CCS research in B.C. and gather technical data. Initial research was successful and indicated that storage reservoirs are present in the area. This natural gas processing facility remains in operation, but a decision about the next phase of this storage project has yet to be made.

CO₂ content in gas is currently separated from the natural gas and vented into the atmosphere. CCS is an effective way to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions that are released. Consultations are ongoing and include First Nations and significant parties representing natural gas and oil producers in British Columbia, including the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers and the B.C. LNG Alliance.

We’re putting the foundation in place to allow carbon-capture-and-storage projects to move forward. Carbon capture and storage is a permanent solution for disposing of carbon dioxide. These amendments will ensure that these projects are safe, environmentally responsible and align with internationally accepted best practices.

Let’s talk about the Oil and Gas Activities Act. I had the opportunity as a stakeholder, several years ago, to participate in the development of that particular statute. It was implemented in October of 2010. The Oil and Gas Activities Act is a modernized regulatory framework for B.C.’s oil and gas sector. Amendments are being introduced to provide the Oil and Gas Commission with the authority to regulate CCS projects in British Columbia, including oversight for all exploration, storage and monitoring activities.

The Oil and Gas Activities Act is a modernized regulatory framework for B.C.’s oil and gas sector. It was implemented in October 2010. The Oil and Gas Activities Act amendments will improve British Columbia’s rules and regulations for oil and gas activities, including providing authority for the B.C. Oil and Gas Commission to authorize work needed to determine the location and feasibility of well sites, pipeline routes or other oil and gas activities. Notification protocols are being updated to remove impractical requirements such as alerting landowners living kilometres away from small work activities like maintenance on a pipeline. Statutory immunity provisions will be clearly defined so the Oil and Gas Commission and the provincial government are the agencies responsible for the decisions made by individuals under the Oil and Gas Activities Act.

Regulations to improve the transparency of oil and gas activities throughout the province will be implemented as well.

These amendments strengthen industrial oversight and preparation of more large-scale projects moving forward, such as the construction and operation of pipelines and liquefied natural gas facilities. Amendments are also being introduced to provide the Oil and Gas Commission with the authority to regulate carbon captured storage projects in British Columbia, including oversight for all exploration, storage and monitoring activities.

Oil and gas activities in British Columbia are very safe. We have strict regulations in place, and our track record speaks for itself. This amendment does not impede safety or decrease legal scrutiny. It merely provides clarification that agencies are responsible for the decisions made under the Oil and Gas Activities Act, not individual people. Decision-makers at the Oil and Gas Commission are being asked to make assessments on projects worth billions of dollars. The statutory immunity provisions introduced protect the Oil and Gas Commission decision-makers from being personally named in lawsuits related to the decisions they will make. However, the Oil and Gas Commission and our government are still responsible. Accountability is very much still detailed in law, and if something goes wrong, legal actions would be carried out.

With respect to improving transparency, new enabling regulations will also improve the transparency of oil and gas activities across our province. British Columbia’s oil and natural gas sector is growing. Growth is increasing public attention. The public is interested to see that industries increase their transparency. This amendment enables regulations to increase public disclosure. For example, parts of permit applications made to the Oil and Gas Commission by industry could be made public. The actual means of public disclosure has yet to be determined but will likely include uploading details about work permits, both requested and approved.

I’m going to talk a little bit about the Residential Tenancy Act. It’s connected by that steel pipe that brings the natural gas down from northeast B.C. to the housing that we have in urban B.C.

[1440]

Our government is introducing legislative changes to support tenants fleeing family violence and those entering long-term care. The legislation will also reduce red tape for landlords and tenants and make it easier for members to terminate a strata corporation.

Proposed changes to the Residential Tenancy Act will allow for the early end of a fixed-term tenancy, commonly known as a lease, by a tenant who is fleeing family
[ Page 10110 ]
violence or who has been accepted into long-term-care facilities. This supports our government’s commitment to a violence-free B.C. and will assist seniors dealing with health issues.

Currently if a tenant ends a lease early, they may face a financial penalty. We want to change that so our tenancy laws support individuals experiencing or at risk of family violence and those requiring long-term care. Prior to this amendment, the tenant may be liable for the balance of the rent for the remainder of the lease and for other costs incurred by the landlord to re-rent the unit. The landlord, in turn, has the duty to mitigate their loss by making a reasonable effort to re-rent the unit.

Tenants will need to give their landlord one month’s written notice along with a written form completed by a third-party verifier confirming there are grounds to end the tenancy. The tenant must get verification from an eligible professional third party, who will determine the safety or health needs for the tenancy to end early. They’ll be professionals who have experience assessing safety and risk with regard to family violence or the need for long-term care. Eligible third-party verifiers will be identified in the regulations.

Third-party verifiers will likely include victim services workers, justice system professionals and health care professionals. They will be professionals who have experience assessing safety and risk with regard to family violence or the need for long-term care. The landlord will only be able to dispute the tenant’s notice to end tenancy on procedural grounds. If a landlord believes the third-party verifier is not one identified in the regulations or if the tenant didn’t follow the correct process for ending tenancy, there may be grounds for dispute.

We’ve consulted extensively with landlord and tenant associations, legal advocates and anti-violence and victim-serving organizations. We’ve also spoken to health authorities and other ministries. As we develop the regulations, we will continue to work with stakeholders.

In closing, these amendments will enable us to continue to pursue natural gas development in a responsible manner, ensuring the provincial regulator, the Oil and Gas Commission, will keep operations safe and that the best modern practices are in place for carbon capture and storage. This is part of our long-term vision to grow our economy and make life better for all British Columbians. I encourage members on both sides of the House to join me in supporting this bill.

B. Ralston: I know some of my colleagues have referred to the hybrid nature of this bill. Although I don’t want to disagree with my colleagues, and each part of the legislation should stand on its merits, I think we all understand that this reflects the particular preoccupations of this minister, somewhat like a former minister federally, Jason Kenney, who had the Ministries of Defence and Multiculturalism because of his keen interest in the area of multiculturalism. That part of his portfolio followed him wherever he went.

I know the minister, although he’s responsible for natural gas, has an ongoing interest in housing, and that has followed him. Now, that’s not to excuse the failures or the successes of his activities in that area. But I think it is an explanation for the hybrid nature of his responsibilities. He has pursued those over many years on behalf of the government, and I think that footnote is at least required to be stated here in the Legislature.

Now, I do want to speak about the first part of the bill, the amendments to carbon capture and storage and the Oil and Gas Activities Act. Carbon capture and storage is an idea and a technique that has been pursued and is being pursued in many jurisdictions. The reference has been made here to Spectra Energy, which is an established pipeline company here in British Columbia. From 2008 until 2013, they had a major project that was investigating the possibilities of carbon capture and storage.

[1445]

They were funded by the government of Canada, by the government of British Columbia and, indeed, also by the U.S. Department of Energy. Such is the interest in what may come of that technique.

The technique was to sequester, in deep saline-filled reservoirs, CO₂ rather than vent it into the atmosphere. There are concerns, and the technique is not refined. I don’t think it’s a settled technique in the sense that although CO₂ may be sequestered, the issue then becomes: how stable is it within that particular location? Will it migrate? What are the long-term consequences of sequestering in saline reservoirs and other parts deep underground?

Years ago the Leader of the Opposition and myself toured a Spectra Energy operation where they’d taken an old and depleted natural gas well and had injected CO₂ into that well as part of this project. It is a technique that’s being advanced. This is a regulatory step that may make this particular technique more responsive to regulation. But I would say that it’s an emerging technology rather than a completely developed one. Insofar as the regulation or the proposed change in legislation goes, I’m supportive of it.

What the other significant part of the bill…. In terms of the amendment to the Oil and Gas Activities Act, it creates a definition of what’s called an authorization holder, and the definition is fairly straightforward in section 1. It’s “a person who holds an authorization and is not a permit holder.”

Now, in the present Oil and Gas Activities Act, there’s a definition of “authorization” which says it’s “an authorization under a specified enactment to carry out a related activity, and includes the conditions, if any, imposed on the authorization….” And a “related activity” is a defined term within the act, which would appear from the definition to be activity ancillary or supplementary to the
[ Page 10111 ]
main oil and gas activity.

It’s not entirely clear from the definition, because the definition, as is so often the case with definitions in a statute, is very broad and expansive and will require, I think, some examples to give a better sense of what is intended by the drafters and, indeed, by the minister in bringing forward this legislation.

There are a number of consequential amendments which deal with the issue of an authorization holder. It’s, again, distinguished from a permit holder. What is not clear from the way in which the proposed amendments are framed is: will the process by which an authorization is issued be similar to the process by which a permit is issued? The permit is issued under very specific conditions by the Oil and Gas Commission and typically has a number of regulatory requirements attached to the permit that the holder is obliged to carry out.

It’s not entirely clear from the way in which this is framed that the authorization that would be granted under these amended provisions would be equally rigorous. So if some ancillary activities are considered to be less consequential in terms of their environmental impact or their impact upon landowners, would the process that’s contemplated here be an abbreviated one, a less detailed one? If that is the case, the rationale for that, of the protection for landowners and for the environment, would, I think, be a legitimate question that will have to be answered and pursued at the committee stage.

[1450]

That is the concern here about that particular choice of language that is proposed in terms of creating this category of authorization holders as distinct from permit holders. It’s outlined, I believe, in section 6 of the bill.

Let me just refer to it, if I might. In addition, it gives the…. Section 6 amends section 25(1.1) and gives a broader power for the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, which is the cabinet, to create regulations, again to ease or expedite or facilitate the issuance of authorizations. Again the same caution and the same question arises, given the change in definition, the addition of this separate category, the addition of regulatory powers that aren’t in the legislation. Simply, what is intended, and what activities is this intended to apply to?

Those are questions that will have to be pursued. I raise them as a question at this stage simply so the minister’s staff is aware of that when they read the transcript and come to committee stage prepared to answer those questions.

The member for Prince George–Mackenzie and other members opposite have referred to the change in notice provisions — it’s an amendment to section 31 — as doing away what they referred to, I think universally, as impractical notices.

The issuance of a permit requires notice to the landowner of the proposed activity because the landowner doesn’t own the subsurface rights, and there is, obviously, oil and gas activity on land. That sometimes has huge impact, particularly on farming activity, ranching activity, First Nations claims or traplines, or other forms of use of the land. Oil and gas activity does have a huge impact.

Now, what is proposed here is…. The section is amended, and there’s a subsection, and it doesn’t say what the members opposite have said. They’ve all referred to impractical notice. The proposed amendment is much more broadly drawn. Let me just read it, simply because I think it’s the easiest way to capture what is being proposed here.

“The commission may exempt a person or a class of persons from the requirement to provide notice under subsection (1) to a land owner or a class of land owners if the commission is satisfied that (a) the activity respecting the proposed amendment would not be carried out on the land of the land owner or class of land owners, and (b) the proposed amendment would not change the effect of the permit on the land…or class of land owners.”

It would appear to give power to relieve permit holders or authorization holders of the obligation to give notice to landowners who are adjacent to the landowner that’s directly affected. One can well imagine that those immediately adjacent to oil and gas activity would want notice, depending on the nature of the notice.

Now, the example that’s given here by members opposite is maintenance of an existing pipeline. I don’t think that that would be objectionable. Perhaps that is why that example is chosen. But the section itself is framed more much broadly and gives the power to make much broader exemptions. Generally, people who own land and are going to be subject to oil and gas activity are welcome, indeed require and I would think expect — it would be right to expect — notice of what is taking place not only on land that they directly own but land that is directly adjacent to land they own and that may well impact the ability of their use of the land or their future use of the land that they own.

[1455]

This section, although it’s somewhat dismissively put by members opposite as eliminating impractical notice, I would say may well have bigger consequences than are being expressed in that somewhat dismissive explanation of what is taking place.

Those are, I think, the two principal points that I wanted to make in relation to amendments to this particular act. In terms of the tenancy and the housing aspects, I adopt the speeches that have been given by the member for Vancouver–Point Grey and the member for Vancouver–West End. My own riding of Surrey-Whalley has a number of tenants, not necessarily tenants living in luxury condos but working people who are struggling to make ends meet, in some cases, and need affordable housing.

One also hears, in my constituency office, as the member for Vancouver–West End spoke of, of the problems of small landlords — typically people who own a house and have a suite that they rent out. There is a category of tenant that sometimes poses intense difficulty to small
[ Page 10112 ]
landlords who are not necessarily very sophisticated in dealing with landlord-tenant relations.

There’s a very small category of tenants who are quite adept at staying in a location and not paying for somewhat longer than one might expect. In order to activate the processes, the small landlord is often without income that they regard as necessary — sometimes to help pay the mortgage of the principal residence that they own.

Now, years ago there was a landlord and tenant office in Surrey — Surrey being the second-biggest city in the province. And there was a landlord and tenant office in Vancouver, being the largest city in the province. The government saw fit to close both those offices, consolidate an office in Burnaby and then switch service delivery to electronic and telephone hearings. One understands the wish to streamline service delivery to save cost, and I appreciate that service delivery doesn’t stand still.

I’m not saying there’s only one way to deliver effective service. But the consequence for many small landlords and for tenants with difficulties with landlords…. Certainly, ACORN, as an organization, is very active in north Surrey. There are a number of lower-income tenants who live in, I think it would be fair to say, substandard conditions that persist as a result of the neglect and the indifference of their landlords.

Those particular categories of people would benefit from a kind of service delivery that’s a little bit easier to access than simply getting on the phone or on the computer to file a dispute. That is sometimes a source of frustration. The office is overburdened, and the waiting period for some of the — in the case of small landlords — straightforward evictions for non-payment can be rather lengthy due to the way in which the office does or, in fact, in this case, doesn’t really serve the public.

One of the key things in dispute resolution — I think most people would agree — is that the speedier the resolution of a dispute, generally, the more efficacious the process is considered to be. The degree to which the delay of landlord and tenant disputes is the result of government policy, the less satisfied people are, the more issues fester and the more difficult it is for both tenants and for landlords.

That’s a general principle of commercial litigation of all kinds. And this is not commercial litigation. This is typically people talking about the most intimate space in their lives — the dwelling house, the apartment, the suite in which they live. The speedy resolution of those kinds of disputes is important.

The member for Vancouver–West End did refer to the single use, the only use, the unprecedented use, of an administrative penalty.

