2016 Legislative Session: Fifth 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)

Monday, February 29, 2016

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 33, Number 9

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

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 29, 2016

The House met at 1:32 p.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Hon. T. Lake: We know that the Alzheimer Society of British Columbia does some excellent work here in the province. We know that as our population ages, Alzheimer’s is a disease where we have to be ever present, ever vigilant and to make sure we have supports in place. We have a tremendous working relationship with the Alzheimer Society, supporting the First Link program and many of the other programs that the Alzheimer Society of B.C. is involved with.

I had the pleasure of meeting with Maria Howard, the CEO of the Alzheimer Society, and Barbara Lindsay, the director of advocacy and education for this organization. I know members on all sides of the House are very familiar with the work of the Alzheimer Society. I want to congratulate them for their work and ask all members to help me welcome Maria and Barbara to the House here today.

C. James: I have three guests in the gallery visiting us today: Kaye Kennish, who is the executive director of the James Bay Community Project; Nancy Smith, who is coordinator of the family centre; and Camilla Nordberg, who is a parent from Finland who uses a program at the project, which I’ll speak a little bit more about later. Would the House please make our three guests very welcome.

Hon. S. Anton: Joining us from the idyllic pastures of North Cowichan is my friend Wendy Porteous. Wendy Porteous is the granddaughter of J. Wallace de Beque Farris, who came to British Columbia in 1901 as a city prosecutor from New Brunswick. He was the Attorney General from 1917 to 1922, so one of my predecessors.

His wife Evlyn, Wendy’s grandmother, was a formidable woman who liked to make her mark. I’ll mention two different ways she made her mark. Way one was that she had a protest on the front lawn of the Parliament Buildings with all the women that she brought over from Vancouver — so much so that Premier Duff Pattullo came down to her husband, Mr. Farris, and said: “Would you tell your wife to go home?”

[1335]

She said, “I will not go home until I get what I want,” and what she wanted was funding — the Minister of Advanced Education will be interested in this — for the new University of British Columbia. Well, she was a formidable woman, as I said. She got the funding.

The second way she made her mark is a rather famous way, because she was impatiently waiting for her husband one day in the Attorney General’s office. She took her diamond ring and carved his initials. I don’t know that we should be following this example, but it is a famous carving. She carved his initials, JWDeBF, on the window in my office, the Attorney General’s office, the office that I’m honoured to occupy at the moment. The initials are there to this day.

Wendy herself, as I said, from the Cowichan Valley, had a distinguished career as a deputy minister in the federal government and was sent out to British Columbia in the latter part of her career to work as the chief federal negotiator on treaties. Would the House make Wendy very welcome.

J. Sturdy: In the spring of 1984, down by the railroad tracks in Prince George, a bunch of young tree planters were milling about, myself among them, when I spied a very pretty girl. Over the intervening years, we got to know each other well, as one can only do working together in farming and in marriage and with children. Despite all that, she has come to Victoria today to spend even more time with me. Clearly I am a lucky man.

It’s with pleasure that I’d like to introduce to the House my wife, Trish Sturdy. Trish is accompanied by her cousin Jillian Kerrigan. Will the House please join me in making them feel welcome.

C. Trevena: In the House today are two former presidents of the B.C. Ferry and Marine Workers Union. Jackie Miller and Chris Abbott are here to observe question period. They are former presidents but still assiduous and strong campaigners for our marine highway, the B.C. ferry system.

They continue to fight very strongly and very clearly for equality in the provincial transportation system, our provincial transportation policy, to ensure that ferries have equity and are treated like any other highway so that our coastal communities can play the full part they should play in B.C.’s vibrant economy. I hope that the House will make Chris and Jackie very welcome.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: We hear many people say in this province that they built this country, but the delegation in the gallery today actually did. The Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of British Columbia is represented here today by their vice-president, Mr. Bob Stewart; their CEO and registrar, Ann English; and a delegation of a number of skilled individuals who actually do build this country. Please welcome them.

R. Fleming: I’d like to introduce a few people who have joined us in the gallery this afternoon. First of all — I call her Madam President — Trish Richards, who’s
[ Page 10802 ]
the president of my constituency association in Victoria–Swan Lake. She’s here with her daughter Caitlin Croteau and a friend and relation, Trish Stirling.

Now, Trish Richards is not a stranger to this House, but her guests I don’t believe have attended question period before, so I hope our members won’t disappoint, on both sides. I would ask the House to make the two Trishes and Caitlin welcome here this afternoon.

J. Sturdy: I’d just like to take the opportunity to introduce to the House Amninder Sibia, a new assistant legislative assistant with government caucus.

Introduction and
First Reading of Bills

BILL 19 — GREENHOUSE GAS
INDUSTRIAL REPORTING AND CONTROL
AMENDMENT ACT, 2016

Hon. M. Polak presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Greenhouse Gas Industrial Reporting and Control Amendment Act, 2016.

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

Motion approved.

[1340]

Hon. M. Polak: This bill contains amendments to the Greenhouse Gas Industrial Reporting and Control Act. The amendments will support the creation of a strong liquefied natural gas sector in British Columbia, with the cleanest LNG facilities in the world. The amendments arise from ongoing discussions with industry and the LNG sector and also make a modification to transitional…

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

Hon. M. Polak: …provisions that facilitate the implementation of the new Greenhouse Gas Industrial Reporting and Control Act.

Specifically, the amendments create a new entrant period during which new regulated operations can perform commissioning and testing activities to optimize their production, adds authority to allow any person to hold an account and conduct transactions in the B.C. carbon registry and to buy and transfer funded units from government, and enable offsets purchased by government under the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Targets Act to be transitioned to offset units under the Greenhouse Gas Industrial Reporting and Control Act and used to meet government’s carbon neutrality needs.

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

Bill 19, Greenhouse Gas Industrial Reporting and Control Amendment Act, 2016, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

BILL 21 — ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
AMENDMENT ACT, 2016

Hon. M. Polak presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Environmental Management Amendment Act, 2016.

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

Motion approved.

Hon. M. Polak: This bill contains amendments to the Environmental Management Act in order to enable a new spill preparedness response and recovery regime in British Columbia. The new authorities will enable preparedness requirements to be placed on specific industries or businesses before a spill ever happens.

These authorities include the need to have a spill contingency plan in place. The aim is to have a consistent standard across different sectors so as to reduce the risk of a spill and an environmental emergency.

In the event of an actual spill, there will be new obligations and duties for the spill cleanup and to ensure that the full impact of the spill is addressed. These include restoration activities to resolve the harm done to a variety of species, their habitats and the ecology of the affected area.

The new framework will retain the authority of the government to take direct action in response to a spill. In addition, the bill provides clarity as to who is responsible for paying for all the costs of responding to a spill, especially when government has taken the spill response actions.

A comprehensive spill preparedness response and recovery regime is dependent on having the right capability and capacity to deal with spills. The bill enables the government to certify a preparedness and response organization that can provide spill preparedness and responses in British Columbia.

Finally, the bill enables greater transparency, accountability and participation. The aim is to have a spill preparedness response and recovery regime that is strategic, collaborative and inclusive.

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

Bill 21, Environmental Management Amendment Act, 2016, introduced, read a first time and ordered to
[ Page 10803 ]
be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Statements
(Standing Order 25B)

CARBON CAPTURE AND CLEAN ENERGY
PROJECTS IN SQUAMISH

J. Sturdy: Carbon Engineering’s game-changing atmospheric carbon capture and renewable energy project on the Squamish oceanfront is one of those potentially disruptive technologies that could alter our energy future.

That it is the only Canadian finalist for the $25 million Virgin Earth award speaks to its unique attributes, and the fact that the company has recently relocated from Calgary to Squamish speaks to their need to look to the future.

Carbon Engineering is scaling an industrial process that captures ambient carbon dioxide directly from the atmosphere. Together with UBC’s Clean Energy Research Centre as a technical partner, Carbon Engineering is advancing an air-to-fuel demonstration plant with a short-term goal of powering Squamish’s transit fleet with synthetic fuels captured right out of thin air and, longer term, developing a cost-effective carbon capture and air-to-fuel technology that could globally change the way that we live, work and play.

The district of Squamish, Squamish First Nation, Carbon Engineering, Newport Beach Developments and UBC’s Clean Energy Research Centre last week formalized an MOU last week to continue to expand the collaboration with the goal of creating a provincial clean energy innovation and educational hub on the Squamish oceanfront.

Beginning this spring, redevelopment by Newport Beach Developments of this 100-acre brownfield site will create a place where people will come together to work, to play, to live and to learn.

[1345]

The Sea to Sky already has an amazing cluster of heritage and modern clean energy projects. Adding a centre of clean energy technology, education and research to this new Squamish hub of mixed-use, residential, commercial and light industrial is as smart a smart-growth idea as can be imagined for a as can be imagined for a re-emerging Squamish.

Squamish is not just hard-wired for adventure but increasingly hard-wired for knowledge.

SMALL BUSINESS B.C. AWARDS

J. Shin: Last Thursday, on February 25, I joined a room full of fellow British Columbians to celebrate our top B.C. entrepreneurs at the 13th annual Small B.C. Business Awards ceremony. For two months between October 1 and November 30 last year, Small B.C. Business, which is the go-to resource centre for entrepreneurs, asked British Columbians to nominate and vote for their favourite local small businesses. The businesses with the highest number of votes in each of the ten award categories were announced as the top ten semi-finalists on December 11, and the top five finalists then moved on to face a panel of judges in a ten-minute Dragons’ Den–style pitch.

Over 4,000 entrepreneurs have participated in the Small B.C. Business Awards since its inception. With a record-breaking 535 nominations from across the province this year, it is clear that we love small businesses in B.C.

I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the ten winners: Shiraz Café in Prince George; KYBE Electrical Contracting and North Construction, both in North Vancouver; COCO Café in Nanaimo; Filaprint in Tumbler Ridge; All Inclusive Marketing and Big Bro’s Barbershop, both in Vancouver; Republica Coffee Roasters in Fort Langley; Glitter and Spice in South Surrey, Left in Maple Ridge; and of course, I’ll be remiss if I don’t mention Vital Body Weight Loss Centre in Burnaby, who made us very proud by making the top five.

Entrepreneurs work 365 days a year. Today being February 29, I do wish — as I often did for my parents, who poured much of their time along with their heart and soul into their small business — that our entrepreneurs spend the extra 86,400 seconds that we get in this leap year this year for some well-deserved family time. Although I have this feeling that it will be business as usual — another busy day at their best — as they continue to work for their families and their employees who count on them and for their communities that rely on their products and services.

SPCA CUPCAKE DAY FUNDRAISER

J. Martin: It is my delight to remind the House that today is National Cupcake Day. This delicious annual cross-country event is an important fundraiser for the SPCA and for other humane societies — great organizations that do outstanding work to protect the animals we love and care for.

Across the province, pet lovers are holding their own Cupcake Day parties to raise funds for these societies and build awareness about the humane treatment of animals. I’m pleased that this year Team B.C. Liberals are baking and selling cupcakes with the goal of raising $1,000 to go directly to the B.C. SPCA.

Last chance I had to log on, we had already eclipsed that by 50 percent. The day is still young. For just $5, you can get yourself a tasty treat and the satisfaction of helping a puppy, kitten or even a pony in need. What more could you ask for?

As a dog lover with two beautiful shelties back home, Blue and the Dude, this is a cause that is very close to my heart. Unfortunately, not all pets have the good fortune of
[ Page 10804 ]
living in a caring and loving home like my boys do, and that’s why I’m incredibly pleased our government has announced strengthened measures to ensure that animals we bring into our homes are born and raised in a safe and humane environment. We’ll be working with organizations such as the B.C. SPCA to make sure that breeders treat animals with the love, the care and the respect they so much deserve.

Today I encourage my fellow members to contribute what they can toward this great cause. Together, we can bake a difference and improve the lives of animals who need our help the most.

WELCOME PLAYGROUP PROGRAM AT
JAMES BAY COMMUNITY PROJECT

C. James: I’ve spoken often in this House about the amazing James Bay Community Project, and today I want to recognize another valuable program they provide. For the last three years, the James Bay Community Project family centre has been a place of welcome for newcomer families.

[1350]

Through its welcome playgroup program, 118 families from 31 countries have made new friends, discovered resources for themselves and their children, and built connections to help them settle into their new lives. These new arrivals to our country exchange baby items, maternity clothes, contact information and, yes, even recipes. They’ve attended each other’s children’s birthday parties, picnics and potlucks.

Once a month the public health nurses and a dental hygienist visit the welcome playgroup program. They’ve proven very popular, and often the hygienist stays longer than planned to accommodate all the families who want her to check out their children’s teeth.

The space at the family centre is child-friendly, full of books, puzzles and engaging activities for young children. Families are encouraged to support their children’s learning by being hands on, engaging and supervising them at play. They always finish the group with a singalong circle-time activity so that the parents can learn the songs along with their children.

Once parents come for the welcome playgroup, the staff and volunteers at the centre introduce them to the other wonderful programs that help them connect to the community. As one parent put it: “We have made friends, and my children are happy. I’ve realized that I’m not too much different in a new society and in a new country.”

This fabulous program has been funded for the last three years by a grant from the Vancouver Foundation, but that funding runs out next month. Unless another funder is found, the program will come to an end. But I’m an optimist, and I’m hopeful that the welcome playgroup will continue.

Congratulations to executive director Kaye Kennish and her amazing team at the James Bay Community Project. They are making a difference in my community, and I’m so very grateful for their dedication and contribution.

LUNAR NEW YEAR CELEBRATIONS

R. Lee: Another successful month of lunar new year celebrations has come and almost gone. The lunar new year is celebrated in Asia-Pacific regions, including Korea, China, Taiwan, Vietnam, Singapore, Indonesia, Malaysia and the Philippines.

I want to share some of the incredible celebrations that have taken place in the Lower Mainland over the past month. Lunar new year celebrations starts with a countdown at Richmond’s Aberdeen Centre. In Burnaby, I had the pleasure of attending new year celebrations at Confederation and Bonsor community centres as well as the Crystal Mall. Annual celebrations were also held at the Brentwood Town Centre and along Hastings in the Heights area, with colourful lion dancers performing special blessings to bring luck and prosperity to the community.

This year I also enjoyed attending the annual Chinese New Year Cultural Fair in Coquitlam hosted by the Tri-City Chinese Canadian Association. The event was based on the classic Chinese novel Journey to the West, to mark the Year of the Monkey.

I can’t forget to mention the Chinese New Year Parade which returned for the 43rd time in Vancouver’s Chinatown. The rain didn’t dampen the enthusiasm of the participants at this spectacular parade, which featured groups like the Burnaby North Secondary School marching band; the Sikh Motorcycle Club; The Sky’s No Limit — Girls Fly Too; and much more, including many multicultural dancers and martial arts.

Although each lunar new year’s event was unique, they all gave local residents a chance to explore and celebrate promoting a more multicultural, inclusive society. Would the House join me in wishing all those celebrating a very happy and prosperous year.

YOUTH SOLUTIONS CONTEST

D. Donaldson: We often talk about solutions in this chamber. It tends to roll off the tongue easily. But how often do we actually ask young people to share their solutions with others? That is why this year’s annual contest that our MLA offices are running in partnership with Vancouver Canucks’ defenceman and Smithers-raised Dan Hamhuis is called Score One for Solutions.

It’s the sixth year we are running a contest. Previous themes included Don’t Let Cyber Bullies Score and last year’s Score One for Mental Wellness. This year we ask asking teens aged 13 to 18 to submit a 500-word essay or poem sharing solutions they have found or are currently
[ Page 10805 ]
trying to implement to an issue they find most pressing in their lives or the lives of their friends.

I visited schools to promote the contest, and the topics students have spoken about show a lot of diversity. Rather than setting a theme, this year we are leaving it up to teens to let us know what is on their minds and what they find challenging.

In my classroom visits, some have spoken about relationships, others about the pressures around drug and alcohol use. One grade 8 class talked about the struggle to achieve a balance in life. Imagine that: the pressures normally associated with adults yet being felt by someone as young as in grade 8.

[1355]

The entries will be considered by three independent judges. The winning entry will be posted on my MLA website, dougdonaldson.ca. The entry deadline is near, March 3.

Thanks to our media sponsors, the Interior News and Moose FM, the word is out. The prize is pretty sweet: two tickets to a Canucks game later this month, courtesy of Smithers’ Dan Hamhuis; plus two return airfares and two nights’ accommodation, thanks to our sponsors, the Gitksan Government Commission and Central Mountain Air.

Score One for Solutions — it’s a great contest where we hope to share some stories and solutions from teens and part of an approach we take of those most impacted by an issue being the ones, first and foremost, listened to for solutions.

Oral Questions

GOVERNMENT SPENDING PRIORITIES
AND BUS PASS PROGRAM CHANGES

J. Horgan: Every day that goes by since the tabling of this year’s budget, more and more people are talking about just how callous this government has become. And we’ve got some fairly graphic examples of the choices that the Minister of Finance talked about on election day.

The Minister of Finance had a choice to give a meaningful increase to people on disability pensions for the first time in nine years. Instead of doing that, the Minister of Finance gave with one hand and took away with the other. And the government had the gall to say that this was about choices. I don’t know anyone else in this place who would agree that the choice between being shut in or using the most basic form of transportation is in fact a real choice.

The Premier, of course, has choices as well, and the Premier chose, rather than using WestJet, to spend $500,000 on private jets. My question is to the Minister of Social Development. Can she explain to the people in this House and, more importantly, to people on disability assistance why it’s okay for the Premier to find the highest-priced option and it’s okay for you and your government to take away the most basic of options for transportation for people with disabilities?

Madame Speaker: I’ll remind all members to direct their comments through the Chair.

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: The member opposite seems offended that we would actually provide choice to people with disabilities, as if they’re not able to make choices for themselves. We on this side of the House actually think that people are able to make their own choices. That’s why in our ministry, here in Social Development and Social Innovation, we continue to refine policies to increase the independence of people with disabilities so that they can attain their full potential.

Again, for clarification for the members opposite, who certainly don’t seem to understand — and as much as they continue to say it over and over again, it doesn’t make it right: the subsidized bus pass program is still available to those individuals with disabilities. They can have it, and they will receive a $25 rate increase. That is what we are able to do, on this side of the House, to provide assistance for people with disabilities.

J. Horgan: The government was able to find 236 million bucks to give to the richest people in British Columbia, and they’re taking away bus passes from the most vulnerable. It’s reprehensible. It’s reprehensible for the minister to talk about choice.

What’s the choice? The choice is to stay home, “or do I get a bus pass…”

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

J. Horgan: “…or do I buy food, or do I keep the lights on?” because hydro rates are going up again as well.

This is a government that is completely and utterly detached from reality, absolutely detached from reality. To the Minister of Social Development: why is it okay for the Premier and her entourage to get private flights wherever they want to go, and it’s not good enough to give a basic bus pass to the most vulnerable people in our community? Why that choice?

[1400]

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: It’s just wrong, and the member opposite knows it. The investment is $170 million to increase the rates for people with disabilities across this province, giving 45,000 people money that they didn’t have before, that they didn’t get, that other people did get.

It’s about equity. It’s about fairness. And for the members opposite, who always say that’s what they’re all about — fairness and equity — this is what change is doing in
[ Page 10806 ]
our ministry: making sure that everybody is getting the same thing across the board, as well as keeping their subsidized bus pass if that’s what they choose.

It’s not just about the rates. It’s about the other things that…. We wrap supports around individuals: free MSP, free dental, optical, medical equipment, supplies and subsidized daycare. We wrap all those supports around people to ensure that they can reach their full potential.

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

J. Horgan: For the minister to recite programs that have been in place for decades is not credit due to this government — not at all. Quite the contrary. Now, if the Premier needs to fly to Whistler, the private jet is there. If she needs to go to Kelowna to remind the people there that she is their MLA, the private jet is there. But what do we do for the most vulnerable in society? Well, $52 a month from $77 a month isn’t a lot, and some of that’s going to go into the pocket of the minister responsible for B.C. Hydro so he can transfer it to the Minister of Finance to balance the books. This government is completely and utterly out of touch.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

J. Horgan: When you can stand and defend private jets to the tune of half a million bucks when there are multiple flights a day…. If the Premier does like to visit the constituency she represents….

Interjection.

Madame Speaker: Minister of Health.

J. Horgan: Nine years and nothing from the bunch over there. But the rich got their piece last year. The rich got their piece again, and the Premier gets to fly to her sometimes constituency in a private jet. Unbelievable. To the most out-of-touch government I’ve ever seen in my life, will you do the right thing and restore bus passes to the most vulnerable people and shut the private jets down?

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: This House will come to order. Both sides of this House will come to order.