[1500]

It penalized a landlord whose violations of the act, in a relatively small apartment building in my riding in north Surrey, were outrageous, egregious, prolonged, well known and ultimately led to the very reluctant steps — although it’s there in the legislation and has been for some time — of the tribunal to assess an administrative penalty in excess of $100,000 — well-merited and, I think, welcomed by tenants advocates.

I worked with some of the tenants who had fought this particular landlord in the rental tribunal for years — literally for years. They were shocked to discover somewhat later, after the publicity of this administrative penalty had died down, that the administrative penalty was forgiven on condition of repairing the building. The building is still there. The last time I drove by, it does not seem to have been repaired.

So this was basically a gift to this particular landlord or a legal release of the obligation to pay this administrative penalty for — my assessment would be — a dubious value in return from this particular landlord. And it also emboldens other bad landlords. They are the minority, obviously, but it emboldens other bad landlords. If that is the attitude that the government will take…. After all the incredible work and advocacy to persuade the branch to assess an administrative penalty took place, to then turn around and forgive it for nothing in return does not act, in the traditional way that one thinks of penalties and sentencing, as a deterrent of any kind.

Other than that, I support the proposed change to long-term leases and the ability for people, for reasons of their personal circumstances fleeing violence, to be relieved of the obligation of a long-term tenancy. That seems to me to be good sense, and that is, of course, supported here. But there are many other challenges in the rental market that I think could begin to be addressed by a different focus in the service delivery, at least for some of the people that I represent in north Surrey, which is, as I’ve said, after all, the second-biggest city in the province.

With those remarks, I would conclude.

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: I am certainly pleased to address the House today and speak in favour of the legislation of Bill 40, the Natural Gas Development Statutes Amendment Act.

The changes that my honourable colleague has introduced here in the House will do multiple things, including reducing some red tape and giving strata owners more flexibility when their property reaches the end of its life cycle and when the strata members want to redevelop. But more importantly, the other amendments being introduced are the ones that I wish to speak to today, specifically in regards to the Residential Tenancy Act.

These amendments will be helping people who are trying to flee violent relationships, and they will also help seniors who are transitioning into long-term care. Once these changes are enacted, a tenant will have the ability to end their rental agreement to escape from an abusive relationship or, in some instances — in a senior’s instance — to enter into long-term care. This is a very important step, one that will put more control in the hands of indi-
[ Page 10113 ]
viduals during an incredibly stressful time in their lives.

It was during my tenancy as Parliamentary Secretary to Seniors that this issue was brought to my attention by constituents of mine in Parksville and Qualicum who were stuck in leases that they simply could not get out of when they were at a time in their lives when they could no longer care for themselves and it was time to move into residential care.

[1505]

As I mentioned, when somebody is at that point in their life, when their whole life is changing and it’s stressful, the last thing that they should have to worry about is something so seemingly thoughtless as an arrangement of how they can extricate themselves from a tenancy act. They are already in a situation where financial stress is part of their situation as they’re nearing the end-of-life stages. Now they are in a situation where they can’t get out of these residential tenancies to get into a care home.

For me, when I was able to bring these concerns to the Minister of Natural Gas Development and Minister Responsible for Housing, he certainly listened to the very personal stories that I shared with him about my constituents. He has brought forward these changes into the bill, and I am grateful for that.

As well, it has been through my experience and my relationship with the Haven Society, in the Nanaimo and Parksville area — which provides emergency shelter, emotional supports, counselling and advocacy for women who are fleeing abuse — that I also have heard many stories of those women who were fleeing an abusive relationship. Again, at a time when your life could be in danger, you shouldn’t have to worry about having to continue a rental agreement in the very residence that you share with your abuser.

These changes to the Residential Tenancy Act really prove that our government, once again, expresses its commitment to a violence-free B.C. Across government, I can say that there are policies that are in place that are there to protect those who are trying to flee abuse. There are funding supports and spaces and transitional housing and second-stage shelters for women who are leaving an abusive relationship.

We also have many programs that help women in times of crisis. There are supports and services available to those women — such as housing, employment and income assistance — to help them start a new life for themselves, a life where they don’t live in fear.

Specifically, in the Ministry of Social Development and Social Innovation, we certainly make sure that people who are leaving an abusive relationship have access to the programs that we have in our ministry. For example, anyone who is fleeing abuse will have their income assistance application expedited, and they will be contacted within one business day. They will also be exempt from a work search. And where applicable, staff will be able to help ensure that the immediate needs of the individual are met before even the eligibility interview takes place.

In October of 2012, the ministry also removed the citizenship requirement for single-parent families who are fleeing abuse and can’t leave the province because of a child custody situation. That means they’re eligible for income assistance, even if they are not yet Canadian citizens.

These are all steps that we are taking within our government to ensure that we are working towards a violence-free British Columbia. We are committed to that work, and we are doing what we see is needed to ensure that that vision is realized within our government, around our province.

These amendments are important. They are important not only for seniors or the women who are fleeing abuse but for their families and their support systems, who want to see them have that ability to reach a full, productive, potentially safe life — or end of life, for seniors who are moving into the care system.

I am in favour of these amendments. You can tell I’m very passionate about them. And I will be supporting this bill, going forward.

D. Donaldson: I am pleased to take my spot today in second reading debate of Bill 40, the Natural Gas Development Statutes Amendment Act, 2015. My comments are solely on the first six pages of the act that deal with the amendments to the Oil and Gas Activities Act. I’ve got some general comments. I’ve got some specific examples.

[1510]

I’m going to be interested in the minister’s response at the end of this second reading debate, regarding some of the situations I’m going to bring up, and also at committee stage, because we didn’t hear a lot from the minister on the Oil and Gas Activities Act portion of the bill in his introductory comments. So I’m curious as to his response to some of the topics I’ll be bringing up.

This government has said that the amendments regarding the Oil and Gas Activities Act are to “strengthen industrial oversight in preparation of more large-scale projects moving forward, such as the construction and operation of pipelines and liquefied natural gas” — that is, LNG — “facilities.” That’s the wording. I take “strengthen industrial oversight” to mean strengthen government oversight of industry — is what is meant there.

I couldn’t agree more with that intention — that government oversight of industrial activities when it comes to construction and operation of pipelines and liquefied natural gas facilities does need to be strengthened. If that’s what this act does, then there are good parts to it. I’m going to provide some examples where I think that there could be improved amendments and also where the amendments, perhaps, run counterintuitively to that strengthened industrial oversight aspect.

Why do we need this? Why do we need strengthened
[ Page 10114 ]
industrial oversight as set out in Bill 40 and connected, specifically, to the Oil and Gas Activities Act?

Maybe not just about pipelines and gas activities but…. Generally, what the public wants is to have some trust, some trust in government, trust that they will have the public interest at heart. What strengthened government oversight of industry does is it supports that trust. It emboldens that trust. It allows people to say that the government has it and that government has the public interest at heart. So really, what we’re talking about is trust — trust in the government to have the public interest at heart when they have oversight of industrial activities.

In my constituency, there are First Nations that would welcome the intent of these amendments to strengthen government oversight of industry. We have a house group in the Gitxsan territories, Luutkudziiwus, and they have a camp at Madii Lii. They have some major concerns about natural gas pipeline development in their house group territories, the lands over which they have aboriginal title. They would be interested in strengthened industrial oversight, as the government says this bill is about.

We have scientists across the northwest that would be interested in strengthened industrial oversight. We have farmers and ranchers who would be interested in strengthened industrial oversight, and we have residents of the northwest who would be interested in strengthened industrial oversight.

When we look at this bill in a general sense, we see that it can directly authorize cabinet to authorize certain oil and gas activities without companies having to go through the normal regulatory process for permits. That seems to run counterintuitive to strengthening government oversight over industrial activities.

We also see — the member for Surrey-Whalley talked about this very well — that the amendments to the Oil and Gas Activities Act that are proposed in Bill 40 authorize the government, through the Oil and Gas Commission, to approve certain activities by what is called an “authorization holder.” That’s a new definition, and it’s different from a permit holder. That seems to me to murky the water somewhat.

So I’ll look forward to the minister who introduced the bill to further elucidate, whether it’s at the close of this debate or through the committee stage, his take on the authorization holder versus permit holder.

[1515]

Obviously, if you want to improve public trust in the government around oversight of industrial activities, then you would want that definition more clear. You wouldn’t want to think that an authorization holder getting approval for certain activities when it comes to oil and gas has any less of a rigorous process or a public process or a transparent process than a permit holder, as we see under the act now.

It also appears in these amendments to allow cabinet to override the Oil and Gas Activities Act through regulation, by adding new directions on how permits and authorizations are reached. Again, that is counterintuitive to strengthening government oversight of industry, it would seem.

I’m going to provide a few specific examples that I’m very familiar with, because much of the activity around the attempt by the government to develop a natural gas industry that is focused on LNG has been occurring through the area I represent and across the north and the northwest. I want to provide a few examples of oversight that’s needed that is not addressed in these amendments and that could be addressed if the purpose of this bill was to strengthen government oversight of industry.

The first example I’d like to give is the delegation agreement that exists between the Oil and Gas Commission and the Agricultural Land Commission. That allows the oil and gas commissioner to exercise powers — some of the powers or all of the powers that the agricultural land commissioner has — in being able to exempt land from the ALR for non-farm use.

How this relates to Bill 40 is that this is used by the Oil and Gas Commission, under the Oil and Gas Activities Act, to permit the use of agricultural land for well sites for natural gas drilling — and pipeline routes as well. The well sites…. I believe, in the delegation agreement, up to 20 hectares of land can be exempted from the ALR for non-farm use by the Oil and Gas Commission without having to go through the Agricultural Land Commission.

That can lead, and I’ve heard of examples of prime…. I’m quite certain the minister knows about this too — about good agricultural land, prime agricultural land, being permitted for non-farm use by the Oil and Gas Commission for the creation of well sites for natural gas extraction on prime farmland when a matter of moving that drill site a little further away from the prime agricultural land onto non-prime agriculture land — even though it’s still in the ALR, but a poorer quality of soil — could have been done.

That, to me, points to a lack of oversight. One way that issue could be addressed and increase public trust…. Bill 40 would have been able to address that by including a member of the Agricultural Land Commission on the Oil and Gas Commission and, therefore, have that oversight that way.

Perhaps this wasn’t the tool for doing that. If it was, and I think it could have been, then that could have been a way to strengthen government oversight of industry when it comes to oil and gas activities that would have increased public trust, especially among farmers and ranchers and those concerned about agricultural land and agricultural production.

[1520]

Another example of a failing of oversight that leads to a decrease in trust was just in the last couple of years — just last year, as a matter of fact. Two natural gas pipeline companies, in looking at routes to the north coast for
[ Page 10115 ]
their proposals, came through the Kispiox Valley and had crews starting to cut lines. These were a matter of three metres wide. They were part of what the companies were needing to do to gather information for applying for their environmental assessment certificates.

The people in the Kispiox Valley are very concerned about the land and the waters in the Kispiox Valley. They have very major concerns about sustainability of activities — farmers, ranchers, people from all walks of life. Even though these survey crews were not on private land but across what’s called Crown land, house group territory, when they were confronted by locals, they had no answers to: “Who gave you permits to do this kind of work?” Being engaged, active citizens, people contacted me in my office. They also contacted Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations directly and the Oil and Gas Commission directly. There was a lot of this going on.

FLNRO — Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations — said: “Oh, that’s nothing to do with us, those permits. You should ask the Oil and Gas Commission.” The Oil and Gas Commission got back to myself and others, saying: “That’s no permitting to do with us. That’s Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations.” You can understand how this would decrease trust amongst people who are concerned about what’s going on in their own backyard. Eventually, that got resolved. It was under, I believe, the Surveyors Act, under Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations.

If this bill, which is intended to strengthen government oversight of industry in the oil and gas sector, goes anywhere to address that kind of confusion, then that part of the bill is a good thing. I’ll be interested in hearing from the minister if that kind of confusion will be reduced with the amendments that he’s proposing.

It goes to show you how concerned — possessive, in a good way — that people are about what’s going on in their own backyard, even if it isn’t on their land. People in the Kispiox and people in the north generally know that they’re connected with the land base, regardless of whether it’s their own private land or not. They’re connected because streams and rivers run through many jurisdictions. Animals travel across many artificial lines we’ve put on maps. Activities in one area affect activities in another, through the ecosystem.

When we see in the act…. This is under section 10. What’s being proposed is that there’s an exemption to the provision of notice. That will exempt requirements to provide notice to landowners of work being done near their land. That again does nothing to build that trust, which strengthening government oversight of industry is supposed to do.

There are some examples being given by previous speakers on the government side to illustrate why they think that these provisions of notice aren’t that important. But I would counter that. Already we have people on a heightened level of alertness along these pipeline routes, as exemplified by what went on in the Kispiox Valley last year — and for good reason, because they’re concerned that there isn’t enough oversight of the activities.

You know, they need a permit if they’re going to cut a horse trail three metres wide through the forest, but the original answers they were getting from the survey crews was that they didn’t need a permit to do this. So you can see the confusion there and why there’s a heightened sense of awareness.

[1525]

When we hear, through this bill and these amendments, that there’s an exemption to provide notice in certain circumstances, then it raises even more concerns. I would say that if I was a ranch owner that had property of multiple hectares, and there was a natural gas route, a proposed pipeline route going proximate to my land but perhaps a few kilometres away, I would want to be notified if even maintenance activities were going on. I mean, that’s just a way to build trust. It’s just a way to build trust.

The government could say: “Well, we’ll leave that up to the companies. Good companies do that.” But again, it comes back to people having trust in the government that they have oversight, that they’re strengthening government oversight of industrial activities, as this bill is intended to do. I think the exemption to provide notice that is part of this amendment, again, runs counterintuitive to increasing that trust and to strengthening oversight.

The third area, the third example that I have in relation to Bill 40, has to do with the ability of the Oil and Gas Commission to permit activities under the Oil and Gas Activities Act. I’ll give this specific example: in this case, the permitting approval that they have and the discrepancies between the permitting approval that other government ministries have on the same topic. That discrepancy erodes the perception of strengthened oversight. The example I want to give is in quarries.

If an applicant, a person, wants to create a quarry not associated with oil and gas activities, then they go through a process. That triggers a process between the Ministry of Environment and the Ministry of Energy and Mines. They’ve worked out a well-thought-out…. They’re compelled to work together on that process. Obviously, the Ministry of Environment has certain points of interest that they take care of, and the Ministry of Energy and Mines has a different focus. But they work together. It’s inherent in that permitting process for that applicant for a quarry for a non–oil and gas purpose.