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: If the member opposite wants to talk about reality, let’s talk about the reality that they provided in their 2013 election platform: $20 of an increase for couples and singles. Nothing for people with disabilities. Let’s talk about the reality that the members opposite cut income assistance rates when they were in government — cut them.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

Please continue.

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: It was the members opposite who, in their ten years of time in government, raised the rates a mere $10. It is this government that continues to make investments for people with disabilities. It’s this government that came up with the single-parent employment initiative. It’s this government that came up with technology at work to provide supports for individuals, to remove barriers and create opportunities so that they can get into the workforce. We know that the best thing for individuals is to get a job, become independent and take care of themselves and their families.

M. Mungall: You can only imagine the outrage that people with disabilities feel after hearing….

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

M. Mungall: You know, Madame Speaker, I’m getting tired of…. Every time I get up, this side of the House over here just has to get outraged, and they have to shut these questions down. These are the questions from people with disabilities in this province, and that attitude is wrong.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members. This House will come to order.

Please continue.

M. Mungall: As I was trying to say, you can only imagine the outrage that people with disabilities feel after hearing about the Premier’s travel choices.

[1405]

One trip was over $16,000. Now, compare that with the $11,700 that people with disabilities get to live off in a single year. Now $624 of that is going to be clawed back for the Liberals’ new bus pass fee. And it is a new bus pass fee.

The minister talks about choices, and it’s pretty clear that choices are being made — luxury travel for the Premier, and a bus pass clawback for people with disabilities. My question is to the Minister of Social Development. Clearly, she doesn’t get it. Why does she not get that this is wrong, and when is she going to end the clawback of bus passes for people with disabilities?
[ Page 10807 ]

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: What needs to be shut down are the inaccuracies that the member opposite continues to spread across this province, for people with disabilities. What I truly don’t understand is how the member opposite wasn’t advocating for her constituents in her own community that weren’t getting any transportation subsidy and who are now getting a $77 increase.

On this side of the House, we have made investments across ministries: $3.2 billion in health care over the next three years, $217 million in MCFD, $456 million in SDSI, too, not only to provide the rate increase and the bus subsidy to individuals across this province with disabilities, but also for those who are CLBC clients — $36 million. Those are investments that are making a difference in people’s lives each and every day.

Madame Speaker: I recognize the member for Nelson-Creston on a supplemental.

M. Mungall: If anyone in this House is misleading the public, it’s that minister, right there, every time she says that people with disabilities did not pay $52 a month for their bus…. They did not pay $52 for their bus pass prior to this clawback instituted by this government. That’s the truth, and every time they suggest otherwise, they are the ones misleading people across this province.

And on one day — on one day — the Premier charters a flight for her and her entourage to Kelowna for a photo op. Now, she enjoyed that photo op so much that guess what. She went and did it the very next day again. Bills sent to the taxpayers.

But if Alex Carey, a young man with disabilities, needs to get to his classes so that he can get a job…. If he needs to get to his classes at Douglas College in New Westminster, guess what. He has to pay more, or he has to drop out, and that doesn’t sound like much of a choice at all.

So, Minister, here’s the reality. You’re forcing people with disabilities to choose between a bus pass, getting to classes, getting to work, getting to doctor’s appointments or food. That’s the reality. Why don’t you get it, and when are you going to end this bus pass clawback?

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: It’s been about two weeks since the budget came out and we announced the $170 million investment that we’re making. The member opposite has yet to come to me to ask for information or a briefing on how to understand how this is affecting and benefiting people with disabilities around this province. I welcome her to come for information if she needs it, because obviously she doesn’t get it.

I’d like to help support her in that if she chooses, because my role as minister is to ensure that people with disabilities are supported. And these changes are supporting them more today than they were yesterday.

[1410]

COURT RULING ON
ASBESTOS REMOVAL COMPANY
AND WORKSAFE B.C. REGULATIONS

S. Simpson: Last week the Supreme Court overturned the contempt charges against Seattle Environmental Consulting regarding their asbestos removal business. This company has a disturbing record of ignoring worker safety in an industry that can have very serious health consequences for workers who are not appropriately equipped or trained. This court decision is of great concern to those who work in the health and safety field. Will the minister assure this House that there will be an appeal of this disappointing decision?

Hon. S. Bond: I certainly share the member’s concern that worker safety in British Columbia must be a priority, and particularly in regards to the issue of asbestos. We have seen the impacts of latency in workers as a result of contamination with asbestos. As the member knows, the judge, at this point, has issued an oral judgment.

WorkSafe continues to wait for the formal written judgment, but I can assure the member opposite that WorkSafe will be considering all of its options — including, most specifically, an appeal.

Madame Speaker: The member for Vancouver-Hastings on a supplemental.

S. Simpson: We know the court did not overturn the order itself, and there’s little question about the conduct of this company. The issue is the complexity and the clarity of the regulations that implement this decision. The regulatory regime that provides oversight and enforcement is fundamental to the operation of WorkSafe.

What action does the minister intend to take to ensure that WorkSafe’s procedures and regulations protect workers and ensure consequences for bad actors, like Seattle Environmental, regardless of the final decision about an appeal?

Hon. S. Bond: As I said to the member opposite, the first thing we’re going to do is wait for the written judgment. I’ve asked that WorkSafe thoroughly examine all of the issues that have been raised by the decision. They’re going to wait to see what the written decision says. In fact, I’ve had several discussions over the past number of months about the whole management of the issue that’s related to asbestos in the province.

WorkSafe, as I’m sure the member knows, has an expanded demolition compliance team. They absolutely recognize the importance of ensuring that regulations are followed, that compliance is absolutely critical. So WorkSafe will examine the written judgment and will look at the issue of whether or not the regulatory regime is an issue here. But worker safety is a priority, and WorkSafe
[ Page 10808 ]
fully understands that. I can assure the member opposite that this decision will be taken extremely seriously.

CAPITAL FUNDING FOR BAYSIDE
MIDDLE SCHOOL ROOF REPLACEMENT

G. Holman: Bayside Middle School now has a bigger problem than just a leaky roof. It now has a mould problem that’s so bad that the library and the art class had to be quarantined last week. The costs of mould removal will now be added to the $400,000 school district 63 has already spent trying to patch the leaking roof and to fix the water damage.

Needless to say, teachers and parents are worried about the health of children attending the school. The school district has now told the minister they can contribute $1 million to the $2½ million cost of roof replacement.

How bad do the problems at Bayside have to get before the minister understands the urgency of the situation and commits to replacing the Bayside School roof to protect kids in the classroom?

Hon. M. Bernier: I find this quite disappointing to even have to stand in the House to answer this question, especially since the member opposite has met with me numerous times on this issue. I’ve explained it to him numerous times. In fact, I even stepped out and met with the people from the PAC group. The hon. member knows very well what’s happening in this situation. He can exaggerate all he wants in this situation to say that there’s mould everywhere.

In fact, the member actually knows the answer to the question. There was mould found on Thursday. By Friday, it was fixed and students were back in the classroom and the library. He knows that answer.

The member opposite also knows the answer that I committed to work with the school district, that my staff has actually been working on this issue long before that member brought it to this House.

[1415]

So although the member would like to try to make it look as if he’s doing something, I’d like to thank the parents in that area, and I’d like to thank the school district. The school district is the one who actually brought it forward, and we committed to working with them to find the answer, to find the resolve.

Madame Speaker: The member for Saanich North and the Islands on a supplemental.

G. Holman: Well, the minister can spare me the outrage.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

G. Holman: I’m quite aware of….

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Member, excuse me.

The House will come to order before we continue.

Please proceed.

G. Holman: I’m quite aware of the process that the school has to go through. I’m quite aware that kids are slipping on the gym floor. I’m quite aware that the mould problem has been fixed.

What the minister….

Interjections.

G. Holman: The point here is that if the roof doesn’t get replaced…

Interjection.

Madame Speaker: Member.

G. Holman: …we will continue to have mould discovered in the walls.

School children are dodging buckets on the gym floor, and the only way to fix that is to fix the roof. If the minister does not make a commitment soon enough to replace the school roof, we can’t get the work done, completed, in the summer, which is our window of opportunity to complete this.

Will the minister commit today — commit today, Mr. Minister — to replacing the roof? Let’s get to yes.

Hon. M. Bernier: First of all, let me thank the parents that are in that school — and the school district, which has been doing amazing work. I want to thank them because they’ve been dealing with this situation far too long.

The member opposite knows the situation all too well. In fact, when this issue came to me a week ago and I researched into this, I found out that my ministry staff had actually been working for quite some time with the district to try to do this.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Order.

Hon. M. Bernier: I’ll make this very, very, very simple for the member opposite. The member opposite actually knows the answer to this because I’ve met with him. We committed to working with the school district. This has been going on far too long. We’ve committed to making sure that the parents have the roof fixed.

That’s why the school district and the ministry have an architect who is looking at the issue — to make sure
[ Page 10809 ]
that we don’t waste money fixing a roof and having it leak again. The member knows this. I know they don’t care about wasting money, but on this side of the House, we do. So we want to make sure it’s done properly.

That’s why we have the architect giving us the numbers. That’s why, on this side of the House, we committed to working with the school district to make sure that the roof is repaired.

DAIRY FARM ABUSE CASE

L. Popham: My question is to the Attorney General. Can she tell this House why, after 19 months, no charges have been laid in the case of the horrific abuse of dairy cattle in Chilliwack?

Hon. S. Anton: This is a question properly directed to the criminal justice branch, because they are the independent prosecution service. They are not directed by the political arm of government.

What I will say, though, is that the criminal justice branch takes all charges extremely seriously that come to them. They take charges — in this case, involving animals, livestock — extremely seriously. They treat them seriously.

[1420]

They have a charge approval standard. There must be a substantial likelihood of conviction. It must be in the public interest. They assess those two matters, and they draw a conclusion as to whether or not charges should be laid. We are very well served in British Columbia by our prosecution service, and as I said, they are an independent prosecution service.

PLACEMENT OF MÉTIS CHILD AND
PERMANENCY PLANS FOR
CHILDREN IN CARE

D. Donaldson: The news that a 2½-year-old Métis child from B.C. is about to be moved to Ontario, away from the only family she has ever known, is causing a lot of concern — the main one being, of course, the impact of the move on the child.

The ministry’s care standards make it clear that every child in care under five should have a permanent plan within 12 months. So why was this child in care for 2½ years — think about that — before the ministry made permanent plans for her?

Hon. S. Cadieux: Well, after a couple of years of this, you would expect that the member opposite would know not to raise questions about individual cases in the House, because I can’t answer them. While we can’t speak directly to any case about any child specifically — and certainly not one that is before the courts — what I can say is that in any circumstance where there is a child in care who we are looking to place for adoption, the best interests of the child are first and foremost in any planning for that child.

Madame Speaker: The member for Stikine on a supplemental.

D. Donaldson: Last week the minister pleaded for questions, and this week she again refuses to answer.

The government claims to be concerned about the workload of social workers, but the facts say otherwise. The government has left social workers understaffed and overworked. When there aren’t enough social workers, they are left to deal with emergencies. Adoptions aren’t emergencies, so they get put to the back of the line.

Here’s a 2½-year-old who is impacted by staff shortages. How is that putting, in the words of the minister, the concerns of the child paramount? How is the minister going to ensure that the right decision takes place for this child?

Hon. S. Cadieux: Firstly, I will say, for the members opposite, that no decision for any child in the care of the government is made by a political person. They are made by folks who are delegated the authority to make those decisions, as per legislation.

Let me just address a couple of other things that the member raises. First off, our social workers — 2,500 people on the front lines that do incredibly good work under incredibly difficult circumstances all of the time. In November of 2014, I committed to boosting the front line by 200 people, and I can confirm for the member that that has indeed happened. In addition, Budget 2016-17 allows us to hire an additional 130 front-line people.

This House is well aware of my commitment to adoptions and improving both the timeliness and the number of adoptions in British Columbia. That plan has been underway for a couple of years now, and we have committed an additional $3 million over the next three years to further improve those processes.

C. James: An infant who has been in care from the start of their life should not be waiting 2½ years for the government to make a plan for her. What has been done cannot be changed, but it’s all the more reason to ensure that this child is not further harmed. That means working with the current foster parents. That means making sure that the best decision is made.

After everything this government has put this child and these foster parents through, my question is to the minister: will she ensure a thorough review of all children without permanency plans and put the resources in place to fix this problem?

[1425]

Hon. S. Cadieux: I agree with the member opposite that timeliness for children in care is absolutely important,
[ Page 10810 ]
and it’s why we’re making improvements in the ministry. It is why we’re hiring additional staff so they have more capacity to do the important work that they do. It’s why we’ve put an increased emphasis and focus on adoptions and guardianship and why last year we were able to increase the number of adoptions and the number of guardianship placements significantly over the year before.

That work will continue. Permanency plans for children in care are absolutely a priority, and that is work that is improving every day.

[End of question period.]

J. Horgan: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

J. Horgan: Joining us in the gallery today is the former member for Vancouver-Kensington, the affable, the charming — and the ever-present today — David Chudnovsky. Would the House please make him very, very welcome.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: In Committee A, it’s Committee of Supply — for the information of members, the ongoing estimates of the Ministry of Environment — and in this chamber, continued second reading debate on Bill 10.

[R. Lee in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 10 — BUDGET MEASURES
IMPLEMENTATION ACT, 2016

(continued)

H. Bains: I’ll continue on with my comments about the bill before us, Bill 10, the Budget Measures Implementation Act, 2016.

[1430]

I talked on Thursday, before my time ran out…. What are we talking about in this bill? One of the things that is being proposed here, $100 million — they call it the prosperity fund. And I said: “Is it really a prosperity fund? Where did this idea of this fund come from?” I touched on that on Thursday, and maybe it is good that we just start there.

Before the last election, 2013, we all saw what the Premier was running around and announcing. She announced…. On the side of the bus, actually, was written: “Debt-free B.C.” She said that the LNG industry is going to be here, and she was promoting that. By 2015, we will have a number of operations of LNG. The money will come in, and we won’t even know what to do with it. She talked about eliminating our debt altogether.

She knew that the debt, under her watch, was increasing more rapidly than ever and under any other Premier in the history of British Columbia. She knew that because, under her watch…. She knew that the debt, when she took over, was around $45 billion. She knew that…. By the time this fiscal year ends, our British Columbia debt will be $72 billion — from $45 billion only two years ago to $72 billion. Never in the history of this province has debt risen that fast — never, under any Premier.

For her to say that it’ll be a debt-free B.C. because…. All the revenue will come from LNG, and all the plants will be on line. They’re coming. In 2015, they will be in operation. Debt-free B.C. — all debts gone. Then she said, in fact, that our sales tax will be eliminated. Can you imagine that — a day in British Columbia when we have no sales tax? She also said we would set aside a prosperity fund. Because there’s so much money, we are saving for the future.

People believed her. They believed her. They voted her in. Now 2015 has come and gone — nothing to show for as far as the LNG plants are concerned, nowhere to be seen, nowhere, not even a sign. Company after company after company, who were proponents under her proposal, are saying: “We’re not making that decision until later, maybe never.” That’s the decision that is coming.

I mentioned why people should have been skeptical about her. She knew. Her own advisers were telling her that the United States is sitting on the largest deposit of natural gas of any country in the world. She was advised that the United States, within ten years, will be energy self-sufficient. She also was advised that the United States, the largest importer of energy in the world, would not only be self-sufficient; they would be in a position to export.

Now, can you imagine? When the largest importer of energy is actually exporting, what will happen to the prices of that commodity? I mean, it’s basic economics. When you have so much availability of a product, the prices are going to go down, and they knew that. When she was making those assertions, she knew that. That information was available to her.

What happened? Who cares about the facts? She simply said: “I’m just continuing to go on and continuing to promise all that.” Now an election is coming near, just around the corner. There’s an election coming up. She knows that the people of the province will be saying: “Madam Premier, you said there will be a prosperity fund. You said our debt will be eliminated. You said the sales tax will be gone. What do you have to show for it?”

[1435]

The creation of this fund, the $100 million prosperity fund, was supposed to be paid and invested with LNG revenue. Not a single penny came from LNG, but now she will have a prosperity fund. I call it a fantasy fund.
[ Page 10811 ]
You can call it a fictitious fund or even…. Lawyers will say it’s a frivolous fund.

Interjection.

H. Bains: Let’s talk about investment in the future. Actually, the member for Delta North the other day called it a saving account. Wow. It’s like, in any household, you have debt increasing at a record level. Your debt is increasing for the family at a record level. Your spouse is saying: “Hubby, what’s going on here? What are we doing here? How are we going to pay that debt?” You say: “Honey, don’t worry about it. I have just started a saving account. We’ll put money through the saving account. The money will come in, and we’ll pay our debt.”

Brilliant idea. She will throw you out of the house if you try that at home — and rightfully so. You should be thrown out of the house if that’s the kind of snake oil you take home and say to your spouse: “I’ve got all the answers for you. The debt is increasing. I have no answer to how I’m going to pay down the debt, but I have a saving account here. Money will come in; money will go out.”

Interjection.

Deputy Speaker: Order. Order, Member.

H. Bains: That’s what they’re doing here. It is frivolous.

Interjection.

H. Bains: You know what’s hogwash? It’s this fund. This fund is hogwash. I think the member for post-secondary education coined the right term for it. It is hogwash. This fund…. I thought it was fictitious. I thought it was fantasy. I thought it was frivolous. The member corrected me. It is hogwash. I agree with him. This fund is hogwash.

That’s what we are facing here — money that is not there. Just because we are creating a fund, right here in the document…. The government document shows there’s $100 million, and 25 percent is already committed to something else. Another 25 percent is allocated to something else, and then the remainder is also allocated to something else. So there’s nothing left in the account — none whatsoever. That’s why I think it is frivolous. It is frivolous. It is hogwash.

Let’s talk about what’s not in this bill. I want to talk about some of the real, serious issues that we are facing in British Columbia. There’s no answer here about B.C. Hydro rates going up. There’s no answer here about ICBC rates going up. There’s no answer here, in this bill, about MSP premiums. It’s all about taking more money out of the hard-working taxpayers’ pockets and giving tax breaks to their friends, the top 2 percent of British Columbians — a quarter of a billion dollars last year, a quarter of a billion dollars this year. You’re talking about almost a half-a-billion-dollar tax break to some of the richest in the province.

The top 2 percent will get a half-a-billion-dollar tax break between these two years, $1 billion over a four-year cycle. That’s $1 billion at a time when the government is saying we don’t have enough money to invest in the forestry industry, in our seniors, in our schools, in our post-secondary education, in a crime reduction strategy — none whatsoever. But they have found $1 billion, over four years, to give to the richest 2 percent of British Columbians.

Then they came here and said: “Well, we had to make some tough choices.” That is the choice that they made. For the ordinary people, the hard-working middle class and those who are on fixed income, their rates continue to go up in B.C. Hydro, ICBC, MSP premiums and even park fees. You go and drive south of Fraser. The tolls are going up. That’s what’s happening. On the other hand, the richest 2 percent will get a tax break to the tune of $1 billion over four years. Well, very tough choice. A very tough choice, I might say. That’s what it is.

[1440]

Let’s take a look at the industry that actually built this province, the forest industry, the industry that fed my family and looked after me and thousands of other families in British Columbia for the last 150 years. What do we have? Let’s take a little baseline test here. One thing for sure that I’ll pass on is these facts. So 31,000 fewer workers are working in the forest industry today than when this law took power in 2001 — 31,000 fewer forestry workers. Over 150 mills have been shut down during this period of time since they took over.

What do they have to propose to bring that industry back on its feet again so that we can actually encourage our forest industry, our forest companies, to invest here in British Columbia, rather than leaving British Columbia as they are doing now? All of our British Columbia…. Not all of them but many major industry companies are purchasing and investing in the United States right now.

In 2001, when the B.C. Liberals took over, there were maybe one or two mills south of the border owned by B.C. companies. In fact, it was the other way around. The U.S. companies were coming and investing in British Columbia — Weldwoods of the world, Weyerhaeusers of the world. They were coming into British Columbia to invest in B.C., to utilize our trees, processing them here and creating jobs here in British Columbia, as was established by governments decades ago.

The people of this province, through the government, said: “We will allow you to go in there and harvest those trees, and you, in return, will process them here in British Columbia to create jobs for British Columbians.” That was a social contract that existed ever since the forest industry came into commercialization.
[ Page 10812 ]

But this government, when they came into power, under the so-called forest revitalization act, cut that social contract. There’s hardly any social contract left. They said to the forest industry: “You can do whatever you want with our trees. You can do whatever you want. You don’t have to process them here in British Columbia.” As a result, they are shipping those logs raw. So 7 million cubic metres of raw logs have been shipped in each of the last few years. Seven million. That’s what is happening here in the British Columbian forest industry.

In the meantime, our British Columbian forest companies are fleeing British Columbia right now. There are over 40 mills in the United States invested in by British Columbian companies now, compared to one or two back in 2001-2002. That is a trend, and they don’t see that.

They don’t think that the forest industry needs a major investment so that our industry can stand on its feet again, so that we invest in forest health and so that generations to come will benefit from our forest industry as this generation and the generations before us benefited from it. It makes a lot of sense. It’s common sense but not from this government. They said to the forest industry, “You can do whatever you want,” and yes, they are doing it.

When they brought in the forest revitalization act, back in 2003, the promise that the industry made at that time was that they will be investing, in return, $2 billion to $3 billion in their operations in British Columbia to make them world competitive. That’s what they promised. They got everything that they wanted from this government. Did we get, in return, our part of the contract? They invested but not in British Columbia. They’re investing in the United States. That’s where they’re investing.

What do we have in this budget to deal with that? None whatsoever. What does that mean? Lack of leadership, lack of vision, lack of direction by this government. As a result, the forest industry will continue to suffer.

Interjection.

H. Bains: I think the Minister of Jobs is making some comments out there. Maybe I will remind her that in her own backyard, here’s what people are saying. This letter was printed in the Prince George Citizen.

[1445]

This is what was printed in the Prince George Citizen, right here. Let’s see here. Let’s talk about the forest industry.

Interjections.

H. Bains: We’ll get to those points. Let’s talk about forestry. I know you don’t want me to talk about the forest industry. Let’s talk about the forest industry first. Here’s what was printed in the Prince George Citizen, just recently, only a week ago, February 19. They say: “B.C. Has Poor Record of Resource Management.” That’s the heading. I’ll read the letter so that the minister will actually know what’s going on in her backyard.

“It is rather ironic for the Premier to point out the track record of Alberta’s lack of focus with their resources.”

Remember what the Premier was saying here when she delivered the budget? She was attacking Alberta. It’s ironic that she would point out the track record of Alberta’s lack of focus with their resources.

“In B.C., we have shown a great lack of foresight regarding our natural resources.”

This is in Prince George.

“In 1912, the provincial government had the foresight to establish the Forest Service. This was to manage all forests on Crown land belonging to the people, to secure a sustainable land base. One hundred years later, we can look back on a legacy of total mismanagement.

“Not only have they destroyed a large percentage of the forest land base, but we have virtually no new stands ready to harvest, except for some private lands on the Lower Mainland and Vancouver Island. Now that the government, in its wisdom, has terminated the Forest Service, who knows what will happen to all the Crown land in their charge?

“With our coal resources, we have seen previous governments having the taxpayer subsidize coal costs so they could sell the product overseas.

“B.C. Hydro has been mismanaged for several years. By being allowed to bypass the Public Utilities Commission, they have been able to ride roughshod over the requirements of First Nations and other groups. Site C should never have been started prior to all court challenges being completed. Greed is the only reason this is going ahead at this time. The hope is that Alberta will bail them out.

“Oil and gas development should have been managed differently from the start. Fracking is a big concern to many people, not only in the use of water but the long-term effects on groundwater and seismic complications. For the government to freeze tax increases to large global companies for a period of 25 years is atrocious and should be rescinded.

“Ecotourism can be an important source of income to the province, as long as we can maintain our natural scenery and resources.

“I feel that it is time for the taxpayers of this province to stand up against many of these extreme policies and have a greater say in the handling of resources in beautiful British Columbia.”

It’s signed by Harry Coates, Prince George.

How do you argue with that? I would like the Minister of Health, who has been chirping away when I was reading this letter — and the Minister of Jobs — to stand up and argue with this letter.

How can you argue with this letter? You know, it’s the truth. I know it hurts on that side. It hurts over there. I know that. That’s why they continue to shut people down when they question them.

Then the Premier will say: “If you’re not on my side, you’re my enemy. If you don’t agree with what I’m saying, the position that I’m taking, the policies that I’m developing here, no matter how political it is, well, then you’re saying no to all of those projects.” I mean, if you don’t agree with her, you’re against everything. That is how they like to portray everyone in the province, including the opposition.

Well, they will come to their senses one day, I hope. I hope that they will say yes to building schools in Surrey, in south of the Fraser and Tri-Cities. They’ve been saying and
[ Page 10813 ]
making promises for the last ten years — every minister. I think it’s the fourth or fifth minister that we have today — Minister of Education. They all made the same speech for the last ten years. What have they done? Nothing.

[1450]

I hope that they will say yes to building public transportation in Surrey and in Vancouver — the extension of SkyTrain. I hope they will say yes to that, rather than continue to put those things through referendum — make political decisions.

I hope that they will say yes to investing in the forest industry, into forest health.

Interjection.

H. Bains: Well, I think the Minister of Jobs should know better, because I think she’s quite knowledgable in this area.

They continue to allocate $63 million for fighting wildfires every year when they know that for the last ten years, the average cost to fight wildfires was $300 million. But they continue to allocate $63 million, and again this year.

I hope that they will say yes to building light rail in Surrey. I hope that they will say yes to inviting investment in natural resources and using B.C. workers, instead of allowing them to bring their own workers, temporary foreign workers. I hope that they will use our natural resources to create jobs for British Columbians, rather than allowing them to ship raw logs and not have any restrictions on those. I hope that they will say yes to the taxi industry, instead of saying yes to the Uber.

I hope that they will say yes to students from south of the Fraser to affordable access to post-secondary education. It’s getting out of reach.

I hope that they will be more prudent when they build these megaprojects than what they have been on the Port Mann and Golden Ears bridges. On Golden Ears Bridge, thanks to this government, we are paying $40 million each year for promised traffic that isn’t even there. They used the same company to forecast future traffic volumes on Port Mann. No wonder Port Mann is now losing money — hundreds of millions of dollars every year.

That’s the kind of mismanagement…. When we question them, we are somehow against all projects. That’s not the case. We are for building British Columbia with British Columbians and using our natural resources to create jobs in British Columbia for British Columbians.

That’s the difference that we have between them and us: what kind of British Columbia we want to build. We want to build British Columbia with the help of British Columbians, rather than what they’ve been doing with temporary foreign workers and allowing the companies to exploit them.

A. Weaver: I was busy booking a flight to Vancouver, expecting a Liberal member opposite to stand up and defend their budget, offer insight as to why this budget implementation act is a good one. Instead, all they resort to is chirping little bits here and little bits there.

I rise to speak to Bill 10, Budget Measures Implementation Act, 2016. As you know, this bill essentially lays out the implementation across a diversity of bills — amendments here, amendments there — to implement government priorities as outlined in the budget speech.

There are a number of aspects to this. Number one, of course, is the introduction of the prosperity fund, the so-called $100 billion prosperity fund, a fund that was promised to British Columbians in the last election during a Hail Mary pass of hope that was given by this government to British Columbians in a desperate attempt to try to get elected — 100,000 jobs, $100 billion prosperity fund, debt-free B.C., elimination of PST, thriving schools and thriving hospitals, and on and on. A pot of gold at the end of the LNG rainbow was promised to each and every British Columbian.

In a desperate attempt to try to fulfil this outlandish promise — this promise that anybody in the natural gas industry knew was absurd, this promise that only the Liberals themselves convinced themselves had any dream of reality — when it finally….

[1455]

Interjection.

A. Weaver: I hear some sighing coming across the benches over there. The reality is that if you go back and look at the presentation given by the Deputy Minister of Energy and Mines to the clean energy conference in 2012, you would see in that presentation natural gas prices projected to increase into the $20 to $30 range in the months and years ahead.

There is not a single person internationally who would ever have thought natural gas prices were going to increase like that, in light of the fact that everybody has discovered horizontal fracking technology, that Russia is so close to China and has reserves almost 20 times those of natural gas, that Iran, which has the largest reserve in the world, would have its….

Interjection.

A. Weaver: The Minister of Advanced Education is truly quite pompous over there. What is so remarkable is that I know his own colleagues think he’s a pompous person as well. So it would be quite…. It’s very difficult to actually continue with this.

Interjection.

Deputy Speaker: Order, please.

A. Weaver: Thank you, hon. Speaker. I’m glad to have some order back in here.
[ Page 10814 ]

The prosperity fund is, as I pointed out, a desperate attempt to try to look like government is responding to its promise in the provincial election. When you actually look at this $100 million prosperity fund, it really is only $25 million, because 50 percent of that is going to be used to pay down debt. That’s $50 million. Another $25 million is going to be used for government priorities. What are those government priorities? Let me lay them out for you.

We’re going to see, over the course of the next year, a bunch of little tidbits — election tidbits — offered to British Columbians in the same vein as was offered in the last election, promises of this and promises of that. Say whatever it takes to get through lunch. Then say whatever it takes to get to dinner, and say whatever it takes again to get through to the next day.

There is also the Property Transfer Tax Act that’s being modified in the budget implementation act — government’s response to an affordability crisis in Vancouver, rather than standing back and recognizing that there are three reasons for this affordability crisis, or the speculative housing market. Number 1 is lack of enforcement of the Real Estate Services Act. Number 2 is a preponderance of vacant homes and owners of those vacant homes not being required to pay the true cost, the social cost, of leaving vacant properties. Now, I know the Minister of Advanced Education has a hard time when I start to use economic language. The externalities associated with vacant homes have not been internalized to the people with those vacant homes. Those externalities are a social cost. The third reason is the existence of loopholes that allow people to avoid paying property transfer tax or register on title where they live.

It was with the latter that I do appreciate the government introducing two aspects of policy. One is with respect to bare trustees now being required to say who they are. The second one, of course, is that on title, you will now have to declare if you are a Canadian citizen or not. The problem with this is that should have been extended to also require you to list if your primary residence is in another province, as other provinces do in British Columbia.

Interjection.

A. Weaver: Sorry — as other provinces do in Canada.

Interjection.

A. Weaver: My goodness, I could only imagine having to live in a house with the Minister of Advanced Education. While I am straight, I would have divorced this man within a matter of moments, as he is simply intolerable. His hubris, his pomposity, his arrogance is so intolerable, it makes one want to be ill. But with that, I will move on.

Even the ministers opposite are laughing, because they all agree with me as well, I know.

The property transfer tax. The government’s response, rather than dealing with the issue, is to incentivize further speculation. How do I say that? Well, one piece of policy that’s introduced is an elimination of property transfer taxes on new homes under $750,000. At first glance, one might think that’s a good thing.

[1500]

But what is this incentivizing? What it’s incentivizing is the purchase of older homes, the ripping down of those older homes and constructing townhouse developments. Creating more supply may sound like a good thing, but unfortunately, it’s not addressing the critical issue, which is internalizing the social costs of leaving homes vacant.

It simply incentivizes our speculative economy, an economy that this government thinks is actually diversified and stable but, I would argue, is very, very flimsy, because it is being buttressed by an artificial, speculative housing market in greater Vancouver and now coming to the CRD. That is not a healthy situation. We only have to go to Scottsdale or Phoenix, Arizona, to see what happens to an economy that is built on a speculative housing market. It keeps going, and then there’s the big crash. And this government, like it has done with LNG, will blame global market foes that we have no control over. But they do have control. There are things that could be done now.

This government should be investigating putting a price on leaving vacant properties empty. Putting a price on those vacant properties does two things. One, it incentivizes renting of those properties. It makes people want to rent those properties, which puts downward pressure on rental prices. Two, it actually reduces, then, the demand on new homes, because there are more people in rental homes.

Internalizing the externalities — making vacant homes have to pay the social cost. This can be done in a revenue-neutral fashion. The money raised through the tax of vacant homes could be used, for example, to help house the homeless. It could be used, for example, to give rental subsidies. It does not have to be a money grab for government.

Government has a responsibility to use the tools it has to ensure that the market is fair. The housing market in Vancouver is not a free market. It is a market failure. It’s a failure because the social cost is not being paid, and the only way to do that is to actually put a price on leaving your homes vacant.

Bare trust is another one that I’ve mentioned over the last couple of years as a loophole that was originally put in place a long time ago — back in the ’80s, I believe, even before the so-called dreaded ’90s.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: Bare trust has been around since the 16th century.
[ Page 10815 ]

A. Weaver: Maybe it was around in the 16th century, but I don’t believe anything the Minister of Advanced Education says, because he’s so pompous. Everything he says, you’re supposed to believe. And I believe none of it. He loses credibility when he continues to chirp that way.

The problem with registering properties in bare trusts and then flipping beneficial ownership of a bare trust means that you don’t change title. There is no change of title in the land title office, and that means there is no property transfer tax paid. Government has proposed to study this. But we know what result we’re going find out. We’re going to find that there are a lot of houses out there that are flipping not on title but through beneficial ownership.

Now, Ontario understands this. They are the other jurisdiction in Canada that has a property transfer tax. But where they apply the property transfer tax is on beneficial ownership change, not on title change. They don’t apply it on title change. They apply it on beneficial ownership change.

If I am a foreign company and I’d like to buy a property and speculate it in Vancouver, here’s what I might do. I might purchase the property and put it in a bare trust. Then I might start flipping this bare trust, the ownership or the corporation that owns this bare trust, and sell it. It can be….

Interjection.

A. Weaver: Hon. Speaker, may I ask you to please address the Minister of Advanced Education and ask him…? I have a right to speak in the Legislature without having to listen to his pomposity. Frankly, enough is enough.

Deputy Speaker: Minister, order.

A. Weaver: Thank you, hon. Speaker.

Interjection.

A. Weaver: I agree with the Minister of Health. They have to listen to him, but I don’t have to listen to him.

Coming back to the bare trust, coming back to the example I was giving, a company can put an individual…. I know that a whole bunch of entities can own the bare trust, and they can sell it. They can flip it a multitude of times. They can start to flip it amongst shell companies themselves. But never at any time are we changing title, and no property transfer tax has changed.

[1505]

This government has no idea who owns it, because they’re not tracking…. At least they will, coming up. But they were not tracking the bare trustees and those who have beneficial ownership. But rather than spending time tracking it, they should be actually disincentivizing by applying the property transfer tax on transfer of beneficial ownership.

Now, with that said, there are, of course, aspects of this budget implementation act that I do support. I mean, continuing the flow-through mining share credit, the flow-through share agreement, for another year seems reasonable. It has been working quite well to incentivize investment in the mining sector in British Columbia.

The Tourist Accommodation (Assessment Relief) Act changes are responding to a UBCM resolution to extend the assessment relief to rural regions.

The B.C. seniors home-renovation tax credit — extending that to individuals with a disability. It’s hard to find anything wrong with that proposal.

The food donation tax credit — it’s an interesting idea, but I worry. I have spoken to people at Mustard Seed and elsewhere, food bank agencies. There’s a worry here — that has to be, actually, carefully regulated and examined — that this could be misused for the dumping of product that has no value and is being used as a loophole to get a tax credit.

For example, let’s suppose I’m a company that has, in reserve, 10,000 barrels of molasses, and I can’t sell it. But now I give it to a food bank at fair market value. The market value is essentially zero because I can’t sell it, but there will be some nominal fee attached to it. This food bank is then ending up with 10,000 barrels of molasses that it has no use for.

What matters with this food donation tax credit is that the devil is in the details — that is, implementation is not being used as a means and a way of avoiding dealing with product that no one wants. How many litres of molasses do we need? And there are other examples that can occur like this.

I understand that it makes sense that, perhaps, the local farmer here in North Saanich has a few extra crates of, say, apples and, you know, he’d like to donate those to the local food bank and get a small tax credit. That seems reasonable. Why not just deal with the problem, however, in the first place?

Why are we actually having to deal with giving away food to food banks? What is wrong with our economy? What is wrong with our social programs? What is wrong with our society when we even have to introduce this tax credit in the first place? That’s the real question.

The question is not the food donation tax credit, which everybody can get behind in some way. The real question is: why is it that we, in our society here in British Columbia, one of the wealthiest places in the world — not just in North America but in the world — have to introduce a food donation tax credit? What next? A used clothes donation tax credit? A shoe donation tax credit? A used sportswear donation tax credit? It’s a slippery slope, and it’s not addressing, again, the fundamental inequities in our province that this budget should be addressing.
[ Page 10816 ]

What’s not in this bill? A number of things are not in this bill, and I will look forward, in committee stage, to discussing some aspects of this.

I’ve had a number of people contact me, concerned about the increase in property transfer tax for homes valued over $2 million. That may seem like it’s a tax on the wealthy. It may seem so at first glance, but let’s suppose you’re living in Vancouver. You grew up in Vancouver, and you’re a family of four.

Mom and Dad get pretty old, and Mom and Dad are so old that they need to leave their house. But Mom and Dad want to give their children their house. There’s a concern that in doing so, those children, who could barely be affording to live in Vancouver anyway, would be subject to the increased property transfer tax and then move into a home that they couldn’t afford to buy, but it was a family home.

The problem, of course, here is that $2 million may seem like a lot, but it’s not a lot in Vancouver. So care has to be put in place to ensure that during the transfer of title between family members, this doesn’t occur.

[1510]

Now, I get that if the house was put in a trust and it was transferred within family members, nobody would pay tax. But most of us don’t buy our houses in trusts. Most of us buy them as individuals, and we leave them to others or we try to give them to our children. There’s a little element there that government needs to take some care over.

What is also not in this, in the budget implementation act and the budget in general…. There’s absolutely nothing to do with climate leadership. Now, I say that with some irony. I recognize that the Minister of Health has a Chevy Volt. It’s not a pure electric car, but it is pretty good. He lives in Kamloops — I get it — and he wants to drive to Victoria. I applaud him for a Chevy Volt.

Interjections.

A. Weaver: You have to. Yeah.

The electric car subsidy — that qualifies — is a good thing. I have a Nissan LEAF —100 percent electric. It’s a good thing.

Interjections.

A. Weaver: The Minister of Advanced Education goes off on a tangent again, because he wants to hear his own voice.

Do I pay road tax? Yes, I pay road tax. When I go over the Port Mann Bridge in Vancouver, I pay road tax.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members, order.

A. Weaver: Apart from the electric vehicle continuation, there is nothing, zero, about climate leadership. Why is that important? Because right now, today, in Vancouver, first ministers are meeting with the Prime Minister to discuss climate leadership.

What do we have here in this House on that day? An introduction of another bill to give away our resource to the LNG industry, as we are continually desperate to try to find ways and means that they don’t have to account for their greenhouse gases. Or we can change the international rules to pretend that some greenhouse gases are not really greenhouse gases. That is what this government thinks is climate leadership. The irony is that it’s on the day that we’re supposed to be talking about this in Vancouver.

What’s also not in here, in this budget, is anything of substance in terms of MSP reform. This tinkering around the edges in the budget, not so much in the implementation act….

Where, for example, are steps being taken to fulfil government’s promise that each and every British Columbian would have a GP by the end of 2015? Each and every British Columbian would have access — this is a promise — to a general practitioner by 2015. Well, I hope you aren’t looking for a GP in this area, because there is not a single GP south of Duncan that is accepting new patients.

While the government is quite desperate to fulfil its promise of wealth and prosperity through an industry that’s not going happen and basically gives away our resource in a desperate attempt to get an agreement, they’re not willing to deal with another promise — the “GP for everyone” promise.

I could go on and on, and I know the Minister of Advanced Education would love me to. But with that, I’ll just conclude with one final statement. When you look at this Budget Measures Implementation Act and you look at the individual boutique exemptions here or the little addition there, what you get is a sense of what this government is doing.

This government has lost its sense of vision. It has lost its sense of vision of what a prosperous British Columbia looks like. They’re fixated on a speculative housing market. They’re fixated on LNG. They don’t understand what a diversified economy is. It’s not an economy that’s propped up with an artificial, speculative, Scottsdale-style housing market until we can maybe get LNG ten years from now or 20 years from now. That’s not a diversified economy. They don’t understand what’s going on with the elements of our society that are struggling to make ends meet.

This budget, through its implementation, is something that cannot be supported for what’s not in it, not so much for the boutique tax credits that are in it but for what’s not in it: assistance to those who can barely make ends meet, structural changes to things like the MSP, dealing
[ Page 10817 ]
with the affordability crisis in means and ways that actually ensure that it’s dealt with instead of incentivizing the problem still further, and dealing with an issue that was simply not addressed in the budget — education.

Who are we as a society if we don’t value the next generation, the generation in our schools and colleges today, as the important asset of our future? LNG is not important in the big picture. Our next generation is important. They are the citizens of tomorrow. They are the ones who will build the economy of tomorrow.

[1515]

They are the ones who will take care of us when we’re older. They are the ones who will discover the cures for various diseases that you and I will get as we get older. But there is nothing — nothing at all — in this for education, whether that be K to 12, whether that be early childhood education or whether that be post-secondary education. That is the single biggest disaster of this budget: it does not do anything for the next generation. That is why I cannot support it.