They come up together, the Ministry of Environment and Ministry of Energy and Mines, for mitigating measures through that permitting process for that quarry applicant. If the same applicant is applying for a quarry that’s associated with oil and gas development that is under the auspices of the Oil and Gas Commission, then the Oil and Gas Commission does the entire permitting. There’s no need for the Ministry of Environment and the Ministry of Energy and Mines to come together under that.
[ Page 10116 ]

I think that’s a discrepancy that leads to a lack of trust, because people can interpret that as a lack of oversight. You’ve got the Oil and Gas Commission being able to issue permits for quarry extraction activities when it comes to oil and gas projects, without, necessarily, the Ministry of Environment and the Ministry of Energy and Mines being involved. Then you have the same activity, not related to oil and gas, and the permits have to be issued in a joint process between the Ministry of Energy and Mines and the Ministry of Environment. So again, a lack of conformity, a lack of consistency between those permitting activities leads to a lack of trust. That, I think, could have been addressed in amendments that are being presented to us today on the Oil and Gas Activities Act.

The final example I would like to address in this second reading debate on Bill 40 has to do with an activity that’s already underway and, in many parts, complete. To me, it epitomizes a failure of a process. This is what it is.

[1530]

The Pacific Trail pipeline has its permits. It has its environmental assessment certificate from the provincial government. It has begun clearing the pipeline corridor where they are hoping to connect with Kitimat. It’s 80 metres wide. It’s a clearcut. There’s obvious soil disturbance. It’s a linear corridor, so there’s wildlife disturbance as well.

But I want to emphasize that it’s all been permitted, so there are mitigating measures that the environmental assessment process decided were good enough to negate the negative effects compared to the positive effects of the pipeline project. But it’s being considered separately from what it’s supposed to supply, which is a potential natural gas plant in Kitimat, and no final investment decision has been made on that. So we have a real gap here.

What the gap is, is that there is not a cumulative effects assessment process that could have taken the pipeline and the proposed natural gas liquefaction facility together. We have two different projects independently assessed and no final investment decision. What we could have, quite easily, and what people have come to me recently with concerns about, is an 80-metre-wide linear corridor that is just left out there on the land base, with impacts, and with the benefit side lacking because there’s been no final investment decision.

I don’t know if I can better explain how the logic of that isn’t there — that you have a permitting process and an assessment process that doesn’t consider everything together. In fact, there were two groups in the province that wrote to the provincial Environment Minister requesting under a special section of the Environmental Assessment Act for a cumulative effect process to be undertaken. That was rejected by this government.

Again, coming back to Bill 40, it erodes trust when people see that kind of impact on the landscape when we don’t even know if the end facility is going to be built. We haven’t heard any final investment decision.

I understand totally the desire by industry to try to get ahead of the curve, but that has to be put up against protecting the public interest. That’s what strengthening government oversight of industry is supposed to do, and that leads to greater trust. In the case that I’ve just described, the oversight could have been much better if we had a cumulative effects ability under the Environmental Assessment Act.

Those are just four examples — I wanted to give specific examples — that weren’t addressed under this act. I’m aware that the last example I gave could perhaps not be directly addressed under this act — but the first three for sure. By addressing those, we could have ended up with a truly strengthened government oversight of industry and an increase in trust that is sorely needed for projects — large-scale industrial projects on the landscape — to get full public confidence.

With that, I’ll take my seat. I’ll conclude my second reading debate comments and look forward to hearing from other members but especially the minister. I would be happy to hear his response on some of the specifics — if not now, then during committee stage, and if not then, then perhaps we can exchange correspondence on this.

[1535]

L. Reimer: On behalf of my constituents of Port Moody–Coquitlam, I’m pleased to provide my comments and wholehearted support for Bill 40, Natural Gas Development Statutes Amendment Act.

This is a rather interesting piece of legislation. It falls under the category of miscellaneous statutes, which is to say we have a number of changes to current acts that fall under the purview of one department. In this case, we are referring to the Ministry of Natural Gas Development with responsibility also for Housing. In particular, the purpose of Bill 40 is to amend several acts related to energy — the Petroleum and Natural Gas Act and the Oil and Gas Activities Act.

As I stated earlier, the Minister of Natural Gas Development also has responsibility for Housing, and therefore, this bill also contains revisions to the Residential Tenancy Act and the Strata Property Act.

All of Bill 40 will have far-reaching benefits for the people in British Columbia, and I would like to address the whole bill if time is permitting. However, I would like to focus most of my comments on the housing elements of this bill.

Under the Residential Tenancy Act, we want to support the personal safety and health care needs of people with fixed-term tenancy agreements. We want to allow them to end their lease early if they are fleeing family violence or if they’ve been accepted into a long-term-care facility. Proposed changes to the Residential Tenancy Act will allow for the early end of a fixed-term tenancy, commonly known as a lease, by a tenant who is fleeing family violence or who has been accepted into long-term care.
[ Page 10117 ]
This supports the provincial government’s commitment to a violence-free B.C. and will assist seniors dealing with health issues.

Currently if a tenant ends a lease early, they may face a financial penalty. We want to change that. Bill 40 will amend current legislation so that our tenancy laws support individuals experiencing or at risk of family violence and those requiring long-term care.

With respect to changes to the Strata Property Act, this is a major departure from current legislation that requires a unanimous vote of 100 percent by all members of a strata. This makes it extremely difficult to wind up a corporation in cases where a building is at the end of its life cycle or where strata members wish to sell the property for redevelopment.

This is important to a great deal of constituents in my riding and, indeed, people across British Columbia. Let me read a letter that I recently received from one of my constituents who currently lives in a condo that has effectively reached the end of its usable life and requires either millions of dollars of renovations or a sale. It reads like this:

“Dear MLA for Port Moody–Coquitlam:

“There is presently legislation in the process of being passed that will make a huge difference for approximately 125 people in your riding. We’ve received an offer to purchase our whole complex, 58 units. This is a very good offer, quite a bit above our assessed value. A large majority of owners want to sell, but we have at least one owner who is missing and another who is unwilling to move for personal reasons.

“The issue is that under the current legislation, we require a 100 percent vote to accept this offer, and in our current situation, a lot of folks are going to lose out on a significant amount of money. This is money that could be reinvested into our vibrant and evolving community.

“No other province has this 100 percent requirement. The law that is in process now will change that requirement to 80 percent. We definitely have above 80 percent support, and I would hate to see people go bankrupt or foreclosed on their homes because of one or two people.

“This change in the law would make a huge difference in the lives of all of us. Our complex was built in 1977. It’s a lovely building, but its age and past history of mismanagement mean that some very major repairs will have to be done in the near future if we do not sell. The large assessments required for these repairs, $2 million at a minimum, are not affordable for most owners.

“We ask that you do whatever you can to help this law pass as soon as possible before our opportunity is lost.”

The provincial government has consulted extensively on the proposed changes. These are widely supported by landlord and tenant groups and condominium owners associations. Changes related to termination will come into force in the next few months by regulation. On behalf of my constituents, I appeal to members of this House to support Bill 40 so that we can help people like my constituents as soon as possible.

[1540]

A. Weaver: It gives me great pleasure to stand and rise in support of Bill 40, the Natural Gas Development Statutes Amendment Act, which, as has been mentioned already by several members both in opposition and in government, is really an amalgamation of two bills that reflect the two separate mandates of the minister involved in housing and natural gas.

Now, I will say off the bat that I do appreciate the introduction of the carbon-capture-and-storage enabling legislation as well as the amendments to the Strata Property Act and the Residential Tenancy Act, as I do believe they are fine pieces of legislation. But there is…. Again, the devil will be in the details, and I will explore that further in committee stage of the debate.

I would also like to thank, at the onset here, the ministry staff for providing us — my office and, in collaboration and at the same time, the member for Delta South’s office and her staff — with a very fine briefing that allowed us to ask many questions to gain insight as to the intentions of this legislation.

Now, as I’ve mentioned, I do recognize the importance of carbon-capture-and-storage-enabling legislation. My concern with this is not so much that enabling legislation is being introduced, but it’s being introduced under the purview of the Oil and Gas Commission. Let me please explain why I would do that.

There are two aspects to carbon capture and storage. There are the aspects with respect to capture and storage from what’s called geological carbon. That’s carbon that’s contained in our fossil fuels. The combustion of coal and the combustion of natural gas produce carbon dioxide. That carbon dioxide, it’s been thought…. It has, in some jurisdictions, been stored underground. B.C. has a rich history of capture and storage in the sour gas component of the natural gas industry, so there is some expertise here in British Columbia already in terms of underground gas storage.

However, the second aspect of carbon capture and storage is capturing and storing not fossil carbon, but present-day carbon in the atmosphere. We have, in Canada, a company that has developed under the intellectual leadership and scientific analyses and studies of David Keith, now at Harvard University, formerly at the University of Calgary. This company called Carbon Engineering has actually built its very first test site in Squamish, B.C., to capture and sequester carbon that’s already in the atmosphere.

Now, this is an example of innovation in British Columbia that I haven’t heard anything about from the opposite side. This is an example of innovation in carbon capture technology that actually is what we do need to go down sooner rather than later — that is, drawing down carbon from the atmosphere that’s already there, because the climate change in store as we equilibrate to existing levels of greenhouse gases will be profound.

So this technology, embedded within the company Carbon Engineering and situated in Squamish, now with their first test facility, is fascinating in that what it does is it brings in air from the atmosphere. It then takes
[ Page 10118 ]
that air and mixes it so that you get out of that a liquid product that then reacts with solid products to create calcium carbonate. The carbon dioxide is now stored in this so-called wet phase in these little pellets. These pellets are then heated, and the pellets can then be recycled to create more calcium carbonate. In that heating process, you produce a stream of pure carbon dioxide. Now that carbon dioxide, which is a pure stream, originated in the atmosphere and can be stored in carbon capture and storage.

I believe that this government should be putting this legislation not in oil and gas, but in the Environment Ministry. We have no hope of any realistic LNG coming to B.C. anytime soon. I’ve been saying that for over three years now, and I’m still waiting to eat my words, as the Minister of Natural Gas has said I will be doing. I notice he’s not listening right now. But I would love to be in a position of eating my words. I’m still not eating them.

Let me quote from a news release that was issued yesterday on Bloomberg — a news story from the Goldman Sachs group, which says the following: “A wave of new supply from Australia to the U.S. is deepening a glut of the fuel, raising the risk of losses for exporters and prompting some buyers to look at breaking contracts with suppliers.” Those are existing contracts.

[1545]

Goldman Sachs is not a fly-by-night organization. Goldman Sachs has forecast a 13 percent drop in LNG prices in 2017 and a further 23 percent drop by 2018. The U.S. starts shipping LNG in January of 2016. We have no hope. Yet this government is pursuing carbon capture in the oil and gas sector and is missing out critical opportunities in the innovative carbon capture sector with a Canadian company, a Calgary company, whose first test plant anywhere in the world where this is being done is in Squamish, B.C.

Do we hear anything about that? No, we hear about this fantasy of LNG, on and on. That is why it is deeply troubling that this will actually be contained within the Oil and Gas Commission, because, frankly, carbon capture and storage is more than about oil and gas. It’s a grand environmental issue and should, I would argue, be based in that.

The spot price in Japan, the much-touted, soon-to-become market for all of B.C.’s gas, is $6.13 in 2016, compared to $7.49. Goldman Sachs has projected a $5.19 spot price for landed LNG in Japan in 2017 and — get this — a $4.75 spot price in Japan for 2018.

I’m not eating my words yet. I’m still waiting for the Minister of Natural Gas to show me that…. He says to himself: “You will.” No, I don’t think so — not any time soon. Maybe in the mid-2020s, but by that time, of course, there’ll be nobody accountable left in this government, because there will be a new government at that time.

As I said, I do support the carbon capture legislation that’s being brought here. We do need enabling legislation for carbon capture, just not the carbon capture this government is dreaming about. It’s about the innovation potential that we could have for innovative Canadian technology and building upon that sector.

This bill also contains important legislation changes which will protect employees within the Oil and Gas Commission from potential legal problems, providing, of course, that they make decisions in good faith, as I’m sure we would all expect our governing agencies and bodies to do and have faith and confidence that they will.

The second aspect of this bill is with respect to the rental tenancy act and the Strata Act. Now, as someone who presently lives in a bare land strata and someone who’s had a property in another strata, I recognize the difficulty in getting 100 percent agreement in a strata. Sometimes the owners of the strata don’t even live in the country where the strata is. It’s very, very difficult.

It takes just one person out of 100 to be difficult, and nothing will happen. So I recognize the importance of actually moving to a slightly lower threshold in the wind-up resolution for a strata — you know, 80 percent, 90 percent, 85 percent. I don’t know where the numbers come from. We’ll explore that a bit further in the committee stage. But I do agree and commend the minister for seeing this problem here.

One of the other things that I think needs to be discussed further in committee stage will be a potential effect, an effect that may not have been thought through, on affordability in areas such as Victoria, Vancouver and some parts of the Okanagan as strata owners recognize the value in their property.

Say you have an aging demographic who own an older building, and there are 80 percent of them who see the value in their property and say: “Maybe we should sell this so that a developer can turn this four-storey building into a 20-storey building. Look at the wealth and the prosperity we will have.” But maybe there are a few other people out there who don’t actually have the ability to find another place. So there is some concern about people being displaced, as there might be an incentive here…. In fact, I would argue this is an incentive for certain strata to think about winding up, tearing down, selling and building anew.

Now, I recognize that that would build new supply, new rentals perhaps, new ownership and supply, and that’s a good thing, but supply does not come on stream overnight. There’s a delay as these are built, so there has to be some careful management of that, I would believe.

[1550]

It’ll be interesting to see whether or not bare land stratas across the province will start seeing this as an opportunity as well. Many builders are able to build bare land stratas where the local municipal bylaws don’t actually have to have the same level of rigour in terms of their application — widths of streets, areas for sidewalks, etc. — and there may be some pressure from bare land stra-
[ Page 10119 ]
tas in the months ahead to actually come off that. I don’t know how that will be handled.

In terms of the rental tenancy, again, I support the additions that have been done. I think it’s critical, in fact, to allow those who are, for example, fleeing a violent relationship and those who become very ill all of a sudden and can no longer be in their residence a means and a way, through consultation and approval by some authority — which we’ll explore further in regulations, I’m sure; we’ll see further what that means in regulations — to break a lease without having to be burdened with subsequent bills from landlords who, in many cases — particularly in Victoria, where we have a 0.6 percent vacancy rate — could, in fact, rent it and, frankly, would rent it to another person.