N. Macdonald: Thank you for the opportunity. I enjoyed that speech. I thought it was very thoughtful. I’m just trying to model good behaviour for the Minister of Advanced Education. It costs nothing to be polite.

Interjection.

N. Macdonald: That’s not pompous. There you go.

Well, that was my polite part of my speech, and then I’ll move on to my section directed at the government.

Now, Bill 10…. Of course, the title is interesting. It’s the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act. As with many things with this government, there’s something particularly Orwellian about the title, given that it creates what the B.C. Liberals will call the new and improved prosperity fund. Not the old prosperity fund — it’s something completely new. But hey, it’s the same title, so that might be confusing and probably deliberately so.

The bill, in fact, is not terribly transparent, and the reason for that is to escape accountability. So the title, as often is the case, the misnomer that we’ve come to expect when Liberals put forward something. As I say, there’s something quite Orwellian about it.

The reality here, in this bill, is that the prosperity fund is hardly recognizable, given what was promised by this government and continues to be promised. It has nothing in common, really, with what the Premier has been talking about for the last four years other than the title, which is an interesting thing.

The Minister of Finance, in the letter given by the Premier to the Minister of Finance, was supposed to create a $100 billion prosperity fund — billion, by the way, not million — and he was supposed to do it from LNG revenue — or, as Pamela Martin would say $1 trillion. But okay, that’s something different. If you’re wrong about $100 billion, you might as well be wrong about a trillion, right? There you go. Of course, Pamela Martin is a highly paid civil servant who couldn’t put anything into her….

Interjection.

N. Macdonald: She did work here, and now she’s working for the B.C. Liberals, just as the Minister of Advanced Education worked for the B.C. Liberals. In fact, if the Advanced Education Minister wants to…

Deputy Speaker: Members, order.

N. Macdonald: …talk about things, he was the original broken B.C. Liberal promise. He was president of the B.C. Liberals, and he came at a time when the government promised no political appointees in the civil service and became a deputy minister. So the original broken promise sits over there regularly interrupting speeches.

Deputy Speaker: Member, on the second reading of Bill 10.

N. Macdonald: Yes, I’ll get back to it.

Good job on the convention centre too. I think you were on the board of that one — $495 million up to $900 million. Good job. But hey, keep it up, keep interrupting, and we can have a conversation this way, if you like.

It’s not only the prosperity fund that was supposed to come from LNG funds; it was also supposed to get rid of the sales tax, which is — what? — $6 billion or $7 billion a year, and get rid of the $168 billion debt in contractual obligations. The Premier gave a letter to the minister to create that, but instead, we have here, in the Transparency and Accountability Act, something that looks an awful lot different.

Is it a significant fund from LNG revenues? Well, is there any LNG revenue to speak of? Nope. Looking at the budget documents that are here, that I have in front of me, was there any LNG revenue so far? Well, just look in the documents. It was zero. Is there any LNG money coming next year? Zero.

[1520]

It’s kind of nice. The documents lay out the next three years, so we can have a look into the future as this government sees it. Set aside the rhetoric. The reality’s in their books. Any coming the following year? Zero. The year after that? Zero.

What do we have? Instead, we have in this bill, the so-called transparency act, not what was promised. Instead, it is something completely different. It is put in place to escape the second part of this title, which is accountability, right? It’s to get away from those things.

Instead of LNG revenue, which doesn’t exist, we have tax dollars from, for instance, MSP increases, which brought in an additional $100 million this year and going
[ Page 10818 ]
forward, and hydro increases, ICBC increases — because, of course, Hydro and ICBC are regularly raided by the provincial government to pull into general revenue. That is what is actually going into the prosperity fund, not the nonexistent LNG revenues.

Now, let’s go with this theme for a while. So $100 million is actually 1/1000 of what was promised — 1/1000 of the so-called $100 billion prosperity fund that was promised. Maybe that’s a bit confusing for government — a million, a billion. If you read Orwell, then maybe Squealer went up on the side of the barn and wiped out the B and put an M up instead and hoped nobody would notice. That’s classic sort of switch-and-bait.

In any case, it has gone from $100 billion to $100 million. Hopefully, nobody will notice, but hmm. Of course, it’s not even really $100 million. If you look at subsection 7(6), in the bill note, the government can take out right way $75 million. For some reason, they’re putting $100 million into a fund that they can immediately take $75 million out of to spend on whatever they would like.

Now, why would they do that? Is it to be accountable? Is it to be transparent? I put it to you that it’s for exactly the opposite of that. It’s the hope to confuse people with the difference from $100 million to $100 billion. Squealer would be proud. You’re right on target — excellent stuff.

To me, $25 million would be a lot. But let’s compare it to some of the things that the government promises to do. Let’s refer to another fun document that we have here. It’s the government’s own document. They give one of these to all of them. It’s called the Budget and Fiscal Plan 2016-17–2018-19. It lays out a lot of interesting things. If you want, you can go on line and get the same document.

Well, I’d ask people who are watching to just turn to page 43, if you have it there in front of you, or you can look this up later. There is a lovely description of the B.C. prosperity fund — not the one that was promised but the one that they’re slipping in here, trying to fool people with. On the second column, it says $100 million is going to go into the B.C. prosperity fund. It will “help eliminate the province’s debt over time.”

Oh, over time. What does that mean — over time? Well, that’s a nice little thing to slip in there. You’re going to get rid of the debt over time. We’re going to give ourselves a bit of time. Well, how much time? Let’s play with this for a bit.

Interjection.

N. Macdonald: Well, in the fullness of time. “Over time” is the exact quote. Well, $25 million per year. Let’s say we tuck that away. And by the way, in the bill they do it this year, but there’s no requirement to ever do it again. So let’s just presume that they do put in that $25 million every year. How long does it take to get rid of $168 billion in debt? Do the math.

Now, I was sitting beside a professor, so I asked: “How much…? What is $25 million? How long would it take to get rid of $168 billion?” He did some quick calculations, which I think are correct. He said 6,720 years. I guess we could have put that in the document. “We’re going to help eliminate the province’s debt” — instead of over time — “in 6,000 years.”

[1525]

That is six times the B.C. Rail lease, I think. Isn’t it six times the B.C. Rail lease? You know, I saw Stockwell Day here. He was a guest of the Premier. So 6,000 years ago — I think Stockwell Day…. That’s how old he thinks the world is, right? We’re talking about a ridiculous amount of time.

So we can eliminate the debt over time. It’s here in the documents. It is something that, pretty clearly, is intended to be fictitious.

You know, there’s an old Scottish saying that I really didn’t understand for a long time, but I kind of do now. It says if wishes were horses, then beggars would ride. I used to hear it because all of my family is Scottish. Like many things they said, I didn’t completely…. If wishes were horses, then beggars would ride. What does that mean? Of course, it means that it’s one thing to say things, but the complexity comes when you try to actually make them happen.

This is where the government has put itself — in a position where they misrepresented the reality completely. They have put this in the Legislature, in a place where for the past five years we have been talking about things that are not true and never will be true. We have had it consistently misrepresented by the government with all the resources that they have at their disposal — 250 people and a budget that has never been higher for political staff to spin on something that is never going to happen.

Instead of an honest debate about the issues that are real in this province, that need to be dealt with, we as legislators are forced to talk about things and forced to respond to the misrepresentation that consistently comes from government. This bill is another one.

The prosperity fund — in what way is that consistent with the promise that was made by this Premier, by this government, repeatedly? Look, go back, just read documents that are from Hansard. This is the throne speech from 2013, not that long ago. What is in it? “The Premier”— this is a story made from the throne speech, February 12, 2013 — “staked her political future on her approach to liquefied natural gas.” She promised that her government will “transform the province’s massive resource stores into a more-than-$100-billion fund, enough to erase the province’s debt” and to remove sales tax.

Well, how close are we to that? She actually gave a term. That was going to happen by 2020. It’s not this year, it’s not next year, and it’s not the year after. Does that mean that in the final two years, all of a sudden this is all going to happen? Specific promises have been repeated by each and every one of the MLAs and candidates around the following.
[ Page 10819 ]

The Premier said: “A liquefied natural gas industry would be running full steam in the province by 2020, and it should mean $4.3 billion and $8.7 billion in extra government revenue each year.” Well, it’s three years out. It’s not happening. So when we’re talking about transparency and accountability, where’s the accountability? How is a miss that bad allowed to stand? And still the government talks about the prosperity fund and puts this in front of us, hoping to confuse people rather than having an honest discussion about the realities that are out there.

Here, again — this is from the Premier. “We have to decide if we can forever ensure that the proceeds of natural gas, which is a product that belongs to the people of the province, are spent well and wisely,” and that means the prosperity fund. “Projections for the fund rely on the introduction of a new LNG tax to be applied in addition to existing royalties. With all these measures in place, the government is projecting the fund will collect a minimum of $100 billion.”

That’s what were told in the House: a minimum of $100 billion from LNG revenues.

Interjection.

[1530]

N. Macdonald: Well, it’s one of two things. It’s either that the Premier and government actually thought that — and that’s a scary thing, that you’re so wrong —or they didn’t think that at all but thought that it would work politically, which is just as bad. But it can only be one of those two things, and neither can be acceptable to people in British Columbia. But that’s where we stand.

Here’s another thing. The plan “hinges on the development of five proposed liquefied natural gas plants.” There are going to be three large ones and two small ones. They even break it down. Well, which three big ones, and which two small ones? Where are they?

The first one by 2015. Well, that’s come and gone. The government, with its jobs plan, is going to have three of the proposed plants up and running by 2020, guaranteed. Lest anyone stand up and say that it’s possibly not going to happen, well, wait for the abuse. The previous speaker stands up and says the most obvious thing in the world — that it was a Hail Mary at election time — and a stream of abuse came from ministers on the other side trying to shut him down.

It’s the most obvious thing in the world. All you need to do is look. Where is the LNG plant? Where is the $100 billion? Is this prosperity fund anything at all connected to what was promised? It is not. It is only the name, and it is intended to confuse and distort the reality of failure, failure, failure on this file — failure on this file.

Deputy Speaker: Member, please use parliamentary language.

N. Macdonald: Okay. I don’t know a synonym for “failure.” Can you maybe help me out with a synonym for “failure”? What else would it be? Well, okay. I think people watching will have understood my point.

Hey, here’s the LNG minister. Let’s hear what he has to say. Let’s hear what he has to say — the promises he made in 2013 and is still making. He put together a piece for one of the main newspapers, just talking about his certainty, which continues, that that prosperity fund talked about in this bill is going to continue. It’s exactly what he said in the House. The opportunity, he says, is fact. “We did studies. The fact of the matter is this. The total cumulative revenue to the B.C. government from five LNG plants…. That’ll be $79 billion, low-case scenario — that’s low case — likely $162 billion.” That’d be 2011 to 2038.

Anyway, there it is. It’s a fact. You know, the opportunity is fact. Well, when the time comes for fact to actually happen, it becomes less of a fact and more of a fantasy.

Oh, here’s the minister. We’ll use the Minister of Finance’s words because, of course, of all of the members, he’s the most settled in question period, the hardest to rattle. He did say some interesting things. He did say: “We know there is an opportunity to take advantage of a price differential that exists in the markets overseas for liquefied natural gas, and we’re going to get to those opportunities on behalf of all British Columbians.”

Now, there was a time…. This is not as far back as…. Well, this is 2013, and there was a difference. Even at that time, if you read articles from outside of B.C. on the natural gas industry, it was well known that that price differential would disappear quickly.

The member who spoke before me talked about the technologies that had allowed the price to be pushed down in North America. These weren’t state secrets.

In fact, there was an interesting interview that the Premier did in China where she talked about the technologies that we have here in B.C. to get liquefied natural gas, as if the Chinese did not know about horizontal drilling and the other technologies that are available. That was a bit of a startling piece. Nevertheless, they do, and they do have access to a market that is wide and was changing at the time.

That is the point that many people have made: the market was always moving, and the price differential that was there was always ephemeral. We always knew that. That’s what was so fantastic, in the fantasy sense, about what the B.C. Liberals were talking about and what the Premier was talking about. That opportunity wasn’t there.

[1535]

For members who voted this summer on the tax regime for LNG — all members here should be familiar with the tax regime that they voted on — they will know that that revenue stream that was supposed to produce this astronomical and unbelievable amount of money would only be collected after an LNG plant had been built, was operating and had operated for six to eight years. Even then it would only be $135 million.
[ Page 10820 ]

Just do the math on that, and tell me how you ever get to $100 billion. I can assure you that it’s pretty close to the 6,000-year mark. It’ll be something like that, and if it’s not that, it certainly is a figure that wouldn’t interest most people in their lifetime or their children’s lifetimes.

On this bill, the idea that we are still talking about a prosperity fund offends me. I used to say that the Minister of Finance, through just…. I guess if nobody was twisting his arm, he wouldn’t talk about it. I thought: “Well, good for you. At least you’re not sticking with that message point.” But I suppose that somebody made him put this in here, and no doubt he will defend it vigorously and with the caustic humour that often comes with it.

The reality is that this is a misrepresentation of what was promised. It is not a fund that comes from LNG. It is described as $100 million when only $25 million sits in it. The reality is that it is Orwellian in all ways, in my view.

As always, I thank the members for the opportunity to speak, and I look forward to other members’ speeches.

Deputy Speaker: I recognize the member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast. No, Nanaimo–North Cowichan.

D. Routley: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate that. With boundary changes, it’s reasonable for people to lose track of where MLAs are coming from — at least in a geographic sense. I don’t think it’s had much to do with where we’re coming from in terms of principle or opinions of how this place runs and the quality and integrity of the government that we’re opposing.

Our role as official opposition is clearly to uncover and display the faults of government, to present ourselves as a reasonable alternative to government and to suggest alternatives to government’s plans. One of the things I experience when I’m doing social media conversations with people is they will quite often echo the words of the B.C. Liberal Party that this is quite negative. I have to remind them that my role, my duty, as an official opposition member is to oppose government, to display the faults of government. When you have a government that is so prone to multiple misdeeds, it’s really hard to keep up, just with the criticism. It’s really hard to triage exactly which deceit you’re going to address next.

If you look at the record, the record of the government is terrible, but it makes for a record of opposition that is extremely critical — for good reason, because that’s what we’re faced with. We’re faced with a government that has simply no regard for truth, simply no regard for the integrity and duty to represent citizens of B.C.

That’s what I think. It’s kind of a condemning thing to say, but after 11 years here witnessing this government’s behaviour, I can’t come to any other conclusion.

[1540]

We’ve endured so many broken promises. After people are snowed under by deceit, they tend to almost receive it as a white noise. It’s difficult to make sense of it. It’s difficult to know which deceit of government is most important.

You can go back, and I will go back, a long time ago, Mr. Speaker — back to the time before this government was elected under Gordon Campbell. They made promises then. They made promises not to sell B.C. Rail. As the previous member, for Columbia River–Revelstoke, pointed out, it’s a most Orwellian reality, this Legislature and the government that we’re facing. They didn’t sell B.C. Rail. They leased it for 999 years. So that’s not a sale. For sure, that’s not a sale, but I’d be hard-pressed to say that’s living up to the promise not to sell B.C. Rail.

They promised not to tear up the contracts of health care workers and teachers, but they did. They did, and that resulted in the largest mass firing of women in Canadian history. What a proud legacy for the government. What a proud legacy. It’s something that we need to remind ourselves of.

Then there was the HST, promises mere weeks before an election never to harmonize the tax. Yet, mere weeks after the election, that’s exactly what they did.

Those three examples characterize this government and its respect for truth and its respect for the integrity that British Columbians expect. I talk to people in my constituency and my family, and there’s still this…. It’s almost a charming naivety that people actually think that this government is going to represent them and do their best and actually fulfil some of the promises it makes. It could be said to be charmingly naive. But unfortunately, it’s something much worse than that.

This budget transparency and implementation act, as my colleague pointed out, by its very title challenges that same trust and the naivety that people express when they say things like: “They’re all the same.” Mr. Speaker, that’s one of the damages that the government has done, the government that you were elected representing, the government that these members represent. It’s something that we, I think, beyond any partisan division or any quest for power, would have an obligation to uphold. That would be the basic integrity of this place. Because it is so important.

If people don’t respect this place, do they respect the other institutions of this province? Do they respect the legal institutions? Or do we suddenly slip into a place where everyone knows that everyone’s not telling the truth, and everyone’s playing an angle and everyone’s cheating? I mean, what else could you take from a government like this? And that’s exactly what they do.

It would be humorous if it weren’t so tragic. But so often with humour, humour is tempered by the reality of the tragedy from which it evolves, from which it grows. It would be funny, perhaps, to say that with the budget currently and with this act, the government has done nothing to address the issue of real estate flipping in the Lower Mainland and the impact that it’s having on runaway prices — a huge concern for urbanites. Not so much
[ Page 10821 ]
for the people I represent, but it’s a huge concern for urbanites and therefore for the B.C. economy and therefore, at least indirectly, for the people I represent.

[1545]

We could say that the B.C. Liberal government has done incredible things to lower property values in rural B.C., where they have caused 31,000 fewer people to be working in the forest industry, where we see absolute dislocation of whole communities of people who can’t find work. Those property values are going down. They’ve done a great job to lower housing costs in rural B.C. Of course, there’s nobody to buy those homes. And of course, they’ve ignored the real real-estate threat to this province’s economy — the bubble that we see in the Lower Mainland and moving towards the capital region here in Victoria.

That would be funny if it weren’t so tragic, but it is tragic. The outcomes may be especially tragic if people are caught in a situation where this real estate bubble bursts and we wind up, as the previous member spoke of, like Scottsdale or Phoenix, Arizona, where the economy is built on real estate values and people undertaking huge debt based on the value of their real estate and they suddenly find that bubble bursting and themselves underwater, as they say, where they don’t have enough assets to match their debt. We may very well see that here in Vancouver and in B.C. at some point.

They say that we have a diversified economy when, in fact, they’ve just spent the last four years determining that everything this province does must have an asterisk that refers to LNG. The Premier, in fact, said that if it doesn’t have anything to do with LNG, “We’re not interested.” And when that blew up, and everyone in the province was saying, “What about the diversification of our economy?” suddenly the B.C. Liberals are bragging about a diversified economy.

It’s hard to have a serious debate in the Legislature, where the absolute disregard for truth and transparency from the government is so obvious, without it being some kind of a comic sideshow. It’s really sad. I do talk to people who are so dedicated to community, people who are servants to their community, volunteers. I talk to young people who still have hope. I talk to my daughter, who wants to hope. Then I’m faced with being the loyal opposition to a government that has a complete disregard for those values. It’s kind of unbelievable, really, and not something that I anticipated, coming here.

I at least anticipated that we would engage on the issues of the province. But this government, all the way through its existence, including the time of Gordon Campbell, has relied on bumper-sticker slogans that had no relevance to truth to get itself through electorally — you know, like the great golden goals of Gordon Campbell, all of which have been abandoned by this government, and some laudable exercises in public policy that deserve support, like the new relationship and the climate change initiatives. Now, once the lustre and shine of political advantage is gone and the real, difficult work of governance and implementation are upon them, they’re all abandoned for new bumper stickers and new slogans.

This budget implementation act does a few things but one most significant thing: it establishes the prosperity fund. And the prosperity fund was the sparkle pony fantasy, which British Columbians have come to deride and ridicule, of this government in the last election, when they promised that we would have 100,000 jobs from LNG — 100,000. Then in the throne speech, they’ve resorted to begging British Columbians to agree with them so that they can protect the 13,000 that already exist.

L. Krog: And how many proposals — 20?

[1550]

D. Routley: How many…? Yeah, I think 20 proposals for LNG plants and a promise that we would have at least one up by 2015.

I don’t know about your calendar, Mr. Speaker, but that is the last calendar, and there ain’t no plant.

L. Krog: Twenty proposals and no engagement.

D. Routley: No engagement. And how many were we promised by 2020? Five. Five by 2020, and we would be well on our way to our $100 billion prosperity fund, which would eliminate the debt of British Columbia — in fact, eliminate the sales tax.

Well, you know, as I said: comedic but tragic. That’s kind of the definition of this government to me: comedic, farcical but tragic. On top of that, a good dollop of cruel.

We have to ask ourselves: once the government had realized and everyone in the province seems to have accepted that they weren’t telling the truth…?

Oh, everybody knew they weren’t telling the truth. That’s a dangerous resignation — isn’t it? — when citizens resign themselves to the fact that their government isn’t telling the truth. I mean, it’s the best outcome for a government like this — that has so little integrity and so little willingness to be truthful with people, that is so mired in scandal with former MLAs and former high-ranking party officials and current high-ranking party officials, all…

Deputy Speaker: Member, can you focus on the motion?

D. Routley: Yes.

…of them charged or convicted of crimes of fraud and election misdeeds. You know, that’s what we’re faced with. When people resign themselves to that, it’s so damaging for any of us to build trust back. Once people decide that their own government is corrupt and they let their own behaviour and respect for the law slip to the same standard, how do we pull that back?
[ Page 10822 ]

How do we pull that back to a state of integrity and respect for truth and law? That’s how dangerous this is. It is not comedic. That is tragic. That is beyond tragedy. That is, in my opinion, an emergency.

Now that we’ve been told these things, these mistruths about the prosperity fund and $100 billion from LNG revenues…. There are no LNG revenues, so they create their fantasy prosperity fund with this act.

On top of that, not only do they break their promise, their original promise, but they put $100 million of public money into this fund. And $25 million of that will be going to — how did they say it? — core government priorities. It will be a slush fund for a Premier addicted to photo ops, a year out from an election.

Not only did they not achieve the promise that they’d made 3½ years ago, not only did they not come anywhere close to achieving that, but they’ve decided to create this false version and fund it with our money — $100 million of public money.

They defend themselves by saying: “We’re taking it from our chequing account and putting it into our savings account.” Well, that’s awfully colloquial and simple and easy to digest — except when you consider that it’s not their chequing account they’re taking it out of. It’s the chequing account of the most vulnerable British Columbians.

[1555]

Taxpayers and citizens throughout the province are paying for the latest broken promise by the B.C. Liberals and their ridiculous attempt to build an excuse, to assemble themselves a ladder with which to climb out of the hole they’ve dug for themselves by the ridiculous promises that were made.

Who pays for this? Every British Columbian who pays MSP premiums. Those increased 4 percent on January 1, 4 percent next year. That’s $100 million per year, per increase. That equates, over three years, to $500 million taken from British Columbians through the most regressive tax instrument in the province, where the richest British Columbians pay the same MSP premium as a family making $30,000 or $40,000.

Hon. T. Lake: No, that’s wrong.

D. Routley: Oh, it is, is it? Well, the Health Minister says I’m wrong. Okay, so $50,000. So a British Columbian making $5 million will pay the same as a family making $50,000, and that’s how they’re funding this band-aid to their broken promise. It’s $500 million over three years that the Health Minister is taking out of the pockets of British Columbians through the MSP premium, the most regressive tax in this province.

Then they don’t stop there. Who pays for their broken promises? Well, every B.C. Hydro ratepayer. It’s gone up 28 percent since this Premier became Premier. In less than five years, B.C. Hydro was increased by 28 percent and will increase again next year by 4 percent. That’s another $150 million a year taken out of the pockets of struggling British Columbian families.

ICBC for every British Columbian who needs to drive a car and get to work, because of course, there’s such poor service and transit available to them that they really have no other option. With ICBC premiums up 5.5 percent last November and again next year, that’ll be another $130 million out of the average British Columbians’ pockets.

B.C. Ferries. They don’t stop with MSP. They don’t stop with B.C. Hydro. They don’t stop with ICBC. B.C. Ferries — the major routes have gone up 60 percent under the watch of this government, and the minor routes, several of which serve my constituency, have gone up by over 100 percent. We had the UBCM, the Union of B.C. Municipalities, do an economic impact study where they showed that these rampant increases in fares had deprived the B.C. economy, the coastal B.C. economy, of $2 billion in economic activity. Just the tax revenue from that economic activity would have paid to this government more than what they gained by punishing these communities with those exorbitant fare increases.

Who pays? Who pays most recently? Who pays most tragically? Who pays for this government to continue a $230 million tax break to the richest 2 percent? One billion dollars over four years to the richest 2 percent. Who paid most recently? People living on disability pensions, who see their bus passes clawed back.

At the same time, their Premier spends half a million dollars on private jets. Travels from Vancouver to Kelowna one day and back to Vancouver. The next day travels from Vancouver to Kelowna again. Half a million dollars in private airplanes, private jets. Who owns those jets? David McLean, who was the head of CN when this government sold…. Sorry, they leased B.C. Rail to CN for 999 years.

Interjection.

D. Routley: If the Health Minister wants to chirp…. Just imagine, Health Minister, what you would be saying if the NDP had done 1/10 of the deceit of your government — 1/10.

Deputy Speaker: Member, please direct all your comments through the Chair.

Thank you, Members.

[1600]

D. Routley: So who benefits? Who benefits from these B.C. Liberal decisions? The richest 2 percent, who get that get that $230-million-per-year tax break — $1 billion over four years. The Premier benefits, with her $25 million slush fund that she’s calling a prosperity fund. That’s a pretty big benefit. I mean, you can cut a lot of red tape
[ Page 10823 ]
and smile in a lot of photo ops for 25 million bucks, and that’s just from that source.

David McLean and his private jets that are leased and rented by our illustrious Premier. You know, he’s a good friend, heading up CN Rail at the time of the B.C. Rail scandal. Why shouldn’t he benefit?

The shadow flippers, those real estate agents who are deceitfully leveraging the market for their own gain at the expense of everyone else in this province. They gain, because there’s not a single thing in this budget or Bill 10 which addresses that serious problem, in the Lower Mainland, particularly. So it’s a little hard to be….

I mean, it is kind of funny — I guess, if you totally detach yourself from the outcomes — that the government would be so ludicrously deceitful.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

It is, as my colleague said, Orwellian. Less is more, and more is less. We’re going to give you 80 more grams of chocolate, increase your ration from 120 grams to 80 grams. If people are disengaged enough to believe it, I guess it could be said that that excuses a bit of what’s happening over there.

But I think that there’s an eerie echo of what happened in Alberta, where the Progressive Conservatives were so…. Every poll had them losing — not this last election but the election previous to that — and Albertans held their nose and voted one more time and elected Alison Redford. And what did they do? Did they take that as a warning that they should clean up their act? No. They became even more arrogant and even more miscreant.

That’s exactly what this government did. Last time, they were expected to lose. Did they take that as a warning? No. The Premier has a half-million-dollar bill for private jets, half a million dollars paid to a B.C. Liberal insider. They continue to deceitfully treat the voters of British Columbia. I hope that the next echo of that dynamic is the outcome that the Progressive Conservatives suffered in Alberta, very rightfully so.

Finally, the people said: “Enough is enough. We actually believe that your government should really tell you the truth; should really, when they examine an environmental project, put the environment first; should really, when they talk about people living on disability pensions, put them first.” That’s really what I think British Columbians expect and what I still, in my own naivety after 11 years in here….

The grain of naivety in my soul that has escaped outright cynicism still wants to believe that, somehow, government will act with integrity and defend the public interest, be the great leveller between the forces in society, make sure that there are equitable outcomes, at least an equitable opportunity for British Columbians.

Interjection.

D. Routley: I know. Isn’t it…? It’s like I’m almost embarrassed to admit that I’m that naive after 11 years facing this government. It is really…. I’m proud of that, by the way. I’m proud of that. I’m clinging to the last thread of naive belief that government can act with integrity. I think it’s possible.

Interjection.

D. Routley: Yeah, 2017. It may have to wait until then.

[1605]

Then we — if we are lucky enough to form government — or some coalition of forces will have to guard against the same kind of development of arrogance.

Interjection.

D. Routley: Yeah, we’ll have to be careful to not believe our own hype to the extent that this government does. You know, you’ve got a government that still wants people to believe that they’re establishing a prosperity fund that fulfils their LNG promises. All kidding aside, all criticisms aside, you kind of have to admire the pluckiness that lets someone actually stand up and defend that.

I’m trying to be generous, because I just find it in an entirely different way. But anyway, all these promises that have been made by this government — a $100 billion prosperity fund, 100,000 jobs…. “We’re going to eliminate the debt. We’ll eliminate the sales tax. If you elect us, that’s what’s going to happen.” None of it happened.

How long will that deceit stand? Will the scribes up here in the gallery persecute and prosecute this government the way they would if the NDP had done 1 percent of the wrongdoing of this government? Will they? I doubt it. But those people in my constituency who I talk to — and my daughter — who still have this rather naive but charming investment and faith that people will do the right thing…. They will be heard from in the next election.

Cynical bills like this, cynical budgets like this, deceitful broken promises by a government like that will be met with the appropriate address from the B.C. voters in 2017. And hopefully, we’ll see our province rid of this dishonest government.

L. Krog: It’s always a pleasure to be able to rise in the House and address the bill that implements the government’s promised-land budget. Just around the corner, prosperity and justice for all.

Point of Order

Hon. T. Lake: I rise to say that I’ve a personal point of order that I want to raise with respect to the comments from the member for Nanaimo — sorry, on a point of privilege, hon. Speaker.
[ Page 10824 ]

Deputy Speaker: Proceed to talk about your point of privilege.

Hon. T. Lake: The member characterized the government as deceitful and dishonest, which is using unparliamentary language, and I ask him to withdraw those remarks.

Deputy Speaker: Minister, you moved from a point of privilege to a point of order, so I’m going to caution, in general, all members to be careful about your language when we address this bill, Bill 10, in second reading. Please be careful.

Member, do you want to talk too?

D. Routley: Yes, despite your….

Deputy Speaker: Just hold it, Member. You are not going to have a debate on this issue, so I’m going to ask the member for Nanaimo to carry on with his speech, second reading.

Debate Continued

L. Krog: It’s a bumpy road for me to get started today. I feel like I must be driving the government car. It’s sort of out of gas and can’t seem to accelerate very quickly.

Interjection.

L. Krog: I’m always delighted to hear the Minister of Advanced Education, a man who possesses so much and spreads it around so willingly. But it’s not about the Minister of Advanced Education today; it’s about the Budget Measures Implementation Act.

[1610]

What we’re debating here today is the most fundamental aspect of what we do in this place. The government raises taxation and, through the Crown, expends it on, supposedly, what should be good for the people of British Columbia.

There is that wonderful and magical phrase where the Clerk or the Clerk Assistant announces to the assembly: “In Her Majesty’s name, Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor thanks you for your benevolence” — or words to that effect. It has a wonderful ancient ring to it.

Interjection.

L. Krog: The rule of law. The minister is quite right. It is the rule of law.

Interjection.

L. Krog: Peace, order and good government. I think we’re going to get a tiny history lesson from the minister today. If he’d only let me give it, though, it might be more interesting to him, as opposed to reciting it himself.

My point is this. What we’re debating today is the bill that implements what the budget speech outlined on behalf of government. This is where the rubber hits the road. This is where we determine how we’re going to implement what they promised.

In some relationship, tenuous as it is, it goes back to the throne speech, of course, where the government laid out in a singularly dismal throne speech this year, I thought, what its vision for the future of British Columbia is over the next year.

Let’s talk about some of the basics of what the budget is about. You can’t talk about the basics that are in it without talking about those things that aren’t in it. What isn’t in it is obviously any commitment to economic justice for the most vulnerable British Columbians.

Interjection.

L. Krog: The Minister of Advanced Education talks about jobs and prosperity. There is a difference between the promise and the delivery. It’s easy to talk the talk, but walking the walk is the different matter. Let’s talk for a moment about the most vulnerable.

Jobs and prosperity would, I suppose, arguably, indirectly benefit the people who receive persons-with-disabilities status payments in this province if in fact the government was enjoying the prosperity that the minister wants to talk about and they were actually then, in turn, distributing some of that prosperity to those receiving disability payments with a modest or even reasonable increase that recognized the fact that — unlike the members of this assembly, unlike public servants, unlike many in the private sector — they haven’t seen an increase in nine years. Then the increase that this budget delivers….

The members opposite — I’m going to be shocking here — will say: “But it is an increase.” There are people now who are going to get an increase who weren’t formerly able to take advantage of a bus pass. You could argue that, after ten years, a whole $77…. My goodness. That is a very small benefit.

We’re delighted to see it, small as it is. But at the same time, of course, they claw back…. Thousands of British Columbians will never, unless there’s a dramatic change in their mental and physical well-being and health, see the benefit of the jobs and prosperity that the minister wants to chirp about. They will never see the benefit of that. You then claw back that tiny pittance you’ve tossed them.

I mentioned A Tale of Two Cities the other day. It reminds me of the scene where — what is it? — the duke or the archduke or whoever is riding by and the carriage kills this poor child. He tosses out a coin and speeds on to his castle.

It displays that similar kind of arrogance when they suggest, after nine years, a budget that delivers so very
[ Page 10825 ]
little to those people who will never, in all likelihood, share in the so-called prosperity they’ve promised. It delivers so little. How they can arrogantly, in this House, talk and brag and continuously extol the virtues of this budget is beyond me.

If I saw one iota of evidence that they actually cared, that they were prepared to devote some modest amount of funds to improving the lives of those people, then I’d be more convinced.

[1615]

On the other side, the minister’s answer, the government’s answer I’m sure will be: “Jobs and prosperity will help those who are deemed employable and in receipt of social assistance.” They haven’t seen an increase in over nine years either. So what is it? It’s $610 a month in a province where, when some of its friends in Vancouver complain about the rising cost of housing over there, the government very quickly can implement and bring in a budgetary change that exempts from the property transfer tax newly constructed homes up to a value of $750,000.

Now, I come from a smaller community. You’ve got $750,000 in Nanaimo? You’ll get a really, really, really nice house. I can assure you that the vast majority of the citizens of Nanaimo, including yours truly, don’t live in $750,000 homes, and we’re not planning to buy $750,000 homes. But the benefit of that tax break is $13,000.

I want to contrast that with the government’s generous, generous gift of $77 to the people on disability. The numbers are very clear. That $13,000 tax break alone is worth more than people on disability receive in this province annually for income.

Now, I am delighted, on one level, to see the encouragement of construction. In my community, when people are working and building things, they’re much happier, and when they’re working, they pay taxes. Hopefully, this government would then have the decency to turn around and deliver back some of that revenue to those people in my community who need it most.

But what this budget makes abundantly clear is that that’s not going to happen, and it hasn’t happened, honestly, for 16 years. Instead, last year we saw them gleefully watch expire — and extol the virtues of eliminating — the surtax on high-income earners, the top 2 percent of British Columbia income earners — $230 million. Now, if you spread it around the poorest in the province, it wouldn’t solve all of their problems, but I can assure you it would have a pretty dramatic impact on their lives, as opposed to the benefit it delivered to those who didn’t need that tax break in the first place.

At what point does government stand up and acknowledge and say: “You know, the truth is, if you re-elect us, this is how it’s always going to be. You’re poor? You’re going to remain poor. You’re receiving disability payments? You’re going to continue to receive the same miserable disability payments for the rest of your sad and sorry life, because we believe, ultimately” — over there — “that if we just keep feeding the rich more and more and giving more and more benefit to those who’ve already done well in society, things will get better”?

I come back to my point: when you’re giving a tax break to people buying their first home and are prepared or are in a position to borrow or raise or put enough of a down payment down to buy a three-quarters-of-a-million-dollar residence, I don’t know how much more clear you can be about where your priorities are.

Now, in fairness, they do acknowledge poverty to some extent in this budget. We’re now going to introduce the farmers food donation tax credit. The good farmers of British Columbia will be encouraged to provide some of their produce to food banks. Now, that is a worthy thing on its face. I don’t discourage it.

I welcome it, and I can assure you that I am proud of the amazing work that is done by the Nanaimo Loaves and Fishes Food Bank in my community. I am just burdened by the knowledge that it continues to exist and the demand for its services continues to increase at the very time that we in this province, collectively, have managed to put in power a government that thinks giving back $230 million a year to the top 2 percent of income earners is a greater priority than ensuring that we live in a society where food banks don’t exist.

I acknowledge the world has changed. We’ve got globalization, we’ve got free trade, and we’ve got all sorts of things that have impacted on how our economy operated. And I acknowledge this government has pretty much given up on the forest industry. They don’t care about the 31,000 jobs that have disappeared since they came into office or the over-150 sawmills that no longer exist or employ people in many of the small communities around this province, including my own. I get that.

[1620]

I’m not suggesting we’re going to go back to some kind of left-wing nirvana that the Socreds and the NDP in this province built. But in the context of the modern world, it seems to me pretty clear and easy to observe that with what we’ve got today, we could be doing a much better job.

The member opposite wants me to talk about a tax increase. I’m happy to suggest that, without question, any reasonable government would reimpose the income tax on the top 2 percent of high-income earners, because that’s the right thing to do.

You know what? It’ll surprise the member opposite. Maybe none of his constituents were prepared to say it to him, but I was astonished and pleased in my own constituency and, indeed, at various parts of this province I visited, where people actually said: “You know what? It’s the right thing to do. I have to pay that amount because I am one of those people, and I’m happy to see it paid.”

It’s because they acknowledge and accept that they have received the benefits of living in a society that once had high rates of unionization, that enjoyed a higher minimum wage that had a greater purchasing power, all
[ Page 10826 ]
of those things that allowed them to benefit. They understand now that there is an opportunity for them to pay something back.

That warms my heart, to think that there are many British Columbians who are prepared to pay their fair share and a greater share, but it is this government that refuses to acknowledge the aspirations of British Columbians who actually care. They would instead continue to believe and proselytize the belief that somehow if we just keep feeding the rich, things will get better for the poor. It hasn’t worked, you know — cutting taxes.

When Gordon Campbell came in he made this wonderful promise that he was going to cut the income tax for the poorest British Columbians. Surprise, surprise, he did it across the board. Now, I spoke about this being one of those great myths the other day. If Gordon Campbell and the B.C. Liberals honestly believed that there was a structural deficit — that was the propaganda of the day — then why did the Premier and that government cut income tax revenue 25 percent across the board and run up the two biggest deficits in B.C.’s history?

I can only believe that there are two reasonable explanations. One is that there wasn’t a structural deficit — which, frankly, I’m rather inclined to believe. Two budgets certified by the Auditor General would confirm that. You know what? After struggling through the ’90s — which was kind of tough here for some folks, when the price of copper was down where it was, to about 1/5 of where it rose only a few years ago, before China started sucking up our exports — things were kind of tough. But you know what? There wasn’t a structural deficit.

The only other explanation I can have is that maybe we weren’t told the truth by Gordon Campbell, that maybe what he really wanted to do all along was not, out of a spirit of generosity, kindness and benevolence, to give an income tax break to the poorest British Columbian taxpayers. In fact, he wanted to give a break to those wealthy British Columbians that have always supported the centre-right party in British Columbia, whatever it was.

Whether they called themselves the B.C. Liberals, whether they called themselves Social Credit, or whether they called themselves the Liberal-Conservative coalition or the Conservative Party or what was really a Liberal Party in those days way back when, it doesn’t really matter. It gets down to the same thing.

A. Weaver: Today’s B.C. Liberals are nothing more than yesterday’s Harper Tories.

L. Krog: Ah, I am indebted to the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head. Today’s B.C. Liberals are nothing more than yesterday’s Harper Tories.

You know, I suppose it’s very troubling for those members of the B.C. Liberals who actually are federal Liberals to sit in the same caucus as all those federal Conservatives and somehow be able…

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members. Members will come to order.

L. Krog: …to swallow, long and hard enough, the politics that are exhibited by their fellow members. But that’s what a caucus is all about.

I have to move on, because the….

Interjection.

L. Krog: No, no, no. Don’t worry. The member won’t be disappointed. I haven’t finished.

I want to move on to another aspect of the budget, because after all, it’s very clear after 16 years that what we really believe in over there is: “Give tax breaks to the rich; don’t increase the benefits for the poor and vulnerable. That’s what we’re going to do.”

[1625]

The proof isn’t what I say. It isn’t what the studies say. It isn’t what all the poverty groups in British Columbia say. It’s the simple facts of history in government policy. Nothing has changed. If you’re poor in British Columbia today, you’re worse off than you were under the Socreds. That’s the reality. Bring back Grace McCarthy. Bring back Bill Vander Zalm, for heaven’s sake, when he was the Minister of Social Services. You were better off on social assistance when Bill Vander Zalm was the minister responsible.

Let’s instead talk about the shell game. Now, it’s had various names. It’s called, officially, the B.C. prosperity fund, which is, essentially, you take your surplus and you pretend to set it aside in a little pot and say: “Look. Natural gas is coming home. Yahoo. It’s the gold rush. It’s worked. See? We have $100 million. Just look over here. We have $100 million, and we’re going to use it to eliminate the provincial debt, and we’re going to use it to benefit programs, and we’re going to do all of these wonderful things with $100 million.”

And you know, what does the budget this year total — about $48 billion?

An Hon. Member: How irresponsible.

L. Krog: How irresponsible.

Interjection.

L. Krog: The member is always so anxious. I do hope he will be given an opportunity to actually stand up and address the debate.

My point is this. As we used to say back home, you know, you can recognize some chicken feed when you see it, and we’re talking chicken feed here. But somehow, of course, when you’ve run on an election platform that
[ Page 10827 ]
promised a debt-free B.C. and $100 billion and all the benefits of the glory of voting for the B.C. Liberals, you had to do something. So we slide in this magnificent little pot of money, this $100 million.