Finally, on the electronic payments, again, it’s incredibly important to bring this up to the 21st century. A lot of rental transactions are done through electronic payments, both in terms of receiving rent and in terms of removing damage deposits, but there is a slight caution here with the electronic payments, as the member for Delta South pointed out.

If you make an electronic payment, some people will think that they’ve made an electronic payment and it’s done. But until the recipient actually receives it and deposits it into a bank account, there is no receipt or transaction. Now, not everybody in our society has a bank account. If a landlord sends an electronic transaction, the landlord may think that the electronic transaction has been sent within…. I forget the number of days. It may be 28. It may be slightly more or less.

If that transaction is not received and deposited into an account, that transaction is deemed null and void, so there would be questions with respect to whether or not the landlord, in good faith, tried to transfer the deposit or whether they did not. This is particularly problematic with landlords who may not live in the same jurisdiction as the house that is being rented, where electronic transfers are quite common.

With that said, with the caveats aside, I do support this legislation. I look forward to exploring it further in committee stage, and I thank the Speaker and the members for their time.

H. Bains: I would like to make brief comments on Bill 40, especially on Residential Tenancy Act changes. I think the changes that are proposed here are good ones, and I think it’s long overdue. There are many situations that we can think of where people are stuck, even though the relationships are so terrible, and they are taking it from both sides. But I think there are some other areas that it doesn’t touch here, and I’ve had this conversation with the minister many times before in this House on the parts that are missing.

The part that is missing is the Manufactured Home Park Tenancy Act. That was changed, I believe, back in 2003. Whereas it used to be that if the landlord was to give an eviction notice for the park to be developed for other uses, the moving expenses would be paid, now it is the equivalent of 12 months pad rent. That created many of the problems itself.

But I think the bigger problem is — and I think the minister has mentioned it here in this House many times — that perhaps the answer lies with the city halls and with the city governments, and I agree. I think it’s not something that can be dealt with here, but nonetheless, it needs to be dealt with. Whether this government, this minister, can take the lead — I think that would be the right thing to do. Bring the local governments on board, and find a permanent solution.

[1555]

I have a fight going on right now in Surrey — Park Mobile, on 96 and King George. They were given notices. They were told to be moved because the land will be developed for other uses. Now, WestStone Properties is the owner. They have just purchased the land. They have a pledge that they will look after everyone to make sure that they’re treated fairly. City hall, to their credit, has also made some changes to what the proponent and the developer must do before they come before city hall for zoning changes. I give them credit for that as well.

But then again, I guess the proof is in the pudding. How do you implement the good intentions? I know that the minister here has good intentions when it comes to housing, but when we go down to the ground level, look at these people who are going through a terrible time.

I’ll give you an example. There’s an elderly woman who said: “Look. Even though they say that they will treat me fairly, I’ve got an older home. It can’t be moved. Even if they give me fair market value for that…. First of all, I don’t know what the fair market value is going to be. Perhaps some independent appraiser will come in and tell me what my house is worth.” But she said: “It’s an older home. I’m not expecting much, but it is my home, and I intended to stay here for the rest of my life.” She said: “If they go through their proposal, even if they offer me something, I have no place to go. I am made homeless.”

I think those are some of the examples that get to your heart. As government, whether it’s the provincial or local government, we haven’t found a real solution for these folks.

There’s another one. He said: “I have listed my home for $75,000, and the new owners came in and offered me $18,000.” He said: “No, I can’t just give you a $75,000 home for $18,000. I just went through appraisal, and my real estate person listed it for $75,000.”

These are some of the examples that are really, really heart-wrenching. The biggest problem of all of this is that there are so many of them. Many homes cannot be moved because they’re so old. They will not get very much value for them, because who’s going to come and
[ Page 10120 ]
buy it? Fair market value depends on different circumstances. But even if they are able to move, there are not very many places out there for them to move to.

I think that one part of the Manufactured Home Park Tenancy Act needs to be looked at, and I think a permanent solution is needed. These are nice communities. Most of them are elderly. Many who live in those homes have disabilities. I think this should be considered as affordable housing stock.

We have issues with homelessness, as you know. We have issues with a shortage of residential homes. There’s a serious problem. We need to look at that. I urge the minister — if not through this bill, then in the future — to try to sit down with the local communities and find a permanent solution.

UBCM adopted a similar approach as well. The cities are willing to do it, it seems to me, when you look at the UBCM resolution — that was a few years ago — that before a city would consider zoning bylaw changes, the proponent must meet certain conditions. One of them was that there has to be fair market value given to them; 12 months’ notice, as per the act; and also a relocation plan that is acceptable to all.

I think that has to be entrenched in some act. It can’t be one city having one policy and another city having some other policy. I think that’s one of the issues. I urge the minister to seriously look at this. Obviously, it’s not in here. But I’m disappointed that that has to be in there.

[1600]

Many of these people, when you sit across from them…. These are the people that have built this province. These are our seniors. They’ve built this country. I think we owe it to them to make sure that we look after them, that they live the remaining years of their lives in a peaceful manner in the homes that they like and in the communities where they are settled right now. That’s one part that I think we need to seriously look at.

The other part is the Residential Tenancy Act. I get so many complaints, and I’m sure many MLA offices get those complaints as well. Landlords are complaining that the residential tenancy branch doesn’t work. If they have a bad tenant, which many of them face from time to time, it’s almost impossible to get rid of them.

Some of those tenants are professionals now. They know how to go around the rules, and they know what it takes to delay and to throw roadblocks so that, in many cases, they don’t even pay rent — not to this landlord and not to the next landlord. They have found a way to go around it.

Because of the cuts in resources to the branch, there’s only one office in the Lower Mainland, and many of the hearings are done on the phone or written, and many people aren’t equipped with that kind of stuff. I think that is another area that needs some extra resources so that a bad tenant can be taken care of and the landlord isn’t stuck with someone who continually is a nuisance to the owners and to the neighbours and causes damages to themselves. I think that’s one area that needs to be looked at.

We have complaints from the tenants. They’re saying that the residential tenancy branch doesn’t work for them, either. When you look at and listen to both sides, there’s a serious problem. And I think that if anybody can do something, it’s this minister. I think that the minister has to pay some attention to this part of the file, because there are some serious issues.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

I suggest that consultation takes place with the homeowners and with the tenants so that we can find real solutions that will work for both of them and, if there’s a bad tenant, then the landlord isn’t stuck for a long period of time. They tell me that even if they go through the residential tenancy branch and even if they get a decision in their favour, they still have to go and hire bailiffs and spend thousands of dollars to take their belongings out. Then they are also stuck with looking after those belongings and storing them in some secure place for a period of time.

All those things are quite onerous, and I don’t think they are practical, in many cases. If you look at it from the tenants’ point of view, they’re saying that the residential tenancy branch isn’t working. If you look at the owners’ side, they’re also complaining about the same thing, that it’s not working for them, either.

Here is an area that the minister needs to seriously pay attention to. Otherwise, I agree with the intent of this Residential Tenancy Act — that is, the changes that are proposed under Bill 40. Those are my comments. Hopefully the minister has paid attention to this, and hopefully, he could get some information and get some consultation going so that the residential tenancy branch and the act is working for both landlords and for the tenants, equally.

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, the minister to close the debate.

Hon. R. Coleman: I’m just going to touch on a couple of points, because I do know we have another bill we want to get to this afternoon — or, at least, get started, I guess.

Three of the members opposite were critical, in their remarks, about the fact that there’s not a stand-alone ministry of housing in the province of British Columbia. There hasn’t been in the last 15 years. I’d like to tell the members opposite: there was never a stand-alone ministry of housing from 1991 to 2001. There was not one prior to that, in the previous ten years. There hasn’t been a stand-alone ministry of housing in this province for over 30 years. So to say that somebody has made a mistake here and they should have a separate ministry for
[ Page 10121 ]
housing…. I beg to differ.

However, I will explain to the members what’s happened since I’ve been Minister Responsible for Housing in British Columbia, since 2006.

[1605]

Since 2006, there’s been $3.66 billion invested in housing in British Columbia. I think it’s important, because members said there’s not enough being done. They were making comments that it wasn’t focused and those types of things.

I want them to know that back in 2001, there were about 400 shelter spaces in British Columbia for people who were homeless. Today there’s over 1,500. There was not one single outreach worker in any community in British Columbia in 2001. Since 2006 there are outreach workers in 60 communities in the province of British Columbia.

Those outreach workers literally have connected with thousands of people that were homeless or needing help from their province of British Columbia for mental health and addictions across the province, to the extent that today I can easily say that there are over 7,500 fewer people homeless in British Columbia than there were just a few years ago.

Now, I should point out to the members opposite that every one of these initiatives has been voted against by the members opposite, relative to budget or things that have been brought before this House.

In addition to that today that were never here…. Never during the time of the 1990s was there ever any rent assistance in British Columbia. Today in British Columbia there are about 40,000 households — 40,000 low-income households of seniors and families and folks coming directly out of shelters into rental housing — that are subsidized every month, quietly, with support to their bank accounts or a cheque from the province of British Columbia.

Not one stick of that housing would have been built or funded under any program that the NDP had because they were actually totally opposed to rent assistance of any kind whatsoever — philosophically and delivery.

I can say this. A lady wrote me a few years ago, when her son was only 12 or 13 years of age, when we first started the rental assistance program, and told me how the rental assistance program changed their lives because they didn’t have to sit on a waiting list, waiting for some housing somewhere that somebody designated where they should live. The income that came in from rental assistance changed their ability to have that child be involved in school, sports and outside sports — to allow that child to have better nutrition immediately.

If they sat on a waiting list, as would be thought of by the members of the opposition, that child would still be waiting for some form of housing. The difference is that child has now graduated from high school and is living a life, and the outcome for that family is exceptional. There are thousands and thousands of stories about that in British Columbia just from rent assistance alone.

We’ve reached out to aboriginal communities, who now manage over 4,000 units of housing in British Columbia, First Nations–sensitive housing for people who are First Nations off reserve in British Columbia.

I guess if you want a minister of housing and a bill with a minister’s name and a ministry of housing name on it, I would submit to you this: British Columbia has the most successful housing strategy in North America, and it wouldn’t matter what you call it. It’s been successful. It will continue to be successful, and we will continue to work for the most vulnerable people in British Columbia because that’s what we’re here to do.

I know we’ll go through the bill and some of the issues like electronic transfer, which is an option. It is not something that is mandated that a landlord and tenant have to agree to, but a tenant will be allowed to agree to have their damage deposit sent to their bank account electronically.

A lot of people in this House, I bet you, do on-line banking. I think it would be pretty streamlined, if I was a tenant, and I was moving out and my damage deposit was coming to me and was deposited in my bank account electronically, rather than waiting for some administrator to have to go through it, do a bunch of forms and actually write a cheque to me to send me my damage deposit.

I think it’s actually a little tiny step into a modern age, for this relationship to be important, for people to understand that there’s another way to get paid.

[1610]

As a matter of fact, if you look at the residential tenancy relationship in British Columbia today, a whole lot of people don’t write a cheque every month for their rent. They have a relationship for automatic deduction of their rent out of their bank account — including, by the way, relationships with Social Development on some rents that go directly to landlords from that ministry for people that might be on social assistance. Imagine giving a damage deposit back to somebody. You can send it electronically in a couple of days, rather than trying to administrate it over a period of a month.

I know that there are some questions that the member for Delta South wants to ask about that, and I look forward to those questions. I think they’re important — to actually, at least, settle that individual’s mind that we do move money electronically in the world today, and we will continue to do so.

There are a number of other comments with regards to residential tenancy that are not in this bill, and I’m not going to debate them today, obviously. There is always work on residential tenancy being done, and the changes that were being brought forward are ones that were asked for by many people.

The other piece of this bill, obviously, is to try and make sure we’re ready for certain things. Do we want someone to actually have come in and applied for a per-
[ Page 10122 ]
mit or an approval in order to go in and start doing the drilling and site work on a large piece of land that somebody might want to build an LNG plant on? I think so. We didn’t have that power.

We’re moving it up, because that’s all advanced work — in advance of a final investment decision for a company that may want to make the investment. So we want to be able to have that structure in place to make sure we do that right. I think there won’t be much debate about that, but we’ll certainly have some discussion.

I understand the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head’s concerns about carbon capture and storage, but I do have to remind everybody in the House that we don’t know what that technology is going to look like. We don’t know how it’s going to function.

We do know, though, that it’s becoming more and more of a discussion worldwide, and it would be a good idea to at least have the regulatory and statutory system in place so that somebody would be able to come here and prove to us that the science could work for the storage of carbon — carbon capture and storage — in our province. Actually, we should be out on the front edge of this by looking at international standards and making sure we’re understanding the technology. But we need to have the legal ability to actually approve it at some point in time if we ever prove that out. So that’s what that’s about.

I know it’s called the Natural Gas Development Statutes Amendment Act, 2015, and I know my ministry is called the Natural Gas Development Ministry. But it happens to be the Ministry Responsible for Housing. So in order to make you happy, I guess I could have put “and Minister Responsible for Housing act.” But it still does the same thing. It solves a problem for people who have to move into care so they don’t continue to pay monthly lease payments to a landlord because they got sick and went into long-term care.

It doesn’t matter what the name is on the piece of paper. Does it do what we want to do? Did we capture the opportunity in one bill to solve some problems for people who have been telling us that they’re being hung out to dry on leases of two and three and four and five years long because their loved one had to move into long-term care and the landlord is enforcing the legal relationship in the lease?

We’re stepping up — unprecedented — to actually say no. When somebody is fleeing abuse — and we don’t want them to be beaten up, and we don’t want them killed by an abusive spouse in an abusive relationship — or a senior has actually gone into long-term care, they shouldn’t have to continue to pay a lease on that particular unit. I don’t care what you name the bill. It’s an important piece of public policy that actually needs to be dealt with and is dealt with in this piece of legislation.

So as we go forward, I’m glad to have the discussion about the technical side of the bill. I want to reassure the members opposite, particularly the three who brought up the fact that there should be a freestanding ministry of housing in the province of British Columbia — which, by the way, I said didn’t occur between 1991 and 2001 — that the budget on the operational side of B.C. Housing, without the name of a separate ministry, is more than triple the amount on an annual operating basis than it was in 2001.