Well, we all know how the people of British Columbia reacted to that wonderful proposal in the budget. We saw all the columnists and editorialists across the province and all the people who wrote letters to the paper and all the people interviewed on TV just screaming with joy, just ecstatic in the streets. Parades. Fireworks. Oh, I am being a bit silly now, aren’t I? Because none of that happened, just as none of the natural gas has happened either.

I love fiction. I love reading fiction. I just don’t enjoy living in fiction. I am delighted to read about things that are positive and real. And when I hear the minister responsible for gas stand up and talk about the 20 proposals, where’s the engagement ring? Twenty proposals, and there’s no engagement. There’s no wedding march coming down the road here. We’ve got 20 proposals but nothing formal.

I know that the government was sweet on Petronas. I know they were sweet on them. We had a special session, just to make sure. We laid out all our family jewels, laid them on the table, and said: “Here come take them. This is our dowry, notwithstanding it’s the 21st century. We really want you for our bride. Please, please.” And what happened? Well, nothing happened. Absolutely nothing. All of these proposals, and nothing has happened.

What did the B.C. Liberals do? They created the B.C. prosperity fund. Now, that is marvelous. It’s just marvelous. Next year I’m sure that they’ll slip in another $100 million or $50 million. Or maybe they’ll tell us we have to tighten our belts. Because at the very same time they are touting the lowest taxes, this is the very government that has consistently raised the cost of things under its control.

Now, I don’t mind. Sharon and I can afford it. You know, we went in and insured her car the other day. I call it her car. They’re jointly owned, but she’s the principal driver. You know what? A few more bucks for insurance. It was okay for us. You know what? Life’s been good to us. But I’ve got to tell you, hon. Speaker, for most British Columbians, they’re getting a little bit tired of annually seeing their ICBC rates increase. And you know what? I suppose the minister’s answer to this will be: “If they’re really poor, they can get that bus pass now.”

[1630]

But for those people that actually require an automobile, for those — particularly rural British Columbians — who need a car to get to work at that lousy minimum wage, which is the second-lowest in the country now, when ICBC rates go up, it hurts them.

But that doesn’t begin to compare to the damage that’s been done by Hydro. Now let’s talk about B.C. Hydro rates. We have seen them increase 28 percent in the last few years. We’re now going to see them go up again and again to help pay for the construction of a dam. All British Columbians asked of this government was that that dam be reviewed by the B.C. Utilities Commission.

It reminds me of that wonderful old hymn about religion: “It was good enough for mother, it was enough for father, and it’s good enough for me.” Well, I say that if it was good enough for Bill Bennett, for Mini-WAC, who was praised to the heights in this chamber just a couple of weeks ago at his passing, surely it would be good enough for the B.C. Liberals today.

Surely it wouldn’t have been that much trouble to go to the B.C. Utilities Commission and say: “Is this the right project? Do we need the power? Is this the right time?” There are some cynical British Columbians who actually think that maybe this government really has promised the natural gas industry — that hasn’t materialized, that hasn’t accepted the dowry, that hasn’t accepted the proposal — that there’d be free and abundant and cheap power, because liquid natural gas plants are going to have to use a lot of power. We know that we’re already talking about a break for one of them.

If the government really cared, they wouldn’t have allowed these increases to take place. But let’s bring something closer to home, to my own constituency.

Interjection.

L. Krog: I know the member is conscious of the fact that, living in the Lower Mainland, you can’t swim here on a daily basis. You actually have to get in a plane.

A. Weaver: Point of order. As a member of this Legislature, I have a right to be able to hear the speaker. I cannot hear the speaker because of heckling, coming opposite, from the Minister of Advanced Education.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Member. Point noted.

The member for Nanaimo will continue.

L. Krog: I’m sure the members opposite have noticed that unless they hop on a plane or a helijet, or they’re really good swimmers, you actually have to get on a ferry to get over here to sit in the B.C. Legislature. You actually have to get on a B.C. ferry or a private boat or maybe your private yacht, if you’ve got rich friends. But for the vast majority of British Columbians, it gets down to hopping on a B.C. ferry.

Now, what’s happened under the B.C. Liberals? Do I need to quote the figures? I’m sure the members have heard them. On the major routes, fares are up by 60 percent since they took office, and 100 percent on the minor routes, and they’re going to go up 1.9 percent each year for the next four years — 8 percent.

I appreciate that some of those members who come from the Interior, the beautiful Okanagan…. Sharon and I love to go up there. It’s a wonderful place. When you drive on those magnificent highways where you don’t
[ Page 10828 ]
really even have to share those double lanes with many cars…. I must admit, I enjoy a certain sense of envy for those people — envy.

But down here on the coast, if you’re living on a Gulf Island or Vancouver Island, it’s really important not so much to have magnificent highways — although the NDP did build a magnificent highway on Vancouver Island, but that’s a story for another day. It’s really nice to have a functioning ferry system that one can actually afford.

I know many members attended the UBCM last year, and they heard the report of that economist who was attacked so viciously and unkindly by the minister responsible and this government generally. What was the loss? Was it $2.6 billion or $2.8 billion in economic activity that was the assessment of this report in the coastal communities and Vancouver Island? That’s what direct Liberal government policy has cost us.

Did I see the announcement of a freeze in ferry rates or a re-evaluation of how B.C. Ferries operates? Did I see anything in the budget speech or in the Budget Measures Implementation Act that would indicate the government was going to do something important or valuable or useful with B.C. Ferries? No, I didn’t see that.

[1635]

But I did see that park fees are going up again. We know that MSP premiums are going up again. To quote something my granny quoted from somebody else: “The rich man in his castle, the poor man at his gate.” Both pay the same rate for MSP, if they have to pay it.

Now, you can call it a premium, like it’s an insurance policy. You can say whatever you want, but for most folks out there, they see it as a tax. And when they see that the family that’s making, say, $50,000 a year is going to pay the same as the family that’s making $500,000 a year, they somehow sense that things are perhaps not quite fair, that maybe this isn’t the approach of a government that actually cares about people, that maybe this wouldn’t be an honest approach. Because if you’re going to brag about the lowest taxes, you have to brag about that relative to other things. Those other things are some of the things I’ve mentioned here today, whether it’s the ICBC rates or whether it’s hydro rates or MSP premiums or ferry fares — fixed costs that apply across the board, whether you’re rich or poor, that you have to pay.

There are no alternatives for most British Columbians when it comes to turning the lights on at night. With the exception of some folks in the Interior, B.C. Hydro is it. It’s it. You have to pay it. There’s no alternative. If you want to have lights on, if you want to turn on your stove and cook something at night — assuming you can afford the cost of groceries — there are no choices. You have a captive market.

That’s okay in a reasonable society governed by reasonable people who would acknowledge that when you have a monopoly…. Yes, I’m waiting for one of them over there to tell us we’ve got the third-lowest electricity rates in North America. We do, and that’s a wonderful legacy, but it was also a gift of previous generations of British Columbians that would have enabled us, if properly managed, to ensure future economic prosperity.

By providing low hydro rates, you encourage business investment. Instead, we’re going the other way. We’re starting to see these rates increase dramatically. Ordinary ratepayers are paying for this government’s mismanagement, and this budget has done nothing to relieve that.

At the end of the day, will it come as any surprise to the government that I won’t be voting for this? Will it come as any surprise to the government that I’m not pleased with what they’ve done in the last nearly 16 years? Will it come as any surprise that, as I said the other day, like A Tale of Two Cities, it was the best of times, and it was the worst of times — the best of times if you’re in the wealthy 2 percent in this province and the worst of times if you’re poor and vulnerable?

Things have not improved. There is no indication they’re going to improve. All the evidence is in, after all these years, and it’s confirmed in the terms of this budget: there is no intention to improve.

For most British Columbians, you’re on your own, because the government is not your friend. They’re not there to assist you. They’re there to assist the wealthy individuals in this province and powerful corporations. They’re there to assist people who don’t need help already. They’re there to assist their friends who continue to donate to them.

If these folks on the opposite side of this House really wanted to do something positive, they’d raise social assistance rates, and they’d bring in the legislation that’s been introduced by members on this side many times, banning corporate and union donations. Let them ensure the transparency around government that British Columbians seek and desire and want to see. Let them put their money where their mouth is, and then we’ll see if the B.C. Liberals get re-elected again or if they can raise the pots of money that are necessary to manage in a modern campaign.

These are minor changes. These are smallish things in the great scheme of government. But by raising assistance rates, you would give enormous benefit to the most vulnerable amongst us. By banning corporate and union donations, you’d ensure a transparency and fairness in our system which is important.

S. Simpson: I’m pleased to join the debate around Bill 10, the Budget Measures Implementation Act, 2016. This is a piece of legislation that’s an essential bill that helps to implement the government’s budget, which was introduced back a week or so ago.

[1640]

When we talk about the budget, we really do need to think about what we are talking about here. I know the government has continually talked about the budget in
[ Page 10829 ]
bottom-line terms — total financial-bottom-line terms — an important issue, no doubt. But the government doesn’t talk about the budget in terms of people. That’s just not part of the narrative on the part of the B.C. Liberals and on the part of the government. They don’t talk about the budget in terms of how it affects people and the relationship to the people of British Columbia.

That’s what makes budgeting for governments so fundamentally different than the budget process in the corporate sector — or pretty much in any other sector but certainly in the corporate sector. There it’s about shareholders. It’s about the bottom line and return on investment in dollar terms for those businesses. I get that. That makes absolute sense in the corporate sector. I understand the rationale for that and accept that entirely. Budgeting for government is a very, very different exercise, and it’s an exercise with very different objectives.

I was having a conversation about decision-making matters around this, and budgets certainly would be one of them. I was having that conversation with an ex-Premier of the province who now is in the corporate sector: Glen Clark, who’s the president of the Pattison corp. I remember talking about the process, and he talked about decision-making within business and the decision-making that he engages in every day. He would say he starts businesses up. He shuts businesses down. He deals every day with this global empire that is the Pattison corp.

He said, though, that as complex as that is, it is not as complex as the budget for the province of British Columbia. It’s not because…. There are so many other legitimate interests that need to be weighed in a provincial budget, considerations that are not there when it comes to corporate decision-making on financial matters. He said it’s much, much more challenging to figure out, to find the balance and how you proceed with those measures.

I think that’s true, and I believe that. That’s the place, I think, where this budget fails. It’s because this budget is very much about one bottom line. It’s what the government, the Finance Minister, the Premier, other ministers and people who spoke to the budget and to this legislation have wrapped themselves in, which is this single bottom line.

A single bottom line is not what we’re talking about when we’re talking about what we’re doing for all of the people who live in British Columbia and who are facing the wide array of opportunities and challenges that they have. They are looking for government to, in some cases, give them a hand and, in other cases, get out of the way but mostly just to make things a little bit easier so that they can go and accomplish their own objectives. That’s mostly what people are expecting.

They’re not expecting government to do everything for them. They’re not expecting government to solve all their problems, but they’re expecting government to make it a little bit easier. This budget doesn’t really do that. It doesn’t really do that. So you have this situation where affordability becomes an increasing pressure point for British Columbians.

We see that in this budget, and some of it is in the silence of the budget, not necessarily in the steps that are taken. We see it in fee increases. MSP increased by 4 percent on January 1 and will go up another 4 percent next year. That’s about $100 million a pop — out of the pockets of British Columbians, largely.

[1645]

Hydro rates have increased by 28 percent since the Premier took office. They will go up again by another 4 percent on April 1. That will be roughly $150 million or so more revenue out of the pockets of British Columbians.

ICBC premiums increased by 5½ percent last November. They’ll increase again next year. Last year’s increase was worth about $130 million from customers — again, directly out of the pockets of British Columbians. British Columbians who are facing challenges around affordability. British Columbians who have jobs, who have incomes, who are finding it increasingly difficult to make ends meet.

Even smaller things, like park fees. Camping fees and parks increased this year for the second year in a row. We know the toll on the Port Mann increased last summer even though the bridge is losing money. And we know the bridge is losing money.

B.C. Ferries. We’ve seen increases. We’ve seen some cuts in services. Fares increased by about 60 percent on major routes and over 100 percent on minor routes since 2001, and they will continue to increase modestly, about 1.9 percent.

All of those pressures and, arguably — and I would argue — what has been the government not addressing the housing affordability question in the Lower Mainland, in Metro Vancouver and in other communities. It’s beginning to become an issue here in the south Island — but certainly in Metro Vancouver, where housing costs and housing affordability have become a real challenge for people.

The challenge is certainly in ownership. If you’re fortunate enough to have bought 20 years ago, you’re in a very good position today. But if you’re looking to buy today, it’s quite a challenge. Certainly, if you’re just a working person with their family, trying to make ends meet and thinking that you would like to have a home for your family, it’s very difficult to do. The government…. A minor step with the property transfer tax but a step that only affects new housing. It does nothing for other housing.

There’s really nothing in this budget to deal with the issue that faces most of my constituents, which is rental affordability, rental accommodation. I have more people come through my office, families, young families mostly — not entirely but mostly young families — trying to find place to live. They want a place that’s appropriate for their needs and that they can afford. They find, first of all, the
[ Page 10830 ]
challenge of finding appropriate housing because people aren’t building family housing. I think there’s a little bit more of that in the condo market now. There’s some market for that, but it hasn’t been built for an awfully long time. It’s really difficult to find that housing. Then when they can find it, they can’t afford it.

These aren’t minimum-wage folks. It’s people who might have a $20-an-hour job, $25 an hour. A $20-an-hour job is $40,000 a year, roughly, of income. They might have that. There might be another part-time job in the house. They might have a $50,000-a-year income, something like that. Well, what we know is they need to be finding a place.

If you believe Canada Mortgage and Housing and their numbers on what constitutes affordability…. They’re looking for that three bedroom townhouse for $1,500 a month. If you pick Canada Mortgage statistics, the three bedroom townhouse for $1,500 a month just isn’t there. It doesn’t exist in Vancouver anymore. The government has not got their head around how to support that, how to do some work on that.

We saw interesting models that might encourage some adjustments in the market. At the Sauder School of Business, some interesting work for some economists and professors there looking at some models that might help. But I didn’t hear the government saying: “Those are interesting ideas, and we should pursue that and see whether they make sense.” We didn’t hear the government talking about that. That’s a huge affordability issue.

You have this budget that doesn’t deal with questions of affordability. Then the next question becomes, of course: does it begin to address the growing levels of inequality that we see in this province?

[1650]

We know that inequality in British Columbia…. Based on Stats Canada numbers, we have the largest degree of inequality in British Columbia of any province in the country — between the top and the bottom, the largest degree of inequality in the country. That’s a challenge. You can talk to people on all sides of the political spectrum who are thoughtful people, and they will tell you that reducing inequality is critical to the success of the economy.

The other thing that happens with this is you’re seeing…. As we talked about with affordability, that tends to be the growing pressure on the people in the middle, the middle class. They’re the ones who continue to get squeezed in this. If there’s something we know, it’s that the middle class is the cornerstone of the success in reduction of inequality. Strengthening that middle class is where you’re going to reduce your inequality. But that’s not what we see here.

What do we see? Well, last year we saw the government essentially give a tax break to the top 2 percent — $236 million. We’ve talked about — as we look at this grow out over the next couple of years — $1 billion, just that quickly, into the pockets of the top 2 percent of people earning over $150,000 a year. That means that somebody who made $1 million gets about an $18,000 tax break. Does that really make any sense at a time when we’re talking about trying to increase affordability, trying to reduce inequality? Does that really make sense?

Does that make sense when you contrast that with the current state of the minimum wage? The Premier, when she raised the minimum wage, I guess in 2011…. It was a significant increase in 2011, a couple of bucks over a period of time. It took us from the lowest minimum wage in the country to the second- or third-best minimum wage in the country. There was acknowledgment of that improvement. People were happy about it. They thought it was a big, big step in the right direction, and for that time, it was an important step.

But what happens? We now see, of course, 20 cents. That’s the increase — and the CPI adjustment. But everybody is doing CPI. That’s, arguably, an easy way to get away from having to ever increase the minimum wage again: to claim CPI. But it’s 20 cents.

What does that mean? It means that the minimum wage that the Premier was all too quick to take credit for, for moving from the bottom of the pile — a minimum wage that, since 2001, when this government first came to power, they had not raised for over a decade. When that was raised and it became the second- or third-best minimum wage in the country, the Premier was all too quick to wrap herself in that flag, about how she had done a good thing.

It was a good thing, but it’s not a good thing if you then allow it very quickly, over the next short number of years, to basically dissipate. What will happen is that come September — when, I think, New Brunswick increases their minimum wage — we will have the lowest minimum wage in the country once again.

A $236 million tax cut — a $1 billion tax cut over the next few years for people making $150,000 a year — a Finance Minister who said: “I can’t do anything about that. That’s just the way it is.” Of course he could do something about it. On the other end, 20 cents for those people earning the minimum wage, and they continue in poverty. We know that’s exactly what we’re talking about: poverty.

We have about half a million people living in poverty in this province — half a million people — and almost a third of them are kids. Kids don’t get poor by themselves. Poor kids is about poor families. More than half of those families, those poor families, have full-time paycheques coming in. They’ve got those minimum-wage paycheques coming in. They’ve got paycheques that are maybe a little bit better than that but not much. They certainly are not paycheques that deal with the affordability challenges of this province. They’re not paycheques that give those people an opportunity.

[1655]

I would hope…. I’ve heard that side talk about how the answer to poverty is a job. That’s great, if you can get a job. But when a full-time job keeps you and your family in poverty…. You’ve got a full-time job, you’re working hard, and it keeps you and your family in poverty. You can’t even establish a modest standard of living that allows you to take care of your family and maybe have a couple of bucks for the odd recreational thing for your kids. When that’s the situation we put people in who work full-time, you have to ask yourself whether that system is working.

Now, back when that minimum wage increase was done in 2011, I remember the conversation with the minister of the day and the Premier about how the minimum wage was something we should look at every couple of years. Well, that’s not a bad idea, but that’s off the table.

The minister responsible was very clear with me in estimates that as far as the government is concerned, the deed is done on the minimum wage. It was 20 cents and a CPI adjustment, and everything’s good. Well, everything isn’t good. That’s not good, and that’s not acceptable. But it really does focus the mind on this question of inequality — the inequality that we continue to have. So this is the challenge.

Now, I understand that the government is having some struggles. I understand the struggle around the LNG commitments that were made heading into 2013. I remember and I understand the struggles of 100,000 jobs and $1 trillion of economic activity and ending the debt and maybe the sales tax too. I think the sales tax was put on the table too. The sales tax would maybe no longer exist. But we know what has happened with LNG. It’s a combination, I think, of the file not being handled well and of global circumstances — no doubt, all playing a role.

But for the Premier and the Minister of Finance to announce a prosperity fund…. I would note it was not even maybe a year ago that the Minister of Finance said: “There won’t be a prosperity fund till I have LNG revenue to populate that fund with and put those dollars in.”

Well, clearly, that changed pretty quickly when the Premier told him that it was time for a change. Instead, we have a prosperity fund, which was all about LNG, that now is $100 million of taxpayer money. Well, it’s just a fund that people shake their heads about because it doesn’t come from any magic revenue stream. It doesn’t come from LNG; it comes out of people’s pockets, as we’ve referenced a number of times.

It’s about the same amount of money as the government will take in additional revenue for MSP this year. How ironic is it? Medical services payments, the medical services tax, will populate and fund the prosperity fund. It shouldn’t make it hard to understand why it’s called the fantasy fund. There is no foundation to it. It is smoke and mirrors, and that’s the underlying problem with this budget.

This budget demonstrates a level of disconnection between the government — the Premier, the Finance Minister, the executive council, the B.C. Liberals — and the people of British Columbia and the challenges that they’re facing day in and day out. Whether it’s people in Metro Vancouver who have a decent economy at the moment — mostly being driven by consumer spending, tourism and housing, but it’s not affordable — or people in the rest of the province who have a very different economy where they’re facing challenges every day around opportunity.

We’re hearing more and more about those challenges around opportunity. We’re seeing more and more. I see that the Insights West polling just came out. I guess it was today. They polled people on confidence in the economy of British Columbia, and it has diminished.

[1700]

I think lots of that is about people out there in the outlying areas saying, “I’m not feeling very good about this at the moment,” and people in the Lower Mainland or the southern Island, saying: “Hey, I’ve got a job, but making ends meet is getting tougher and tougher every day.”

The government, the budget for 2016, has said very little that will provide any comfort to those people. You have a situation, you have a budget, where people just are disconnected. The fundamentals that people are looking for…. That little bit of a break, that bit of help as people take care of their own business — which the vast majority of British Columbians are more than happy to do — that little bit of a break that just makes things a little bit easier or a little bit more affordable or a little bit more accessible — it’s not there.

When those folks in the middle look and say: “You know, we expect the government, particularly in challenging economic times, to pay some attention to our most vulnerable citizens.” That’s not there either.

We’ve been back and forth, and we will continue this debate about bus passes for the disabled. The reality is this. People had these bus passes, and the bus passes aren’t there anymore. Can they go buy them? Sure, you can go buy whatever you like — sure.

It was a conscious decision to remove that thing that made people’s lives just a little bit easier — just a little bit easier, you know. The government knows what they did there. I understand the frustration — that the government thinks they were going to get credit for giving everybody $77. But when you dig down deep, when you drill down, it becomes painfully clear that that’s not at all what happened here. It was something very, very different. And that conversation will continue.

Interjection.

S. Simpson: While the Minister of Health might say that that’s not accurate, I will assure the Minister of Health that the truth will win out and the government’s misrepresentation of what they did will be called out for what it is. It’s a misrepresentation. The government tried
[ Page 10832 ]
to fool people. This minister and his colleagues wanted people to believe something that is not true, and they’re not buying it. That’s too bad, and I know it’s frustrating when you spin a story and it doesn’t sell.

Getting back to the issue at hand, which is Bill 10. The government has failed people again. This bill — presumably, we will vote against this, and it will pass because the B.C. Liberals will adopt it.

But not for one minute should the government believe that this is a piece of legislation, that this is a budget, that has the support of the people of British Columbia. It doesn’t. They were looking for something else, something that was meaningful in their lives. The budget and this implementation act simply do not provide that.

I look forward to the opportunity to vote against this bill, Bill 10, when it comes up. With that, I will take my seat.

M. Mungall: I rise to give my comments to this debate on Bill 10, the Budget Measures Implementation Act. What this act is doing is implementing measures in Budget 2016 that will require some legislative amendments.

I’ll be magnanimous here and recognize that there are a few things in here that I know my constituents are going to benefit from, and I’m glad to see them. One of them is the farmers food donation tax credit.

[1705]

I often speak in this House about the amazing farm products and agricultural food products that come out of the Creston Valley, and I never actually skip a moment to brag about the Creston Valley producing some of the best food — not some; the best food — in the world, even oranges. Yes, the Creston Valley is growing oranges in local greenhouses, so we can get pretty much anything we need to live in the Creston Valley.

I know that the Minister of Energy and Mines particularly enjoys the fact that Creston Valley grows a lot of hay, as well, to feed the horses and to feed the cattle that produce the amazing dairy that comes from the Creston Valley.

A lot of those farmers, not just in the Creston Valley but in the Salmo Valley and in the Lardeau Valley and around Nelson, actually donate a lot of their food to local food banks: the Nelson Food Cupboard; the Salvation Army food bank and Gleaners in Creston; the Kaslo Food Hub; and Salmo Community Resource Society, their food cupboard.

I’m pleased to see that they’ll finally be able to get a tax credit for those donations, because those donations are very important to feeding people who are not able to purchase their own food and need that healthy food. I mean, the food banks, we all know, are stocked well with dried macaroni, dry rice and day-old bread, but they’re often not stocked enough with fresh veggies and produce or dairy products. We all know that we need those foods for a well-rounded, healthy diet.

Now the farmers who have been donating those foods have further incentive to do that. I really have to tip my hat to them for advocating for this and for their success in their advocacy.

A piece of this bill, just one piece that is good, unfortunately, is overshadowed by a lot of the negative components of this bill.

I need to go no further, really, than the pronounced prosperity fund, which is really a fantasy fund, when you consider the fact that we were supposed to see this fund populated with revenue from the new and growing LNG sector.

Unfortunately, there is not one single LNG facility that has been in place. I remember the promise of five LNG facilities by 2015. Well, here we are in 2016, and not a one. In fact, on Friday, AltaGas announced that it’s going to be pulling out of its project for LNG in B.C. They join a list of companies doing just that.

There is a variety of reasons for that. Of course, the global market is quite full of LNG. The U.S. really jumped on this opportunity and went full steam ahead, so to speak, to develop their sector. As a result, their sector — just them alone — is able to meet global demand right now.

Take that into consideration when we look around the world and other countries jumping on board with LNG and being able to add their supplies to the market. Now we have more LNG on the market than is actually the demand.

B.C., as a result of this government’s delays…. By my recollection in following this issue in my time here in the Legislature, this government’s delays have caused B.C. to be late to the table on this. But we still have a prosperity fund, all of a sudden. Filling that fund is not revenue from LNG. As I mentioned, there is none. Rather, what’s filling that fund is taxpayers’ dollars.

If you look at the increases to MSP in Budget 2016, it’s about $100 million. What’s in the prosperity fund? It’s $100 million.

[1710]

MSP. A regressive tax, a flat tax, ensures that people who are wealthier are paying the same amount as people who are just over the threshold implemented by this government. So people who are making $30,000 a year are paying the exact same amount for MSP as somebody who is making $300,000 a year — to access what is, decidedly, a universal benefit in this country that everyone has a right to, which is their health care.

Only B.C. is charging people a premium to be able to access health care in this province. And they’re charging those premiums to populate this fantasy fund, this fund called the prosperity fund. Talk about smoke and mirrors, if I’ve ever seen it.

We’ve heard other members talk about the shell game that’s going on. There’s a variety of ways to characterize this, absolutely a variety of ways. But the smoke and
[ Page 10833 ]
mirrors, this shell game they’re playing with taxpayers’, with ratepayers’ dollars is not right. It’s just not right. It’s not okay.

That’s why this bill is such a problem. By supporting this bill, the Liberals are simply not living up to their own promises. They promised a prosperity fund that was going to be based on LNG revenue. Instead, we have a prosperity fund that is based on MSP premium hikes. That’s not a promise kept at all.

How can you support a bill that completely denies what was promised to the public — that plays smoke and mirrors, that plays a shell game with what they were promised and what they were told? This bill further highlights the fact that fees are just going up over and over and over again.

I already mentioned that the MSP is being increased by 4 percent. Well, hydro rates are also going be increasing in this budget. They’ll be increasing on April 1 by another 4 percent, bringing the total increase to above the 28 percent that has already happened under this current Premier. That’s $150 million more from ratepayers for B.C. Hydro.

It’s not just B.C. Hydro. The vast majority of Nelson-Creston does not rely on B.C. Hydro. They pay their hydro bills to Fortis or to Nelson Hydro. Both of those utilities buy power from B.C. Hydro, though. When the rates from B.C. Hydro go up, they pass it on to the ratepayers for Nelson Hydro and Fortis. So even if you are not a direct B.C. Hydro customer, you will be paying these increased rates just by the fact that Fortis and Nelson Hydro buy much of their power from B.C. Hydro.

Another rate increase is to ICBC premiums. They’re going to be increased by 5.5 percent. They were increased by 5.5 percent last November and will increase again next year, collecting another $130 million into government coffers.

Park fees. If you enjoy camping…. I know many of my constituents enjoy camping in the summertime. We love to get out to our local provincial parks, enjoy Kokanee Creek Park, a favourite. In fact, if you plan on going to Kokanee Creek Park at all this year, you’d better book right now, as soon as you possibly can, as soon as the bookings are open, because those spots get picked up very, very quickly. It’s a very popular spot. That being said, people are going to be paying more for it. Is that right? Is that what we should be doing?

Bridge tolls — going up again. B.C. Ferry fares — going up again. While all of these fare increases occur, guess what else is happening. Another tax cut to the top 2 percent income earners in British Columbia.

[1715]

In fact, if we look at the budget, what we see is a total of $1 billion — that’s about $230 million each year — going in tax cuts to the top 2 percent. So the rich get tax cuts. Meanwhile, everybody else has to pay more.

The most egregious example of that is what is happening with bus passes for people with disabilities. Now, the Liberals have tried to spin this in multiple different ways. It gets more bizarre and more bizarre every time they try. But the facts are the brass tacks, and there’s no way…. Unless you’re completely trying to misrepresent the issue on purpose, the fact is that today somebody who receives PWD benefits only pays $45 a year for their bus pass.

After September 1 under this budget, people receiving PWD benefits will pay $45 a year for their bus pass, plus $52 a month more to get their bus pass. They do not pay $52 a month right now. That is an increase of $624 a year. Compare that with what’s in this budget — $230 million this year alone going to the top 2 percent income earners’ tax cuts. The rich are paying less, and the poor are paying more, and everybody in between is also paying more. That is what is tied to this piece of legislation, tied to the prosperity fund.

I just don’t know how anybody in good conscience can be supporting that. How can you possibly support a tax cut to the rich and increased bus pass fees to people with disabilities? It’s just categorically wrong. It’s incredibly disappointing to see that time and time again, the Liberals try to spin it as though that $52-a-month bus pass fee was already there, but it’s not.

The facts are there. People with disabilities know what’s happening in their lives. They don’t have a lot of money to begin with; they have less than $1,000. Even after the Liberals’ proposed increase, they have less than $1,000 a month to spend. That doesn’t go very far, especially when you consider the rental market that exists in this province. That less than $1,000 does not go very far.

They check each penny and where it’s going. They absolutely know they’re going to be paying an extra $52 a month for a bus pass. Every time they hear a Liberal yell and heckle and get upset or the minister saying that that is not true…. Every time they hear that, they feel like they are not being heard. They feel like their voice doesn’t matter. They feel like they’re being told that they just don’t know what’s going on with their life. And they do; they absolutely do.

To see that they don’t get to keep their bus passes at a fair rate, $45 a year…. When they see that and they see the increase or they see the prosperity fund that is based on a fantasy of no LNG revenue or they see a tax cut to the richest 2 percent, they feel even more marginalized. They feel like there are even more barriers to them being able to participate in their community. That’s not okay either.

That being part of the story of what’s happening with this bill, that being part of the story of what’s happening with people outside this room and living their real day-to-day lives, there’s no way that the right thing to do is to support Bill 10.

[1720]

I look forward to sharing my vote on behalf of my constituents and for the people out there who aren’t being heard, who don’t want to see something like this go
[ Page 10834 ]
forward. They want to be able to keep their bus passes at $45 a year so that they can get around in their community; so that they can get to doctors’ appointments, pay for groceries, buy food for them and their children. They want to see justice. They don’t want to see the rich getting away with more money in their pockets while the poor have their pockets dug into.

I hope that members opposite feel the same way and that they’ll vote with their consciences today on this bill. I look forward to that vote taking place.

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

Hon. M. de Jong: I thank all members who have participated in the debate and discussion around Bill 10. In fairness, I must confess that much of what I heard I disagreed with — not all, but much of what I heard from, particularly, members of the opposition benches. I can’t say it surprised me, but I was disappointed by some of the analysis.

Some of it, by the way, is legitimate. These are choices. I think the official opposition critic, in her remarks around the budget itself, talked about the fact that budgets contain choices, and she is right about that.

I wasn’t proposing to go into a lengthy dissemination of all that was laid out on the floor by members of the opposition. I will say this. I don’t necessarily share the abject pessimism that seemed to characterize much of what we heard, again, particularly from the opposition.

I’ll say this also. I understand that members opposite will examine things like the development of a new industry in LNG and want to say that it has not happened or that it has not happened at the pace that we would like it to — or, at least, that the government would like it to — and ridicule or dismiss the steps that have been taken.

Some of the speeches — not all but…. As I listened to some of the speeches or read them in the Hansard, I thought a lot of the adjectives used and a lot of what was said were exactly the same thing I heard in this House in 2013 when members opposite were commenting on the government’s assertion that it was possible to balance the budget in the first place. It’s a similar kind of commentary: “It’s impossible. You’re dreaming. It can’t be done.”

It’s not easy; nor is the development of a new industry, the further diversification of our economy. None of this is easy, but it can be done. And, I would submit, it is deserving of more than the ridicule or derision that some members seem intent upon levying.

The last thing, perhaps, I’ll offer is this. Beyond the rhetoric, I have tried to ascertain or analyze why, on the part of some members, there is this anger, this frustration. I think part of it stems from the fact that there is almost an abiding disappointment to realize that you can actually provide more benefits to people, that you can actually increase the level of support that is offered to our most vulnerable and needy citizens, that you can actually provide additional resources in the hundreds of millions of dollars to better protect our most vulnerable citizens, children.

[1725]

You can actually take steps that reduce dramatically the number of people who have to pay MSP premiums so that two million British Columbians no longer are obliged to do so and another 335,000 will qualify for significantly reduced premiums. You can do all of these things. And yes, you’d like to do more. But you can do all of these things within the context of a balanced budget.

There’s another way to say that. You can do all of these things today without imposing the burden of doing it on future generations. I almost sense a frustration or anger on the part of some members opposite who find that a troubling thought — that you can actually serve the needs of society and provide enhanced benefits without asking children and grandchildren to foot the bill. That is a theme that seems to have come up over and over and over again.

I must confess it is the foundation upon which the government’s approach to managing public finances is built — the notion that what we do today, we should be prepared to pay for today and not ask future generations to shoulder the burden as, unfortunately, has been done in the past and as, unfortunately, actually happens in most other jurisdictions in this country. But that is a choice. That is a choice that we have made and that we are happily accountable for and are prepared to defend.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

The task that, I think, remains for me to do is again move second reading of the bill. We’ll have a chance to discuss some of the details of what was raised as it relates to the individual sections of the bill. I’ll move second reading of Bill 10.

[1730]

Second reading of Bill 10 approved on the following division:

[1735]

Hon. M. de Jong: I move the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting after today.

Bill 10, Budget Measures Implementation Act, 2016, 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. de Jong: That takes us to Bill 14, second reading.

BILL 14 — FINANCE STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT, 2016

Hon. M. de Jong: I move that Bill 14 be read a second time now.

Bill 14 includes a number…. All amendments are important. These, I think, tend to fall more in the category of technical. It doesn’t mean they’re not important, but they tend to be more technical in nature than overly substantive.

The Carbon Tax Act, the Motor Fuel Tax Act, the Provincial Sales Tax Act and the Tobacco Tax Act are all amended to clarify certain refund, penalty and collection powers. These amendments support the fair and effective administration of the consumption tax system in B.C.

The same bill, this Bill 14, also amends the Carbon Tax Act and Motor Fuel Tax Act to ensure taxpayers cannot be assessed multiple times for the same transaction. There are some limited circumstances in which that is in jeopardy, perhaps, of occurring. This provision also protects revenue by clarifying the amount of security payable to government and by providing explicit requirements that all security received or tax collected in excess of the security paid must be remitted to government.

The Motor Fuel Tax Act is amended to move all tax remittance dates in the act to the regulations. That is consistent with the construct of the Carbon Tax Act. The purpose here is to ensure and enable those businesses that are making small remittances to do so less frequently.

There are, again, technical amendments contained within the bill that have been made to the Provincial Sales Tax Act — a few of them. The first requires that businesses located outside British Columbia but within Canada and that source all of their goods in British Columbia to sell to customers in B.C. must be registered for the PST.

The amendments to the Provincial Sales Tax Act also expand the ability for voluntary registration to certain out-of-country businesses. Registration will enable these businesses to better serve their customers, as their customers will no longer have the burden of self-assessing the PST.

In addition, there are other amendments that are made to the Provincial Sales Tax Act to clarify some exemptions and to clarify the application of the tax to affixed machinery of a certain type in certain circumstances.

The amendments to the Income Tax Act ensure that the act continues to be consistent with the Income Tax Act of Canada, as required under the Canada–British Columbia tax collection agreement. Some definitions are being amended to ensure that they remain consistent with the federal Income Tax Act.

There are other amendments that are made to the refundable sales tax credit, the foreign tax credit and the scientific research and experimental development tax credit, again to ensure that these provisions continue to align with parallel federal provisions. In no instance, I believe, do they change existing policy.

[1740]

In addition, amendments are made to the training tax credit to ensure that the program interacts as intended with federal legislation.

The Insurance Premium Tax Act and the Logging Tax Act are amended to modernize provisions requiring taxpayers to pay instalments and the provisions which permit the delegation of the commissioner’s authority and responsibilities.

The Insurance Premium Tax Act is also amended to eliminate an ambiguity with respect to the tax treatment of the compulsory insurance fee payable by lawyers pursuant to the Legal Profession Act. That is intended to be consistent with the long-standing practice, a specific exemption, and is made retroactive to September 15, 1990. It is provided on the compulsory insurance fee payable under the Legal Profession Act.

We’ll have an opportunity to explore some of these technical provisions, but I think for the moment, for the purposes of second reading, again, I’ll lay out, as I have, the acts that are being amended and await further comment from others.
[ Page 10836 ]

C. James: Thank you to the minister for listing the number of acts that are included in Bill 14. Much as it’s a very technical bill, I think, as the minister has outlined — administrative changes to a number of acts — it appears to me, in reviewing the bill — and I know we’ll have more questions as we get to committee stage — that the main pieces of this bill really are looking at regulatory requirements and coordination between acts; whether it’s existing provincial acts or whether we’re talking about federal and provincial jurisdictions, that there is coordination.

I admit that when I hear “reduction of regulations” or “red-tape reduction,” it always raises some red flags. But it doesn’t appear, from anything in this bill, that there is anything that is much more than technical in simply looking at coordinating acts.

I did chuckle at the Insurance Premium Tax Act, a piece of the bill to save lawyers some money. I think it’ll be interesting to ask some questions around that one. As the minister has said, it’ll be exempting the mandatory insurance from the premium tax. They do pay GST right now, so I think it’ll be interesting to just have a little bit of a discussion around that piece.

I also want the minister to know that we certainly support the changes to the trusts and estates that look at minimizing tax planning and taking a look at subjecting them to the top marginal tax rate. I think those make good sense.

I’m also really pleased to see in this bill that the province is following the federal model when it comes to trusts for people with disabilities — to look at coordinating that graduated rate taxation so that for people with disabilities who are subjected to income testing, there’s a way of managing a trust so that many of those people with disabilities will continue to be able to access some of those income-tested benefits. I think that has been a challenge for some individuals, and for family members who want to help people with disabilities and provide them with some comfort in the years — to be able to make sure that the tax systems are coordinated. So I think there’s a plus related there.

The bill mentions the issue of estates and still allowing some access to graduated rate taxation. I think it’ll be interesting, at committee stage, to just have a little bit of a discussion around exactly who is going to be subjected to that, where it will still be allowed and what areas and why. I think that’s an interesting piece.

Just the last piece to touch on is the issue of the PST and the changes around businesses who operate in B.C. or who utilize materials from B.C. or collect moneys for people who are purchasing from B.C. This was, in fact, an issue that came forward during the Finance Committee tour and has been an issue where we’ve had a number of businesses, particularly on the Alberta border but others, who’ve came forward to talk about some unfairness — both businesses within B.C., which have said it’s not fair to give access or ability to other businesses, as well as businesses outside.

I think it’ll be an interesting discussion and certainly is something that, as I said, has come up during the discussion around budget consultations — in fact, for the last couple of years. So I think it’s a plus to see those moves in there as well.

With that, I’ll take my seat. I know we’ll have more questions when we get to third reading.

[1745]

Madame Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, the minister closes debate.

Hon. M. de Jong: I am obliged to the hon. member opposite. We’ll get to committee and hopefully be able to canvass some of those issues and provide some satisfactory responses to her queries.

I move second reading.

Motion approved.

Hon. M. de Jong: I move the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 14, Finance Statutes Amendment Act, 2016, 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. de Jong: That takes us to second reading on Bill 11.

BILL 11 — FOOD AND AGRICULTURAL
PRODUCTS CLASSIFICATION ACT

Hon. N. Letnick: I move that Bill 11 be now read for a second time.

I’m pleased to speak to the new Food and Agricultural Products Classification Act. Before I talk about some of the details of the new bill, I want to provide a little context for why we feel that this new legislation is so important.

We have one of the most diverse agrifood industries in Canada, producing some 200 agricultural commodities and 100 seafood species. Whether it’s tree fruit, berries, beef, wine or seafood, the provincial government is committed to encouraging growth in the agricultural sector. The B.C. agrifood and seafood strategic growth plan will be our road map to continue to build sector revenues, and this legislation supports those goals.

One of the issues facing B.C. consumers is how to distinguish products in the marketplace and the level of certainty they have in making one selection over another based on quality attributes. While there have always been standards in place to prescribe the quality of food that
[ Page 10837 ]
can be sold to the public, typically these standards are those set by the federal government, and we adopt them for food produced and sold within British Columbia.

Beyond the basic food-grading regulations that already exist, there are two B.C. government programs that enable voluntary certification of foods as having met government prescribed standards. These are the VQA program for wines and the British Columbia certified organic program for food and agricultural products. Both of these are voluntary certification programs operated by non-government program administrators as prescribed in regulation.