[1615]

I want to also tell them that the investment in housing in the last number of years is well in excess of the investment in housing that was made when you didn’t have a stand-alone ministry of housing either — by more than double the capital investment in British Columbia. This has been an aggressive program — of buying, renovating and building — to go after the issues for people with mental health and addictions and those who are homeless and at risk of homelessness.

Since 2006, we’ve developed a cold weather strategy that immediately goes into play, so that people can come in out of the streets at certain times of year in communities all across British Columbia.

All of these pieces of the puzzle have been put together without a name. So get over the name. Relax. You’re living in a province that has the most successful housing strategy in Canadian history. It doesn’t need a singular name, Members. The focus is there.

Interjection.

Hon. R. Coleman: The affordability? There’s a good one. Here’s a member that voted against rent assistance and has hundreds of people in housing and rent assistance in her community. She doesn’t even know where they live, because we didn’t put a stigma on them and say: “You, we’re going to go build you a project and make you live there because of your income.”

“We’re going to let you be integrated into a community. We’re going to let you be part of a community, and we’re going to subsidize you because you’re low income, and you should have the same rights of association of anybody in the province of British Columbia no matter what your income is.”

Over 30,000 households, 40,000 households, getting assistance every month in ridings across the province….

Interjection.

Hon. R. Coleman: All you have to do is phone me, and I’ll give you the scan and tell you exactly how many of those are in Nelson, hon. Member, because I do know how many there are. You don’t know who they are, and you shouldn’t, because they should be entitled to the dignity and respect of being allowed to live in their community wherever they want, with assistance from government, because that turns their lives and their chil-
[ Page 10123 ]
dren’s lives around for the better. Unless I’m going to get more heckles and have an opportunity to be able to go on and on….

I’m more than prepared to talk about the $4 billion we’ve invested in housing, the thousands of people whose lives we’ve changed, all the opportunities it brought. I’m prepared to talk about that. I’m also prepared to talk about natural gas if you want to, because I’m really still confident, hon. Member, that we’re going to here.

I just finished sitting down with CEOs of major companies that are telling me they’re going to make FID decisions in British Columbia and that they believe B.C. has a long-term opportunity in LNG, and I believe it still. I believe it. I’m optimistic about it. I support it, and that’s something that you don’t do over there.

As I take my place, I’m thankful the members have gotten me a little bit wound up because I’m way more invigorated to get back to my riding and tell them once more how important it is that this government stays where it is for the future of the people of British Columbia and not just on LNG but on housing for people that need it the most. Because you have never supported any of those programs.

I move second reading.

Motion approved.

Hon. R. Coleman: I move that the bill be referred to the Committee of the Whole House for the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 40, Natural Gas Development Statutes Amendment Act, 2015, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. M. Polak: I call second reading of Bill 41, the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 3), 2015.

BILL 41 — MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT (No. 3), 2015

(continued)

K. Corrigan: I rise to speak on Bill 41, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 3), 2015. The announcement for this act was purported to…. What it says this act does….

[1620]

I’m going to be speaking today to the amendments that deal with the advanced education sector, the University Act and the College and Institute Act.

The government news release said, about this bill: “Amendments to the University Act and the College and Institute Act will ensure that fees continue to be collected from students who resign from the student society. The Ministry of Advanced Education will consult with student societies to determine which program or service fees should be protected under the legislation.” That announcement, that piece of the press release, to me encapsulates what the intention may have been but also what the problems are with this bill.

The problems continue to be there. Despite amendments to the amendments, I continue to have real concerns about this act. What it essentially says is that if students resign from a student society, the university can continue to collect on behalf of the student unions and then give to the student unions the fees for those students who resign.

There are some real problematic parts and sections to the bill that I’m going to talk about. But I want to start, first of all, by spending a couple of minutes talking about student unions, the ones that are affected by these changes to the two acts. They have a long and proud history in this province — in fact, in this country and around the world. They must continue to be independent. I have concerns about whether or not, with this act, student unions are going to continue to be completely independent. They must be able to be strong.

One of the most important things that student unions do is they have advocated. They have stood up and spoken on behalf of the students of the institutions that they represent. In fact, universities are supposed to be a bastion of free speech. Certainly, student unions have represented the best in terms of talking about issues, in terms of being in the forefront. Our universities are, perhaps, the most important place that we have where we talk about ideas and seek the truth.

There is certainly concern about free speech, academic freedom. We had, just a few months ago, the resignation of the B.C. Liberal–appointed chair of the board of governors. The reason for that was that the University of British Columbia failed to protect and support the academic freedom of a professor in the Sauder School of Business.

That was Dr. Jennifer Berdahl. She wrote about academic freedom. She said: “Academic freedom is to a university what love is to a family. It is simply one of many priorities a university must remember to keep in its sights. It is a university’s fundamental and most sacred priority.” Very high-toned words, idealistic words but true.

I think that we need to think of the importance of student unions in the same way. They must be able to advocate. In fact, they have advocated over the years. Student unions must be independent. They must be able to advocate. They are entirely democratic organizations. They do a huge amount of good on our campuses. As budgets for post-secondary education over the last several years in this province, and perhaps some others, have been flat or have even declined, student unions have moved in and provided many of the services that used to be provided by universities, in addition to many other services and
[ Page 10124 ]
functions. I’m going to talk about some of those.

The reason why I’m mentioning this is not just to say great things about student unions, which I’m happy to do, but to demonstrate the complexity, the diversity and the breadth of the things that student unions do which are very difficult to encapsulate and make sure they are protected through this bill. I’m not sure that they are protected. I’m going to talk about a couple of different universities and institutions and the types of things that their student unions do.

[1625]

I guess I’ll talk about the ones that are in my community and Mr. Speaker’s community as well. Simon Fraser University. Since 1965, when Simon Fraser University opened, it’s had a student union maintain a long tradition of students working together to improve life for students. In its first year, the society organized social events — this is 1965 — started a newspaper, co-sponsored Vietnam teach-ins, started a co-op bookstore and protested against the bad food offered by Industrial Catering Ltd.

Since that time, the society has continued to play an active role in student lives. In the 1970s, the society organized against tuition fee increases, lobbied for improved on-campus housing and started a women’s centre.

The reason I’m mentioning these is that many of the roles…. I want to demonstrate how much of the role of student unions is activism, sometimes, certainly advocacy, lobbying. Some of those things can be uncomfortable to government.

When we’re talking about what student union fees are being protected or will be protected by Bill 41, we want to make sure that the type of advocacy and sometimes uncomfortable stands that are taken by student unions are protected. I’m not clear that under this bill…. In fact, I’m quite sure that this bill does not, on the face of it, necessarily protect all the activities that student unions do.

In the 1990s, the society at Simon Fraser constructed the Maggie Benson Centre, expanded its services and continued to advocate on behalf of students for accessible education. They were involved in the 1995 student strike, the largest national student demonstration in Canadian history.

In 1996, the Simon Fraser Student Society achieved a two-year tuition freeze for the second time in British Columbia, and that was extended until 1999.

This is mostly quoting from their website, by the way. I’m not putting words in their mouth. This is how they describe themselves.

In 1999, the student society celebrated the activist traditions of SFU when it drew campus attention to an area of Convocation Mall, once known as Freedom Square, the site of many rallies and protests in defence of free speech and student rights in the 1960s.

It’s been a long history of activism and taking strong stands. There must not be legislation passed in this chamber, in this House, that in any way endangers the abilities of student societies to continue to represent their membership.

They do a whole bunch of other stuff. They’re very democratically composed. The society operates on democratic principles and is based on a structure of representation composed of the forum, the board of directors, the executive and various committees.

I note that our present Premier was president of the Simon Fraser Student Society. They don’t have a president anymore, by the way. They’ve got a very flat structure. The Premier was president for a couple of months and then removed for election irregularities. I bet….

Interjections.

K. Corrigan: Election irregularities at the Simon Fraser…. Yes, it happened. Read the history. I mean, she might want to delete, delete, delete that from her record but….

I’ve also got to mention, just as an aside, that Derrick Harder, a wonderful staff researcher that we have for our caucus, was president of the SFU Student Society for two whole years. Apparently, no election irregularities there.

The society does many, many different things. They have differentiated fees. It’s a very complicated structure. They have advocated for things like the U-Pass. They have advocated for and built capital projects at Simon Fraser, as they have at other places. They have, essentially, provided millions of dollars of enhancements to Simon Fraser University.

[1630]

The student unions from around this province have provided millions of dollars’ worth of services, capital projects and advocacy for student unions around this province as well. They also have a graduate society which is excellent. I’m going to be reading a letter from them in a little while.

They have groups such as Out on Campus. They have a women’s centre. They have the First Nations Student Association in Burnaby. They have a number of services — food and beverage services, the pub, the Higher Grounds Coffee Shop, catering for on-campus events, student centre spaces such as the atrium, the underground conference rooms, an extended health and dental plan, equipment bookings, copy centres, free legal clinic, an ombudsperson, an emergency food bank certificate program. Unfortunately, there are food banks operating on several of our campuses around the province. They provide a whole variety of services.

Another somewhat different institution in Burnaby is the BCIT. The BCIT also has a student association, which is their society, another non-profit services-and-advocacy organization. They support and enhance the 48,000 students that attend BCIT full-time and part-time. The students lead that organization as well. Always the stu-
[ Page 10125 ]
dents are democratically elected by the whole of the student body. It’s a very democratic organization.

As well, every time there is a fee increase at the universities, colleges and institutes, there has to be a referendum on it. It’s very democratic, and it is very much attuned to making lives better for the students while they go to our colleges, universities and institutes.

They have an advocacy program, a student advocate, providing information and guidance on students’ rights and responsibilities at BCIT. They can make recommendations for changes to policies and procedures. They have a whole array of services similar to what is at Simon Fraser. In addition, they have, for example, the health and dental insurance plan. I believe that almost all, if not all, of the post-secondary institutions have health and dental insurance plans. They enhance that with health and wellness events.

Also at BCIT, they have a 60-minute suicide prevention training course. They have career services. BCIT is a very career-centred institution, a wonderful institution in Burnaby. They have a lot of career services — career workshops; industry days; a portal to match career tracks; a portal for students, alumni and employers. They have peer tutoring. The student association’s one-to-one program is a peer tutoring program.

They have a peak leadership program, where students get to meet experienced CEOs, vice-presidents and professional coaches that will share their knowledge with students in intimate sessions where there are only 30 other students.

Finally, BCIT…. This is one of many services. I certainly haven’t mentioned them all. The BCIT Student Association has a child care centre, a wonderful child care centre down on Guichon Creek. It’s a wonderful child care centre at that institution.

I’ve mentioned those just to talk about some of the diversity. Maybe I’ll just mention one more — Vancouver Island University. They talk about some of the victories that the student union has had there: regulation of tuition fees in B.C., reintroduction of the B.C. loan remission program, introduction of off-campus work permits for international students, government review of the post-secondary system, elimination of the gym user fee and graduation fee at Malaspina, elimination of GST from tuition fees, increased tax deductions for students and so on.

These are all either programs or issues that the Vancouver Island University Students Union has been active on. They are members of the Canadian Federation of Students.

[1635]

They have a breakdown of their fees. They’re not real high, but again, they’re very complex. There’s $9.76 for the student union membership, 45 cents for the World University Service of Canada. The student union building fee. Navigator newspaper fee. The Canadian Federation of Students–B.C. fee and the Canadian Federation of Students Canada fee. The Radio Malaspina fee.

This demonstrates that these are very, very complex, sophisticated, large and effective organizations at work on our campuses across the province. It’s very difficult to try to make sure that we have the right legislation — and I don’t believe that we do — in order to ensure that all of those fees….

That’s the problem. This legislation does not ensure the autonomy of the student unions to decide on their own what they want to include for fees, and they have had that autonomy since the 1990s. They’ve had the autonomy to do that, and they’ve had the ability to decide how much those fees are.

As I’ve said, it is all democratically done. The students vote on those fees, and they’re audited every year. Certainly, they are very responsible and accountable. Unfortunately, this piece of legislation, to my view, endangers that ability for student unions to be able to self-determine exactly what fees they are going to collect from the students — or have the universities, colleges and institutes collect on their behalf. It endangers that ability to be autonomous and, potentially, could put a chill on the free speech of those organizations, if there is the potential that regulation could remove their ability to collect any fees that they want to.

Bill 41 came about as a secondary thing because of what happened with the Societies Act last year. I’m going to talk a bit about that, because the concerns that exist now came up as a result of the changes to the Societies Act in the spring. What happened in the Societies Act was a change to the mandatory nature of membership in a student union.

Membership in student unions has been mandatory, or at least, the association fees have been clearly mandatory until very recently. In the spring, changes to the Societies Act explicitly acknowledged the right of members of societies to resign. This raised a concern that membership in student unions would become optional and that the fees collected by student unions would also be in jeopardy.

This legislation that we have now, Bill 41, is supposed to protect the mandatory nature of student union fees, even if a student withdraws or resigns from the student union. However, I am very concerned, as I’ve said before, whether or not it is intentional that, in fact, this legislation does not adequately protect the ability of student unions in British Columbia to determine which fees should be collected or how those fees should be spent and does not ensure that a collection of fees for all those activities will be mandatory for all students attending our post-secondary institutions.

I want to quote at length from the submission of the Alliance of B.C. Students to the original change in Societies Act. The concerns raised by them then are the same concerns that student societies have now.

[1640]

In October of 2014, a collaborative effort between the UBC Students Union Okanagan; the Kwantlen Student Association, the Capilano Students Union, the University of Victoria Students Society, the Northern Undergraduate Student Society of UNBC and the Alliance of British Columbia Students wrote a commentary on the Societies Act White Paper: Draft Legislation.

They represent, collectively, hundreds of thousands of students. For example, at that time, the Alliance of B.C. Students represented over 165,000 students. That’s an organization that lobbies on issues that affect post-secondary students in British Columbia.

What that group said in their submission on the Societies Act was that the changes to the Society Act, which recognized that individuals…. It gave the right for individuals to withdraw their membership from societies. “The proposed Societies Act may inadvertently impact the universal collection of democratically approved student society fees as a result of the addition of a statutory right of resignation.”

“Student society fees” — I’m quoting from the document — “support a wide range of important services and finance large capital projects that benefit all students. The loss of these fees could be detrimental to these activities.” They suggested that amendments “should be made to the University Act and College and Institute Act to ensure universal collection of student society fees regardless of membership in a society.”

Here is the section that changed the Societies Act that has now created the perceived problem for student societies. Termination of membership. It’s section 66. “Membership in a society is terminated when the member’s term of membership, if any, expires, the membership is terminated in accordance with the bylaws, or (c), the member resigns or dies.” There had been no reference to members of societies resigning previous to that section being introduced in the spring. It created a problem.

They go on to say:

“Currently, as a result of the bylaws of student societies in B.C. and requirements by post-secondary institutions, student society membership is universal. We have concerns regarding the impact a statutory right of resignation may have on the collection of student society fees.

“The collection of democratically approved student society fees from all students has resulted in strong student societies across B.C. Universal student society fee collection in B.C. has resulted in the ability of student societies to fund a significant number of program services and capital projects for the benefit of students.”

They talk, for example…. I mentioned earlier that there were some capital projects. They provide some examples. The Alma Mater Society at UBC, or the AMS, my old society, or my alma mater for sure, made the largest single donation to UBC in the history of the institution — $85 million towards the building of a new student union building.

In 2009, the students at Kwantlen Polytechnic University voted to establish a student society fee to fund the construction of a new, $15 million student union building. Millions of dollars have already been raised for the project.

At Simon Fraser University, students voted, in 2012, to raise $65 million through a student society fee for the construction of a new student union building on the Burnaby campus. They’ve just had a plebiscite that has approved that expenditure — the two debentures for that and another project. I think that just passed a couple of months ago, so they’re moving forward with that.

The University of Victoria raised over $2 million through a student society fee to fund a renovation to the Student Union Building.

These are significant contributions to the life, the well-being, of students and the university community as a whole. It goes on. There are other capital projects.

On the services side, they point out that student health and dental plans and universal transit passes, or the U-Pass, are examples of programs that rely on the universal payment of student society fees.

[1645]

Student societies also provide services such as tutoring, counselling, child care, legal advice, employment assistance, student food banks, women’s support services, transit shuttles and student media — most often newspapers and radio stations. Almost all student societies have student club programs that support a wide range of interests, activities and engagement on campus. And it points out that the University of Victoria Students Society supports 200 clubs alone under its club program, playing a central role in enhancing the student experience at the University of Victoria.

As I said, these are very, very important institutions. If some of their ability to collect fees is not protected, if their universal ability to protect those fees is not kept, then I think it would be harmful to the students and the strength. The students said that what there needs to be….

I think they make a good point that, essentially, we need to have a Rand formula for student societies. The Rand formula, as Mr. Speaker will well know, originates in the context of organized labour. It essentially came from a Supreme Court of Canada decision that said that everybody had to pay the fees for a union. If a union was certified, if there was a vote to have a union in a workplace, then everybody needs to pay.

Certainly, I’ve seen it in many submissions by the students — that what we need is essentially a Rand formula so that there is no question about which fees are covered and which aren’t and so that when you become a student at an institution, you are covered. If you want to not participate, then you don’t participate. But you are required to pay the money because the belief is that student societies benefit every student. Whether or not they want to participate, they do all benefit from them.

One of the concerns that the students cited, as well, when they were dealing with the Societies Act change, was that they had seen what had had happened in
[ Page 10127 ]
Australia — and New Zealand — which moved to voluntary student unionism on services, amenities and representation for Australian university students.

A report on it by the Australian government’s Department of Education in 2008 said: “The abolition of upfront, compulsory student union fees impacted negatively on the provision of amenities and services to university students, with the greatest impact at smaller and regional universities and campuses.” The students were very concerned about that.

Mr. Speaker, I might point out that I’m the designated speaker on this bill.

An Hon. Member: Excellent. More.

K. Corrigan: More. You’re going to get more.

There was a real concern then. Now, it was interesting. The government’s response at the time was interesting.

I also had a submission at the time, an excellent submission, from the Graduate Student Society at Simon Fraser University. I’m not going to quote from it too much, but it was very well written. They’re a really fine student society. They serve their members very well.

It says partially that “student societies play an essential role in representing students’ interests. In addition they provide important services and foster a sense of community.” And they said: “We’re concerned that section 66 of the paper can be interpreted as providing a freestanding right to resignation that would be inconsistent with our bylaws and, more importantly, pose a substantial risk to the vitality of our society.”

They went on to talk about the impact in Australia, which I just mentioned. They quoted from the report that I just mentioned. That’s the first annual report into the impact of federal VSU, voluntary membership. So “25 of 30 student organizations” in Australia “have had critical or total job losses, and much of these cuts have come in the area of professional support to students. Other consequences have included the usurp of major student services by the universities, among which have been support for student rights advocacy.”

[1650]

“So in 2013, eight years after implementation of voluntary student unionism in Australia, students took to the streets to voice frustration with the inability of student societies to revitalize services and representation at government levels.” They went on to say: “We worry that the proposed changes to the society open the possibility for student societies in Canada to face similar harm….

“Mandatory membership makes sense for student societies because of the fact that the work that these societies carry out benefits all members of the student body. The advocacy that student societies offers is a public good for all students, so it only makes sense that all students should contribute to the functioning and vitality of their student society.”

It was interesting. When that bill came before this House in the spring, I asked questions. It was the Minister of Finance who was responsible for the Societies Act. I had read the submissions of the students, being concerned about the protection of student fees. Of course, that is supposed to be what Bill 41 with regard to the advanced education amendments is supposed to be curing — the fact that student fees might not be protected.

I had, frankly, a maddening interchange with the Minister of Finance when I was asking questions about that bill — Bill 24 — which included the changes to the Societies Act. I read some of the quotes and talked about some of the concerns that the student societies had, and the minister first said that the ability to collect those fees is not compromised by the section of the act that we were dealing with.

So I sought further clarity, and the minister says: “If I have a moment, and I probably won’t, I’ll grab the University Act from behind me to ascertain more authoritatively whether or not that act…” and then a pause. “The advice I have authorizes the mandatory collection of fees. I’m not certain that it requires mandatory membership, but we would look to that legislation for guidance on this matter.”

It went on for about 20 minutes, that interchange, and I never got a definitive response from the minister. I would have thought that the minister would have been able to come in — because the student societies had made submissions and said that they were very concerned about this particular aspect of the changes to the act — with an authoritative answer. In fact, the answers went all over the place. So we didn’t come away with comfort, despite him, at one point, saying that the ability to collect those fees was not compromised by the section of the act that we were dealing with.

In fact, he then sort of changed his mind on it and said, “Well, we’d have to look at that act,” when, in fact, really what it was…. What that act did do was that it did compromise the ability, or it could compromise the ability. The proof of that is the fact that the Minister of Advanced Education — sorry; it’s Miscellaneous Statutes, but there are advanced education provisions — has now come in to say that: “Yes, we do have to cure this.”

Now, one of the problems with this and why there’s confusion and concern is that…. My understanding, from talking to many, many students and their organizations, is that there was no appropriate consultation that happened with those organizations prior to the act coming in.

The problem with that is it’s very similar to what we had with Bill 7 a few months ago, the Private Training Act. We had an act that was brought before this House that purported to deal with private training institutions and discipline and so on — a whole bunch of provisions about private training institutions and their obligations.

[1655]

It was a very significant change to how private training institutions were treated. Again, I was told by representatives from that sector — many of them — that there had been no consultation whatsoever.
[ Page 10128 ]

We had, similar to this act, the problems that it created — a very similar situation and the same minister. We had lack of consultation, legislation brought in that then had to be amended. It created all sorts of concern and upheaval, opposition. Why is this government unable to get it right the first time?

Another similarity with that act, which we see again with Bill 41, is that we have the work done ahead of time and then we have so much of it put into regulation. That is the concern, the main concern, that I have with this bill. It’s that just like Bill 7, so much of the act was not dealt with in the act itself, and they said: “Well, we’ll fix it later with regulation.” That’s now what we have been told and what the students have been told: “Trust us. We’re going to fix it later with regulation, and we’re going to consult with you.”

I appreciate that. The student societies are willing to work with the minister, and I give them credit for that. But the problem is that what we’re dealing with is the act itself. We’re not dealing with the promises of the minister. We are dealing with what we see on paper. Apart from the promises — I’m not suggesting that the minister is not going to follow through on those promises — what we see on paper does not give me comfort. So much is going to be determined in the regulations that, basically, it’s going to determine what kinds of fees are going to be covered and which are going to be protected as mandatory. That doesn’t give me much comfort.

What the students were hoping for was a fairly straightforward fix that said if someone resigns from a student society, they would simply have to pay all the fees levied by the student society. Why is it, when this bill is supposed to address those concerns and provide for mandatory fees, that students and the official opposition continue to be concerned?

As I said, some of those student groups have been satisfied by the amendments to the amendments that happened as a result of their concerns raised. There are some student groups that are happy enough or willing to work with the ministry on that, but I have concerns. The problem is that the bill does not clearly give the student societies the right to collect fees from all students, including those that choose to resign. Instead, the provisions differentiate between different types of fees, and the determination as to what types of fees are mandatory is left to regulation.

I’m just going to try to find my act here, and I’m going to read from it, because I think it’s important to read the sections that are relevant and concerning. Here’s one. I’ll pick out a couple. There are various, and there are the changes to the University Act and the College and Institute Act, but essentially it’s the same thing for both. This is referring to the changes to the College and Institute Act. This is section 4, which says that section 21 is amended by adding the following subsection:

“If student society fees to be collected under subsection (1) include a capital fee or a program or service fee, the board” — this is referring to the board of the institute — “must (a) impose on students who are not members of the student society a fee in an amount equal to an amount of the capital fee or the program or service fee that those students would have had to pay if they had been members of the student society, and (b) direct the institution to collect the fee and remit that fee to the student society.”

On the face of it, it doesn’t sound too bad. It sounds like even if somebody wants to resign from a society…. Again, this act acknowledges that students can resign by referring to the fact that they have resigned. So we now have two pieces of legislation that assume that members of societies can resign.

[1700]

Now, we have lawyers who say they always could, but because it was not there and it was not in the act, it was not considered to be a problem. Even if a student decided not to participate, they would, nevertheless, have to pay the fees. The concern is that when the Societies Act comes in force, students could argue that they don’t want to be members and that they, therefore, shouldn’t have to pay.

The problem is with another section, from my perspective. It says:

“The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations referred to in section 41 of the Interpretation Act.” This is in section 68.

“(2) Without limiting subsection (1), the Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations (a) for the purposes of the definition of ‘capital fee’ in section 1, including, without limitation, (i) prescribing types of fees, or what constitutes a fee, in relation to buildings and facilities, including fees for the operation and maintenance of buildings and facilities, (ii) prescribing criteria for when a fee is included or excluded from a capital fee, and (iii) prescribing circumstances in which a fee is included or excluded from a capital fee, (b) for the purposes of the definition of ‘program or service fee’ in section 1, prescribing a program or a service that a student society provides or intends to provide.”

It looks pretty innocuous. In fact, it looks like it solves the problem in the earlier section, saying that students who decide they want to withdraw still have to pay the fee.

It then goes on to say: “But we’re going to tell you through regulation, later, what we mean by a capital fee, what we mean by a fee for a service.” We have to trust that there is no intention and no plan whatsoever — either by this minister or by a future minister — to start regulating what fees are mandatory. That is a fundamental change, and that is a change which I am very concerned about.

As a result of Bill 41 coming out, it elicited a response from the students. Alarm bells were set off right away, of course, particularly because of the press release that accompanied the tabling of this bill. I’ve read it before, but I’m going to read it again.

Here’s what the press release from government said. “College and Institute Act and University Act. Amendments to the University Act and the College and Institute Act will ensure that fees continue to be collected from students who resign from the student society. The Ministry of Advanced Education will consult with student societies to determine which program or service fees should be protected under the legislation.”
[ Page 10129 ]

To me, that sets off huge warning bells. It sets off alarms, and it did to the students as well. I’m going to quote from a letter that was sent from various student societies, called the “Official Response and Concerns Addressed to Bill 41 – 2015: Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 3),” on October 28, just shortly after it was tabled.

This was a letter that was signed by UBC Alma Mater Society; the BCIT Student Association; the Kwantlen Student Association; the University of Victoria Students Society; the UBCSUO; the SFU grad society; UBC Graduate Student Society; Capilano Students Union; Emily Carr Students Union; Langara Students Union; Northern Undergraduate Student Society; the Vernon Students Association, Okanagan College; Camosun College student union; and the Thompson Rivers University Students Union.

[1705]

All of those student unions, in very short order, got together. It’s quite something. They represent a lot of students. They got together. They saw it as such an emergency that they managed to put together a letter, and I’ll quote a little bit from it.

“We have serious concerns about the contents of the proposed amendments.”

And later:

“We are concerned that differentiating between various fees will force government, post-secondary institutions and student societies to add layers of bureaucracy to handle the logistics of implementation. Additionally, the lack of depth and subjectivity to these categories will cause significant problems for the different fee structures of the over 30 student societies in B.C. A proper adaptation to each fee structure would also be onerous and not practical in achieving the goal of clarity.

“Under the current proposed language in Bill 41, the government, post-secondary institutions and student societies would be required to expend significant resources to sort through the various fees and may even be required to subdivide existing fees. Furthermore, universities, colleges and institutes, along with their respective student unions, would have to expend resources handling the opt-out process and differentiating between member and non-member students. This would involve permanently hiring extra staff at each level.”

Now, they don’t say it but I will: it sounds like red tape to me. I thought we were against red tape in this government.

They finally say:

“Student societies operate on a democratic model where all society fees are approved by students through referendum and are collected to provide benefit in various shapes and forms to the entire student body. All members of the society vote upon all student society fees, and their legitimacy rests with them and them alone. While allowing students to disassociate themselves from the student society is understandable, all students benefit from the work of their student society. To allow students to resign their membership and divest themselves of paying the dues that come with being a student is to allow them to receive the benefits without the costs; thus, being subsidized by those that do pay the fees.

“Many of the services we provide are integral to the health of our communities. These services include, but are not limited to: food banks, technological support for students with disabilities, sexual assault centres, student refugee programs, child care assistance and bursary programs for low-income students”

You know, it’s interesting. Every time that I read a list from one of the websites of what the student unions do or from a letter, there are always new things that come up — again, demonstrating the complexity of the structures and the services. This particular concern is not addressed in the bill, as the students point out. And to me, it is also not addressed in the amendments that the minister has now tabled.

Similarly, the Canadian Federation of Students of British Columbia have expressed their concern as well. They have said that upon inquiry, they also experienced a confusion with the contradictory messages they got with regard to the earlier legislation dealing with the Societies Act.

They were told, they said, with regard to that act: “Upon inquiry with the ministry, student societies and post-secondary institutions were assured that membership fee collection provisions would not change even if a provision for membership resignation was entertained.” Of course, now we have this bill so apparently they were told wrong.

A couple more comments from the Canadian Federation of Students — which represents, again, hundreds of thousands of students in this province:

“Student societies act as fee collection agents for different campus groups, like student newspapers, radio stations, campus sustainability groups, international relations, refugee groups, World University Services Canada, as well as provincial and national student organizations. Institutions rely on student societies to oversee the collection and remittance of fees for this group, as well as oversee the compliance of these groups to their fiduciary responsibilities under both the Society Act and the relevant institutional legislation.

“Bill 41 does not address this complexity but seems to contemplate a scenario in which students could select specific groups from which they sought to resign while maintaining membership in others. Such as a system would create an unmanageable situation for both the local student society and the institutions.”

[1710]

Then they go on, and I’m going to read a bit more from their points.

“At each institution, students can collectively decide to remove the student society or campus group through dissolution or to separate from a provincial and national student group through the bylaws of the respective group. As individual members of the campus community, participation in the applicable student organizations at a particular campus has always been mandatory, based on the will of the campus student population.

“If government moves forward with a system that enables individual resignation from a student organization, measures to protect student society and student organization fees should be universal and cover all fees related to a student society, student media groups and provincial and national student organizations such that the spirit of the current provisions of the University Act and the College and Institute Act are maintained.

“Such a measure would resemble the Rand formula” — which I referenced earlier — “in that it provides for fee collection and remittance based on group membership, regardless of an individual’s choice to not participate.”

Again, that was from the Canadian Federation of Students.

Interjections.
[ Page 10130 ]

Deputy Speaker: Members, can we have voices low, please. I can’t hear the speaker.

K. Corrigan: Oh, that would be a terrible shame, if people couldn’t hear the speaker.

An Hon. Member: I’m paying so much attention.

Deputy Speaker: I have to pay attention.

Continue, speaker.

K. Corrigan: It’s very important. This is an important issue, Mr. Speaker.

Deputy Speaker: Continue, Member.

K. Corrigan: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I feel passionately about it — the importance of our student unions and making sure that they are independent and strong and continue to be able to do every single one of the things that they decide they want to do, as opposed to government deciding that they should be allowed to do. I think that’s a very important issue.

There was also a letter sent to the Minister of Advanced Education on October 27, 2015, from the University of Victoria Students Society. Much of the wording is similar to the one that was sent by the group that I talked about earlier, the Coalition of Student Unions, so I won’t read all of that. But they also said a few things that were not in that letter, quite a few. It was a very well-written letter, signed by Kenya Rogers, University of Victoria Students Society director of external relations, and Brontë Renwick-Shields.

“Each of the over 30 student societies in B.C. has a different fee structure. Most, if not all, student societies levy fees that cannot be readily classified into one category or another. Using the current proposed language in Bill 41, the government, post-secondary institutions and student societies would be required to expend significant resources to sort through the various fees and may even be required to subdivide existing fees.”

Then they got statements, which they included in the letter on behalf of the University of Victoria Students Society, from the University of Victoria Students Society Food Bank and Free Store, the anti-violence project, and then statements from the Society for Students with a Disability, the Native Students Union, the University of Victoria Students Society Students of Colour Collective and the UVic Pride collective. All of them talked about the projects that they did, the work that they did.

Maybe I’ll just read one of them — the University of Victoria Students Society Food Bank and Free Store. I’ll just read the first one. This is one of many statements.

“With tuition rates on the rise, the University of Victoria Students Society Food Bank has experienced a huge increase in monthly visits, such that we now have as many as 1,500 visits a month. This crucial service would not function without the dedicated fee that enables us to provide regular and reliable access to food, employ a coordinator to oversee the smooth functioning of this service and lend a sense of community sharing that helps reduce stigma around food bank usage.

“The free store is equally supported by the food bank fee and helps divert vast amounts of useful stuff from the landfill, in addition to providing students with the things they need. In short, without this fee, our service would be decimated and hundreds of students would feel the squeeze.”

[1715]

The fees. There are so many different types of fees and services and projects that are included, and they foresee that it’s going to be a catastrophe to try to work it out. Again, it points back to: why would we be going through this process where, apparently, the minister says that he’s going to consult with the students to figure out what can be collected and what should be mandatory and what shouldn’t be mandatory?

As a result of concerns that were raised, I think largely by the students…. We certainly, on this side of the House, have raised concerns publicly as well. But I would give the students…. Certainly, they were the ones that wrote some very articulate letters and expressed their concern.

The minister, apparently, and his staff have had discussions with the students — again, I’m not sure why this couldn’t have all happened ahead of time so we didn’t have the mess or the concerns being raised that we have now — and tabled some amendments. Essentially, what the minister has assured the students is that these amendments are going to address their concerns. And they are rather reluctantly saying: “Okay, we’re going to give you the benefit of the doubt.” But they certainly don’t alleviate all of the students’ concerns and all of the student organizations’, and they certainly don’t alleviate mine.

What the changes are, are that there’s an addition to the section I was reading earlier, saying not only are we talking about capital fees and program fees but also that there can be a regulation that prescribes fees to support the activities and operations of a student society, including, without limitation, association fees and membership fees — and then prescribing a program or service, or a type of program or service, that a student society provides or intends to provide.

One of the real concerns was about the advocacy work that student societies do. Towards the beginning of this discussion…. I guess it’s not a discussion. A discussion is when you have two people, and I’m the only one talking right now. At the beginning of my speech, I talked about all of the great things that they do, including advocacy — not only advocacy, but activism and strong representation — on a lot of issues where they were very much acting as activists.

They were concerned, I think, that part of those types of activities might not be included in a program or service and also that if that was not specifically included, the fees for the operation of the society would be something that students, if they resigned from the student society, would not have to pay. The students are somewhat
[ Page 10131 ]
assuaged by that. But the problem is that all this says is that it makes the list of things that can be determined to be mandatory longer. But it doesn’t say they are going to be mandatory.

Now, apparently the minister has had discussions with the students and said, “We don’t intend to take anything away,” but the problem is that what we’re dealing with in this House is this act, and it promises nothing. This act promises nothing. And it doesn’t….

Even if the minister were to ensure, through discussions with the students, that every single one of the student fees that they collect now are going to be continued…. If he made that promise and he kept that promise, that’s fine, but that still doesn’t protect against future regulation that could remove…. That’s a bit of a hammer that I don’t believe should be there.

I think that it should be up to the student societies to make up their mind, entirely and autonomously, about what fees they collect, because it is all done democratically. It’s all done very effectively. It’s all audited. It’s all done by referendum. I don’t think that there’s a more democratic way to do it. They should be the ones to make up their mind.

[1720]

This leaves the determination in the hands of government. It leaves it in the hands of cabinet, so we don’t even get to have a discussion here. The minister has promised that he is going to discuss it with students, but there is nothing in the legislation itself that prevents the government from picking and choosing what fees are going to be mandatory. As I said earlier, there are many students and student societies who say things that are uncomfortable for government. They criticize. They oppose. This concerns me for that very reason.

The minister had a conference call on Monday. I think it was a result of that conference call, with as many of the student societies who wanted to join, that convinced them that they would maybe, reluctantly, go along with the legislation and take the word of the minister, which I’m sure is good. But he wasn’t really clear in that conference call, I don’t think, exactly — to say very clearly that every fee would be protected.

He said: “Now, the word ‘prescribed,’ you are probably aware by now, means that it will be determined in regulations in terms of what is actually covered.” He talks about legislation, you know, lasting for a very long time, wanting to have flexibility. Then he said later: “The ability to put this in regulations means that over the coming century, there will be the ability to flexibly deal with things that are like medical and dental plans that students may or may not need, those being on the optional end of the spectrum, and at the other end of the spectrum the relationships between things like U-Passes that affect about a dozen of your campuses, where those need to be mandatory or they’ll fall apart.”

The minister seems to be saying that medical and dental plans may be optional. I know that when I ask questions of the minister in committee stage, he’s going to say that sometimes students have more than one plan, so they need to be able to opt out, and that’s what is meant by not necessarily being mandatory. But the problem with that is that the medical and dental plans are already optional. What students have to apply…. They have to demonstrate…. It’s a fairly easy process, and I know that later in this discussion the minister talked about it being complex and not wanting to have a bunch of red tape. I don’t know if he actually used that word.

I got a copy of one of the student benefits waiver forms. It’s very simple. What must happen is the students must demonstrate that they have another plan. So it continues to be mandatory, but the minister is talking about the possibility that students may want to opt out of the medical and dental plans, and that really concerns me.

Kenya Rogers from UVic said: “We’re definitely still extremely concerned, especially around the issue of advocacy work. Student societies across B.C. really do exist first and foremost for advocacy, and our services and programs that come out of that basically come out of the work that we do for issues that…. Students get brushed off and things fall through the cracks.” The minister responded by saying, “We’re going to make sure that the fees that go to the student association are in your capable hands,” which is helpful. I mean, there certainly were some good parts of the conversation, but it was not clear from that conversation that the minister was committing to the fact that everything is going to be mandatory.

Again, the minister said that the assistant deputy minister would be working “with all of you in developing regulations.” You know, in the crudest terms, as I said, at one end of the spectrum there will be programs that need to be optional, like dental plans, and others that are not.

[1725]

I’m going to just read a couple more sentences from this. Again, the minister says in that conversation on Monday, I believe it was, with the student unions: “You know, we don’t want to get into the parsing of student newspapers. A number of the institutions have miscellaneous fees. We don’t really know what these are about, but they may be entirely legitimate, or, perhaps, they need to be mandatory, or, perhaps, they should be optional. Obviously, that has to be taken up with the various student associations.” Then later: “Presumably, you’ll all agree with me that U-Passes should be mandatory. Maybe I’m wrong.”

What we are setting up, in my view, is a process when there are going to be discussions and the minister and the government are going to be the ones that finally decide what fees are mandatory. That certainly is something that I’m going to be canvassing with the minister in a more in-depth way when we get to the committee stage. But I’m not convinced that all fees are going to be protected. It’s going to be a negotiation. It’s going to be a discussion.
[ Page 10132 ]

I find it very difficult to support this, not only because there’s going to be some kind of negotiation discussion. There is no promise at this point that all fees that are collected now should be mandatory. Even if there is, why should student societies have to be providing a list of all of those fees? It makes no sense. There should be a universal, comprehensive ability to make the decisions, similar to what would be set out in the Rand formula.

The answer, again, from the deputy minister to a question after the minister had, I believe, left was: “The fees will be able to be protected if they are set out in the regulations. Through the consultations process, we’re hoping to get a much better understanding of what fees are collected and how those fees are structured in each one of the associations so that we can reflect those in the regulations.”

I think that there was an intention to address a problem that was created by this government’s change to the Societies Act. There was confusion about whether or not the changes to the Societies Act affected the mandatory status of fees. The Minister of Finance said that it didn’t. The ministry told them it didn’t. But now we have legislation which indicates that it did create a significant problem.

I’m not satisfied that this legislation, as it exists, in any way protects the comprehensive mandatory nature of student fees for students who decide that they want to drop out of a student union. I think it endangers the universality of the work that they do — the security, the independence and the autonomy.

I look forward to being able to ask questions. Perhaps the minister will give us a very clear and comprehensive answer and an assurance, when we get to the committee stage, that everything will be protected and that there will be complete control. But it’s certainly not in this act, as I see it, despite the changes that have been made.

A great deal of respect for student unions — they do wonderful work. We’re so lucky to have them doing the great work that they do on behalf of students, unpaid. Some of them give up some of their time at university. They take time off of their courses or they take a limited number of courses to do that work.

I respect the work they do. I respect their intelligence and their ability and the ability to represent their students and to do the great work of bringing issues like this forward in a very articulate way. I thank all of them for all the conversations I’ve had with them. I look forward to the committee stage of this bill. With that, I’m going to wrap up.

[1730]

J. Martin: It is indeed a pleasure for me to add my voice of support to the government’s efforts to strengthen the B.C. Utilities Commission. The BCUC has been very important for ratepayers and for government, and the strengthening of the BCUC, through the amendments proposed in this legislation, benefits both.

This includes amendments to the Utilities Commission Act required to implement recommendations from the BCUC Core Review Task Force. That task force was initiated by government in 2014 with the goal of increasing the effectiveness and the efficiency of the commission.

Well, there have been many complaints about the BCUC over the years from intervener groups, business organizations and utilities that needed to be responded to. The final report of the task force was released in February 2015, and government accepted all 35 recommendations.

In its response to the final report, we committed to considering legislation to enable changes recommended by the task force to improve the governance, the processes and the performance of the BCUC. Government has been working with the BCUC to implement the recommendations in the task force report and is now moving forward with the amendments to the Utilities Commission Act. The proposed legislative amendments will contribute to increasing the BCUC’s effectiveness and efficiency and reduce the cost of regulation for ratepayers who pay for the BCUC in their utility rates.

These changes include legislatively requiring the commission to employ a chief operating officer to manage staff, which will allow the chair to focus more on proceedings and the strategic direction of the commission; streamlining the exemption process to ensure that BCUC is focusing on the regulation of utilities where monopolies exist; making BCUC’s regulation of B.C. Hydro comparable to other utilities with respect to the B.C. energy objectives in the Clean Energy Act; ensuring LNG exporters are not regulated by the BCUC as they participate in a competitive market; and ensuring the application and exception process of mandatory reliability standards is consistent with other jurisdictions in North America.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Now, the changes to the BCUC put forward in this legislation are of great importance to this province. The BCUC core review was launched in April 2014 in response to concerns about the commission’s ability to deliver clear and timely decisions. The task force, comprised of highly qualified individuals, was conducted in an open and transparent process. Ratepayer groups that were consulted during the BCUC core review support these changes.

A more effective BCUC will help ensure that our province maintains its competitive advantage in electricity rates and that B.C. Hydro ratepayers continue to get the best value for their money. B.C. Hydro has maintained our province’s position of having the third- to fifth-lowest rates across North America for all customer sectors, while making vital investments in the aging electricity system. Keeping rates low, as low as possible, is this government’s number one priority.

How was B.C. Hydro doing that? Well, by managing
[ Page 10133 ]
their costs, while reducing the amount B.C. Hydro pays to the province, as detailed in the ten-year rates plan. In September, B.C. Hydro filed a 4,900-page application with the BCUC for next year’s rate review. This will be B.C. Hydro’s first complete rate review since 1991. The Crown corporation’s revenue requirements application, their detailed plan for the next three years, will be submitted to the B.C. Utilities Commission for review next year.

B.C. Hydro will provide the commission with approximately 2,000 pages of documents. They will likely take a year to review B.C. Hydro’s decision-making and planning across a whole field of subjects. This open and transparent process allows the regulator and the public to review B.C. Hydro’s plans and financials. When the commission hearings begin in February, they will have the opportunity to scrutinize each and every aspect of B.C. Hydro’s plan for the first time in 25 years.

It only makes sense, before the BCUC sets out on its mission to leave no stone unturned with B.C. Hydro, that this government ensures it has done everything it can to improve the governance, processes and performance at the BCUC. While government is introducing these amendments because we believe in furthering an efficient and effective BCUC, we also firmly believe it is government’s role to set energy policy.

[1735]

There are some energy-related decisions that should be made by the duly elected government, and the independent panel confirmed that in their recommendations. Last week when the member for Columbia River–Revelstoke was speaking to this bill, he took issue with this government’s decision to build the Site C dam and the fact that government made this decision rather than the BCUC.

Well, this is a familiar refrain in this House. But, of course, there was no clear position from the opposition regarding whether or not they support an $8.3 billion investment that will bring 10,000 jobs and low, predictable rates for a generation of British Columbians. All we heard is the same suggestion, that if the members opposite were in government, instead of showing leadership on a generational opportunity for the province, they would recklessly throw up their hands and leave it to the BCUC to set energy policy.

Well, let’s take a moment to examine this position that the opposition is incessantly spouting off about, the fact that the BCUC must sign off on each and every single energy project. Truth be known, some of the members who still fill the benches of the opposition used to agree that it is completely appropriate for energy policy to be set by government.

In 1998, the NDP government introduced the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 3) that provided a process for exempting new power supply contracts from a certificate of public convenience and necessity by ministerial order. Well, well. The minister at that time — what a coincidence — was the current member for Port Coquitlam. If I may quote from a Vancouver Sun article, September 5, 1998:

“The amendments enable the minister to exempt virtually any energy supply contract from independent and public review. The minister is also free to set the terms, conditions and price of power for a new project as well as order the details of the project to be hidden from public scrutiny. During the spring legislative session, the minister responsible for B.C. Hydro said the amendments would reduce red tape.”

Well, well. And from an article — here we go — August 17, 1998, the Vancouver Sun. “The province’s large industrial power users have summed up the amendments to the Utilities Commission Act as the emasculation of the BCUC, a harsh but fitting term.”

Allow me to quote the member for Port Coquitlam, July 29, 1998. “In terms of a public policy issue, the decision on whether or not to go through and approve cogeneration plants, for example, is the purview of province.” Well, well. And he wasn’t done. He continues. “The question is: do you go through this one big environmental assessment process, come out of that and suddenly go through another process, when the issue of the Utilities Commission should really be the rates and the rate structure? It’s a question of eliminating red tape.”

Those were the days. All the talk from the opposition about how government should never approve projects and only the BCUC should is just that — talk. This is nothing but sheer hypocrisy. It was the NDP government who actually passed legislation enabling government to make important energy policy decisions, and now they have the nerve to stand in this House and pretend to be outraged about something that they themselves started. It’s a disgrace. It’s shameful.

You know, last week I heard the member for Columbia River–Revelstoke. I was watching this with a bunch of my colleagues on the monitor. At the time, I was really hoping the member had a card in his pocket with his name and his home address on it, because he was very, very confused and lost. He went on about the history of the BCUC and independent power projects — he was probably just reading from a copy of the Leader of the Opposition’s speaking notes — and called them junk power. But I feel the need to correct the record on a couple of points here.

[1740]

The member stated that a lot of these projects come from legislation passed by government in 2006. Well, in fact, IPPs have been operating in B.C. since 1989. The growth of this important industry, from supplying 4 percent of the province’s energy needs in 2001 to about 25 percent, was due to government policy. The new energy plan in 2002 encouraged a greater role for the private sector in power generation. It was grounded in the belief that competition with the public utility is good for ratepayers.

The member for Columbia River–Revelstoke reminded us of what his party thinks of this vision. He referred to
[ Page 10134 ]
the independent renewable energy sector here in B.C. “as energy that is not needed.” Well, I have to ask: where would B.C. get the 25 percent of its total electricity needs that is filled today by IPPs if not from those IPPs?

He called the plan initiated more than a decade ago by the B.C. Liberal government “a startling mistake.” Well, it’s no surprise the NDP don’t believe in planning. I think voters in B.C. know that sad reality all too well. The member took issue with the length and cost of the contract signed with the independent power producers, calling them “a shocking error.”

Well, what I find shocking is that the opposition cannot understand why it would cost more money to build something today than it did 50 years ago. Time after time, opposition members have stood in this House and have criticized the projects built over the past 15 years by the independent power industry as being not worthy of consideration because power costs more from new projects than from our heritage hydro that was built in the 1960s and earlier.

Well, I don’t mean to alarm any of the members of the opposition, but apparently they are completely unaware that, actually, a lot of things cost more today than they did 50 years ago. For example, milk cost 24 cents per quart, a dozen eggs cost 55 cents and a can of tomatoes cost 27 cents. Average personal income was $1,672 per year. Well, today that salary probably wouldn’t even take you on a trip to Disneyland.

Perhaps I’m wrong to be surprised that the members of the opposition fail to grasp the concept that if you build something today, it’s going to cost more than it did 50 years ago. They wouldn’t know a lot about what it costs to build a project, because they don’t build projects and they’re opposed to building projects.

We know, for instance, they opposed the Coquihalla Highway. They opposed the Alex Fraser Bridge. They opposed Expo 86. They opposed the Canada Line. They opposed the revitalization of B.C. Place. They got to oppose that one twice, which is pretty interesting. They opposed the Sea to Sky Highway.

I apologize for looking at my notes. I used to have this list committed to memory, but it keeps growing. It keeps getting bigger and bigger and bigger, as the NDP opposes more projects. They opposed the Port Mann Bridge, they opposed the South Fraser Perimeter Road, and they opposed Pacific Northwest LNG. They opposed the northwest transmission line, and they opposed Site C.

As I’ve mentioned in the past, in an NDP world, there would be no bridges, no dams, no highways. A budding folksinger like Gordon Lightfoot wouldn’t have had a single subject matter to write a song about, except maybe sundowns. But who knows? Maybe the NDP is against those too. We should ask them one day.

Let’s get some facts on the table. The independent power industry is an important part of B.C. Hydro’s strategy to meet the energy needs of the future of British Columbia and all British Columbians. Our actions and their willingness to invest has helped the clean energy sector grow to a $50-billion industry. The clean energy industry is now strong, with 105 electricity purchase agreements for projects in commercial operation.

Additionally, there are 23 EPAs for projects in development — 15 of the 23 projects are already under construction, with several projects expected to reach commercial operation in the coming months. These projects represent hundreds of millions of dollars in capital investment, and I know the NDP is against that.

[1745]

Well, according to CEBC, projects currently under construction represent 2,850 construction jobs across B.C., including 700 jobs held by First Nations people in many small, remote communities, and I know the NDP oppose that.

If hypocrisy and fake indignation could be harnessed, the NDP would be the largest power producer in the province. It never ceases to amaze me. They continue to spout false facts, mislead the public. I, for one, am happy to have this opportunity to set the record straight. It comes as no surprise, though, because the NDP is the party of no, no, no and no.

Point of Privilege
(Reservation of Right)

S. Robinson: I rise to reserve my right to raise a matter of personal privilege with respect to comments made by the Minister Responsible for the Liquor Distribution Branch earlier today.

Madame Speaker: So noted.

M. Elmore: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

M. Elmore: I’m very pleased to welcome some good friends to the Legislature today — their first time visiting. My friend Gerry Popaver Legaspi is an entertainment host and performer well known in Vancouver, as well as a managing director.

We have Goldie, also known as Retro Diva. She’s a member of the entertainment hall of fame in the Philippines and a concert artist. She’s in the hall of fame with her group REtroSPECT. As well, local businesswoman Janet Dandan — she owns Casa Convenience on Douglas here in Victoria and is also an event producer and promoter — and Pinky Condor, a production assistant and Victoria resident. She used to work for Silken Laumann. She’s currently a licensed practical nurse and also fulfilling her licence for financial services.
[ Page 10135 ]

They’re here to organize a Retrospect reunion concert world tour and the Retro World concert. They’ll be in Victoria on March 12, Vancouver March 11. I invite everybody to join for great entertainment. I’d like to commend them not only for their professionalism and their success but also their dedication to the community and their community service.

I ask everybody to please make them very welcome.

Debate Continued

A. Dix: This is always the best time, every week, to speak because we get to ensure that….

The Minister of Health is already noting the time, but we on this side of the House believe in efficiency and in using all of our time in the House. With 12 minutes to go, the Minister of Health — and the government, which has provided precious little in this session, given the issues facing British Columbians — isn’t one to talk.

We just heard the member for Chilliwack follow in the line of the Minister of Energy. The Minister of Energy gave a speech on this matter.

Interjection.

A. Dix: He’s apparently the Minister of Energy.

Contained in this bill are amendments to the University Act, of course, and to youth agreements, which is a pretty serious subject, notwithstanding the speech we just heard, for people in British Columbia. Young men and women from 16 to 18 sometimes enter into the Ministry of Children and Family Development youth agreements where, essentially, they receive a poverty income while they’re under the guardianship of the government. I think that’s a subject of serious discussion. The changes here are of interest and importance and worthy of discussion.

There are amendments to the Utilities Commission Act, and there are some amendments in the Ministry of Justice.

But the Minister of Energy, who is actually responsible for the bill, stood up and gave a speech on this legislation. He gave a speech at 18:45 last Wednesday. Members on the Liberal side seem to think that there’s only Hansard for NDP speeches. But in fact, of course, there’s Hansard for Liberal speeches as well.

The previous member talked about things that the NDP said in the 1990s. The Liberal Party said in the 1990s that they’d always respect the BCUC. In government, they never respect the BCUC. On the opposition side, all they could talk about was the B.C. Utilities Commission.

[1750]

The member over there said: “We didn’t properly respect BCUC when we were doing all our projects.” Then he said: “Oh, we didn’t do any projects.”

So it’s a little bit of this and a little bit of that. But the Minister of Energy, of course, gave a speech last week after having, in an embarrassing way, undermined the BCUC, including after the report that was tabled and that he and his ministry commissioned, in August, with respect to the DCAT project — again, another run around the government’s commitments to the BCUC, as we’ve talked about.

The minister didn’t say anything about the BCUC in his speech. He’s introducing legislation in this House, and he doesn’t say a single thing about the BCUC, not a single thing about the report commissioned, not a single thing about the reforms.

His sole purpose, apparently, in the House was to attack a fellow member from the Kootenays, which is an interesting thing to do, except that this minister is actually responsible for the legislation. And he had nothing to say in its defence, nothing to inform people about, and there’s a good reason for that. It’s because that report, the Independent Review into the B.C. Utilities Commission, said some things that clearly he doesn’t agree with.

It said that the government should respect the BCUC. He clearly doesn’t agree with that. The report said: “The existence of an independent expert commission is more important than ever today.” And what did they do four months after the report? Another run around the commission.

“By regulating monopolies, the BCUC provides an essential public service. Unfortunately, the government and key stakeholders have less confidence in the BCUC.”

This is the problem. Their sabotaging of the BCUC creates the need for a report which criticizes their conduct, and then they don’t even bother to speak on it here in the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia.

I think, after that display we just saw, and after the display by the minister, where all he managed to do…. After smart meters, where a series of claims were made that proved to be completely untrue, but they exempted themselves from BCUC scrutiny….

After the northwest transmission line, where the minister applied his famous 50-30 rule…. When B.C. Hydro and Treasury Board, under the Liberal government, make an estimate to the people of British Columbia, it could be 50 percent over or 30 percent under.

In that case, it was double, and they exempted that from BCUC approval. Then who picks up the tab for their incompetence in the matter? Of course, it’s the taxpayers and the ratepayers of British Columbia. No wonder the minister can give a whole speech in the Legislature about a bill he introduced and not even mention the BCUC, the substance of the bill and the report.

He gave a whole speech. He adjourned debate. He had the opportunity to continue, and he failed to say one thing about it. And there’s a good reason for that, as you know, hon. Speaker. He cannot defend the record of this government in this regard.

So $1.4 billion lost over three years in private power
[ Page 10136 ]
contracts. They exempted themselves from the BCUC. A 100 percent overrun on the northwest transmission line. They exempted themselves from the BCUC.

They make decisions around Site C. They haven’t estimated demand since 2012, and even now…. We’ll be able to talk about this at length when we return. I look forward to the minister….

Maybe, as we did earlier this week, I can give unanimous consent so the minister can get up and actually give a serious speech about this subject. I’d be delighted to hear from the minister a response to defend the record of this government, which betrays everything that the Liberal Party said they were going to do with respect to the BCUC before they entered office — every single little thing.

It is embarrassing. It is the height of arrogance that we have seen since the beginning of this session. To do what they’ve done to the B.C. Utilities Commission, to fail again and again and again in their budgeting at B.C. Hydro, to have a 28 percent increase and to have Liberal backbenchers giving speeches on behalf of the minister, because he can’t defend this position, saying that they’re holding rates down when rates are going up 28 percent….

No wonder the Minister of Energy didn’t get up and defend the government’s record in this regard. It’s no wonder he didn’t do it, because the fact of the matter is that his record is indefensible in this regard.

[1755]

Now, I would love to continue, and perhaps unanimous consent could be sought, because the Minister of Health, in his usual gracious way, is ending the week in a very positive way. But I would be….

Interjection.

A. Dix: The Minister of Health is showing all the class, so I think that we should continue on for a few more minutes, as a result of that.

The fact of the matter is that we have legislation before the House — legislation on a report, the key elements of which the government haven’t bothered to implement yet and the spirit of which the government has not respected. That is what we’re facing here. We have a Minister of Energy who comes to this House and makes no effort to explain the bill, no effort to put forward a proposal — no effort to do anything.

With that, I will happily adjourn the debate.

A. Dix moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. T. Lake moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Madame Speaker: This House, at its rising, stands adjourned until 10 a.m., November 16.

The House adjourned at 5:56 p.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