The VQA program has been very successful and has assisted B.C. in developing world-class quality wines. The B.C. certified organic program has also been successful, but not all producers are actually certified, and many are marketing products as being organic when they may or may not conform to the certified production standards.

In January 2015, the Ministry of Agriculture consulted with B.C. organics sector stakeholders to develop a three-pillar approach to strengthen the awareness and reputation of B.C.’s organically produced food. Based on those consultations, we’ve reviewed our policy and legislation, and this legislation is part of a broader plan to assist consumers in making clear and well-informed choices regarding those organic foods.

Beginning in 2018, the B.C. government will require all food and agricultural products marketed as organic in B.C. to be certified under either a provincial or national certification program. The new act is necessary to enable government to take that step.

About 80 percent of those involved in the consultation supported the move to required certification. The B.C. government will work with the Certified Organic Associations of B.C., or COABC for short, to provide assistance to help interested farmers and growers achieve a transition to organic certification over the next three years, by 2018.

The B.C. government has also provided about $60,000 to support COABC with the Canada Organic Trade Association’s think before you eat campaign that will provide British Columbians with information on what to look for when buying organic products, as well as promoting made-in-B.C. organic food and agricultural products at farmers markets.

The demand for quality, locally sourced and organic food has increased rapidly in recent years, and our regulatory system must keep pace. We are committed to ensuring that consumers in B.C. can enjoy B.C.-grown food with the full confidence and certainty that it meets prescribed quality standards.

With that, I look forward to comments of other members.

L. Popham: I’ve been looking forward to speaking on this bill and to hearing what the minister says about the bill and what he believes the intent of the bill is. Since it was announced, I’ve been hopeful that it’s going to get us where we want to be. This is a change that the certified organic industry has been asking for, for quite some time.

[1750]

So when I read the press release, I was excited to read: “The regulatory changes would allow the B.C. government to build the commitment that requires all food and beverage products marketed as ‘organic’ in B.C. to be certified under either a provincial or a national certification program by 2018.” And then it goes on to say that this is part of the strategic goal of “increasing overall sector revenues to $15 billion by 2020.”

With that in mind, I thought that maybe we finally would see some progressive legislation around agriculture moving through this House instead of the type of legislation that we’ve seen in the last couple of years, which works towards destroying agriculture — like, for example, Bill 24. You can’t blame me if I’m not very trusting of the process. I’ve gone through the bill clause by clause, because I was heading up to the certified organic conference this weekend in Vernon and I wanted to make sure that I had a really good understanding of what this legislation was saying.

It surprised me to see that through this whole, entire bill…. This bill actually has 33 pages of legislation. Not on one single page is the word “organic” or “certified organic” mentioned. That’s a concern for me. The intent may be here, but if it was going to be strong legislation and it really wanted to support the certified organic industry, as the minister is claiming it will, I don’t understand why we wouldn’t actually put those words straight into the legislation.

Now, I understand that most of the changes that are to come will be done by regulation. But I actually think that’s a weakness in this legislation, because I think that we are depending too much on skeleton bills and then putting everything else into regulation in order to put forward the verbalized intent of the government. Now, this is a big step. If you have to trust the government to do it…. For one thing, this legislation would not fully take effect till 2018.

This minister — I believe his heart is in the right place — believes that this is what is going to happen. But we know…. Well, I know and my colleagues know very well that there is a part of the caucus on the other side and cabinet on the other side of the House that doesn’t believe in agriculture the way that this minister may believe. So when I am going through this bill, there are very, very serious concerns.

Interjection.

L. Popham: Now, I’m hearing some chirping from the other side, and that doesn’t surprise me. But we have to go back a year and a half ago to figure out who supports agriculture and who doesn’t.
[ Page 10838 ]

Now, one of the things that I’m quite concerned about is section 35. If the intent of this bill would be to make sure that everybody is following the rules — farms that are using the word “organic” must be certified — and this is put in by law, then that’s a great idea. But when you come across a clause 35, called “Exemption power,” the minister “may exempt, by order, a person or facility from one or more provisions of this Act or the regulations and, for this purpose, may (a) make the exemption subject to limits or conditions, or (b) substitute a different requirement than one imposed under this Act.”

To me, that sounds like we’re putting in a law in British Columbia, but if the minister feels that he has the power — whoever the minister would be at that time — and would like to exempt people from this law, we have a different group of people — people in B.C. who are following this new legislation, which may be strong. But then, if you don’t qualify or perhaps if you’ve had a backroom conversation with the minister, you could possibly be exempt from this law. That doesn’t seem to follow the law of the land as I see it.

I don’t want to be completely negative about this legislation. In fact, my arguments around this legislation are only to make agriculture stronger in the province and to make this legislation stronger. With this legislation, I would like to make a suggestion to the minister and to the cabinet when they’re making decisions on financing in this province.

[1755]

One of the things…. If we really believe that the legislation is going to increase revenues in the agrifood sector, I would say that I probably have a pretty good idea of what would increase revenues in this province as far as agriculture goes and also help the certified organic sector. It’s not lost on me or the minister that the certified organic industry has been calling for a full-time certified organic field services officer or extension officer ever since the B.C. Liberal government cut that a few years back.

We have no ability right now to have a full-time Ministry of Agriculture employee that’s dedicated to the certified organic sector. This is very unusual. You can see all around, in other provinces and also throughout the United States, that extension officers are used quite thoroughly. Why are they used? They use evidence–based research knowledge to transfer knowledge through the sectors in agriculture.

If you are actually believing that this legislation…. You can’t use the word “organic” unless you’re certified. How about we put somebody in the ministry that’s absolutely dedicated to helping farmers transition to being certified organic? So we’re not just on the lookout for people who may be breaking the law. We’re actually assisting new farmers, smaller farmers and larger farmers, to transition into what we would consider certified organic farming.

When I was a certified organic farmer, I had access to an extension officer like that, and I can tell you it was very useful. But if we’re talking about strengthening agriculture overall, all of our sectors need extension officers.

This legislation comes with, I believe the minister said, a commitment of $60,000. Considering what we expect this industry to be in 2020…. I think the minister thinks that agriculture is going to $15 billion a year by 2020. This is quite a contribution that agriculture makes to the province, and the certified organic industry makes a huge contribution to that. Consumer demand right now is driving that, and I think that’s excellent. But if we’re looking at a $60,000 commitment to an industry that is expected to make $15 billion by 2020, you can’t blame me for being a little bit cynical.

I believe that a full-time extension officer is about $85,000. Let’s just say we added half of what they have in Wisconsin, for example. In Wisconsin, they have 71 dedicated extension officers. We only have to look as far as Alberta, where they take extension services very seriously.

I would expect that this legislation would pass. I’m going to, perhaps, suggest some amendments to this legislation, but it will not come without constant reminders from myself and my caucus that this doesn’t do it as far as supporting agriculture.

The minister, I believe, honestly feels that the farming industry believes this was the greatest step he’s ever made. I would say it’s a small step, but if it doesn’t come with extension officers, then he will not get to his $15 billion promise that he’s made. One of the things that was in the minister’s mandate letter was this promise of his commitment to the organic sector.

As we know, the certified organic sector uses a logo, which is a green check mark that tells people that it’s a certified organic product. I believe that this was the minister’s green check mark on his mandate letter to say that he’s committed to the certified organic sector, but I can tell you that they believe that he is only seeing half the picture.

I’d just like to add, while I have the floor…. It’s always time that I feel is very well spent advocating for all sectors in agriculture. We are looking at other industries right now that need a lot of assistance as far as extension services. If we fail to do that, we’re going to look at crop declines around the province. I can point to the cranberry industry. Right now they have challenges with their soil management and their crop management. They deserve, also, an extension officer.

[1800]

As well as the minister’s intentions are to go out and catch people who may be getting away with not being completely honest with their growing practices…. I would suggest, with this bill, come other commitments. So I would suggest the minister take a look at his budget.

We have members on the other side that are certified organic farmers who I would expect to join me when asking this minister for more funding. As we go into budget estimates after this bill or while this bill is being debated, we’re going to take a look at this grand commitment of
[ Page 10839 ]
$60,000 for an industry that’s expected to be $15 billion. Perhaps, at that point, we can come to an agreement that the commitment needs to be a little bit more.

Madame Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, the minister closes debate.

Hon. N. Letnick: Thank you to the official opposition critic for her comments. Those comments are taken in the spirit in which they are intended. I’m sure, as we go through the committee stage, we’ll able to deal with the issues, if any, one article at a time.

In that case, I move second reading of Bill 11.

Motion approved.

Hon. N. Letnick: I move that Bill 11 be referred to a Committee of the Whole for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 11, Food and Agricultural Products Classification Act, 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. N. Letnick: I now call on Bill 5, intituled Miscellaneous Statutes (Signed Statements) Amendment Act, 2016.

BILL 5 — MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES
(SIGNED STATEMENTS) AMENDMENT ACT, 2016

Hon. S. Anton: I move that Bill 5, the Miscellaneous Statutes (Signed Statements) Amendment Act, 2016, now be read a second time.

Madame Speaker: Please continue.

Hon. S. Anton: This bill amends numerous statutes from across government to reduce the unnecessary use of sworn statements in many non-court-related matters. The amendments will modernize and simplify the law; improve access to justice; and reduce cost, delay and inconvenience to the citizens of British Columbia.

The bill replaces the requirement of sworn statements with signed statements where ministries and program areas have determined that a signed statement is adequate. The changes reduce the need for citizens to unnecessarily attend at a lawyer or notary public, thereby reducing cost and delay, and thereby reducing red tape.

In statutes in which there was not an existing offence provision that adequately addressed providing false information, a new offence provision has been added. The new offence establishes that it is an offence to knowingly provide false or misleading information with respect to a material fact in a signed statement.

The Ministry of Justice, in consultation with the impacted ministries, has developed an accompanying order-in-council package which makes similar and related amendments to numerous regulations. Should the bill be enacted, the intent is for the legislation and regulations to be brought into force at the same time.

I’d like to thank the British Columbia Law Institute for the work they did in their 2006 report recommending elimination of sworn statements in most non-court matters. This report was the impetus for this project and was a valuable starting point for our consultations and analysis.

L. Krog: Always a great delight to stand in this chamber and respond to a miscellaneous statutes amendment act from the Attorney General’s ministry, and particularly when it’s so exciting that it’s enclosed in the very name of the statute, the (Signed Statements) Amendment Act.

One hesitates to be critical, but I’m conscious of the fact that legislation can often take a great deal of time and consideration, and one should give it that consideration. I know there are many people who have worked for many, many years on this.

Perhaps the Attorney General herself is possibly aware that these changes were actually proposed in the very year we started law school together, 1976. Now, I’m not trying to make the Attorney General feel old or remind myself that age has withered and, indeed, a little bit condemned, perhaps. But seriously, this report was requested back in the days that even the Minister of Energy and Mines can’t remember, possibly. It was back to the days of the Dave Barrett government — the Dave Barrett government, not the dismal decade of the ’90s that he loves to refer to from time to time but actually in 1974.

[1805]

I suppose that much like the Buy B.C. program, which I’m sure our Agriculture critic does address from time to time…. The B.C. Liberals couldn’t bear to continue the name Buy B.C. and had to come up with a new program name. Well, I’m sure the fact that this wasn’t implemented in 1976 by the Socreds was the fact that the NDP had commissioned the report, and after all, we couldn’t have anything to do to be identified with the NDP.

I’m not sure whether the report was, in fact, from the B.C. Law Reform Commission. I can’t recall, and the Attorney General may be able to assist me here. I’m not even sure it was in existence then. It was, of course, the predecessor to the B.C. Law Institute. But no matter.

We’re only 36 years down the road, or whatever. I think my math…. No, pardon me, 40 years — whatever. It doesn’t matter. It’s a long time. I’m conscious of….

Interjection.

L. Krog: Oh yes. I’m delighted.

It puts me in mind of the whole concept of birth to delivery. All of us here were burdens to our parents for
[ Page 10840 ]
roughly nine months. Maybe 8½; maybe a little over nine. But nine months, and that’s a very long time. I’m mindful of what one of my constituents said to me a number of weeks ago. She was talking and referring to a conversation she’d had with her friend, whose mother cried out one day rather sadly: “Oh my god. When I had children, no one told me it was a life sentence.”

This is more than a life sentence. This is 40 years. Now, that’s a very long time. So nine months from conception to birth is one thing. And I understand that even in some mammals and whales that the gestation period is 18 months. That’s a very long time. But this one took 40 years from the time the report was first given to government.

Interjection.

L. Krog: Well, actually, it was commissioned in ’74, and it was a ’76 report, so it’s actually 40. But who I am to quibble with the Minister of Energy and Mines? After all, with how much money Hydro pours into government coffers, I’m sure they don’t have — how shall I say? — a complete grasp of numbers over there, the folks who are running Hydro either.

In any event, it’s 40 years. That’s a remarkably long period of time to move from a report that was commissioned in 1974. Now, that’s 42 years, to be candid. But the report itself, from the time it arrived on government’s desk, so to speak, has been some 40 years now. One really has to ask: what is the purpose of the legislation?

Now, on one hand, I understand the obvious thrust of this bill, and that is to deal with those folks who don’t wish to go to the offices of lawyers or notaries and have their signature commissioned, go through that lovely formal process that us lawyers and notaries love to administer, where we scare them into thinking that God’s going to strike them dead if they don’t tell the truth when they’re signing the document.

I understand that this will alleviate that expense and that tiny imposition on people with respect to a whole series of statutes. That’s arguably a very good thing. Of course, it’s also going to reduce the income of notaries. I’m very conscious of the fact that there are…. I’m sure there are some notaries who donate to the B.C. Liberals from time to time. When they’re requested for funds, they’re going to have to say: “I’m sorry, but you just passed legislation that reduced my income.”

The Liberal fundraisers may not receive the kind of reception that they normally anticipate when the Liberal fundraiser comes around with the open suitcase looking for some cash to assist. Oh, tax benefits, of course, I’m sure, and above board, and I’m not suggesting anything otherwise. But when we talk about something that has taken this long, what I really wanted to hear from the Attorney General and I didn’t hear in the course of her remarks at second reading was why so long.

[1810]

She very kindly referred to the B.C. Law Institute, which made recommendations in a 2006 report. But gosh, that’s almost…. Oh yes, it’s as long ago as any people in receipt of social assistance received an increase in British Columbia.

Now, I’m not saying the B.C. Liberals are slow when it comes to delivering on reports and recommendations, but this should surely mark a milestone in British Columbia history. After all, the B.C. Liberals are nothing but the descendants of the Social Credit Party, that wonderful coalition of Liberals and Conservatives. It has taken them 40 years.

I’m trying to think. Isn’t there a biblical reference in here somewhere — 40 years in the desert, wandering around trying to find their way? I’m really curious to know. I certainly will raise this question during committee stage of this bill with the Attorney General, as to why it actually took so very long for the government to move on this legislation, this proposal.

I mean, the B.C. Law Institute — I can’t speak long enough, and with any more praise than I could possibly generate, about an institution that has contributed more to law reform in British Columbia in the last few years. They have done amazing work around a number of very complex pieces of legislation that have come forward to this House, including the significant changes to the Societies Act and legislation around leases. They have done incredible work on a number of areas, all of which were important and long needed and much anticipated.

Again, in terms of anticipation. Gosh, nine years since they did this one and 40 years since the report was first received by government. That’s a shocking passage of time.

I suppose one of the things I’m curious about, also, is the timing of this legislation. I know the government passed with much fanfare its Red Tape Reduction Day Act. I certainly had a chance to speak to that.

Interjection.

L. Krog: The Attorney General is clapping wildly. I can hear her enthusiasm for that significant piece of legislation. There’s something to mark up on your wall and tell your grandchildren about — how you participated in that debate and moved…. First, congratulations, Member. I’m sure it’s the kind of thing one wants to talk to their grandchildren about — their significant contribution and assistance in the passage of that piece of legislation.

But I have to ask myself: was the purpose of this particular piece of legislation…? It is no inconsequential bill, I must say. It runs to 39 sections and covers nine pages, no less, with significant notes indicating the purposes of the sections. I have to ask: is this so that the government, on one hand, can say they’re reducing some red tape? After all, many of the provisions of the bill, in fact, do just that.
[ Page 10841 ]

In fairness, it does talk in the sections themselves about “striking out ‘a statement under oath by’ and substituting ‘a signed statement of.’” Now, I’m not sure that will qualify as a full reduction of red tape, but that’s certainly one of the things. And then striking out “an affirmation” and then — honestly, this is the quite shocking part — it goes on say “and substituting ‘a signed statement.’”

So in fact, we’re actually increasing the size of the legislation, arguably, in terms of verbiage and letters. That would be a remarkable thing, because this government is so committed — apparently, as I understand it — to reducing red tape.

I will be curious to know and want to give the Attorney General a fair warning that I’ll want to know if, in fact, this bill, in and of itself and all of its provisions, will of course be part of the annual total of the reduction of red tape that they seem always so delighted to announce and refer to from time to time.

Is that what this is really all about? Is this a sort of stealth bill — that we’ve been hiding this little egg waiting for it to hatch for 40 years now so that we could hatch at the appropriate time and use it to bolster our arguments that we are the government of reduction of red tape and that somehow this will in fact enhance British Columbia life?

[1815]

You know, I must say that as much as I appreciate the simplicity that it will provide for people, the users of government, so to speak, I’m not entirely convinced that reducing it to a signed statement — where, perhaps, by some method, you’re informed that you could be guilty of an offence if, in fact, it’s a false statement — will have that kind of impact that you would have had if you’d done it in front of a notary or gone to the courthouse, where we have commissioners available for affidavits and taking oaths, who will charge you accordingly.

I’m just wondering if the reduction of the seriousness of what is being said and stated will in fact be reduced by the process being changed to a simple signed statement as opposed to a sworn statement, something that would give an opportunity for people, as the oath is being administered, to consider very carefully exactly what it is that they’re saying.

I can tell you that even where there’s a sworn statement, there’s a bit of a controversy arising in my own community right now about some folks who went in and dissolved a society. It made headlines in our local paper. We only have one left. It’s two editions a week as opposed to a daily. Some folks went in and had a neighbourhood association, a registered society, dissolved, saying that they’d done certain things when it appeared that, in fact, they hadn’t.

Even in those cases where there is the availability of an oath being administered, people have still sometimes, on occasion, made statements that may not be accurate. In fact, we may see here that, indeed, people will not take as seriously as would be appropriate the consequences of their signing that statement as opposed to having that statement sworn.

Now, I see that it covers a number of pieces of legislation.
[ Page 10842 ]
We deal, firstly, with the Community, Sport and Cultural Development amendments. That involves the Local Government Act.

Section 1, for instance, says that repealing certain paragraphs and substituting…. Again, it’s talking about “(d) a signed statement, of the designated municipal officer, verifying that the required public notice has been given; (f) a signed statement, of the designated municipal officer, verifying the number of electors entitled to sign….” etc. And then again “by striking out ‘a statement under oath’ and substituting ‘a signed statement of.’”

So it becomes a much more straightforward process under the Local Government Act. The same applies with respect to the education amendments in part 2, where now it will again substitute a signed statement for an affirmation in a number of sections.

Now, I’m going to assume that of course all of these statutes already have, as the Attorney General mentioned, the appropriate provision relating to offences so that there’ll be a rather strict clarity with respect to ensuring that there will be full compliance with the intent of the legislation — in other words, to ensure and respect the fact that when people are making these statements and they are being relied upon and the machinery of government responds accordingly, it responds in an appropriate manner.

Even though it’s just a signed statement, it nevertheless has the same effect as it would if it was sworn. I think that’s a very important consideration in this.

Indeed, it also replaces a number of sworn declarations. I see under the Land Act that, again, the signed statement will be accepted. Indeed, a sworn declaration, under section 203 of the Land Title Act, will now be replaced by a signed statement only.

Again, these are appropriate changes, perhaps, and it will make it simpler. But I would like to think that the government will certainly review the effect and impact of this legislation over time to ensure that there is the kind of compliance one anticipates with this kind of regulation and of course that it not be simply a situation where we’re really toting up, as I indicated earlier, the amount of red tape that government has reduced, when in reality government really hasn’t reduced red tape at all. After all, what really is the difference, in terms of a piece of paper, whether it’s a signed statement or a sworn statement?

[1820]

Now, I’m quite surprised that indeed, unless the Attorney General can advise me otherwise…. In some ways, given the application of this, which is replacing sworn declarations with signed statements, I’m almost somewhat surprised, notwithstanding the length of the bill, that it isn’t a larger bill. It applies to a fairly limited number of pieces of legislation.

I suppose it raises the question: was indeed similar legislation passed before that dealt with this issue and that we’re now just doing the tidying up, because we missed a few statutes? Or is, in fact, this of such limited application?

I’m rather surprised. I mean, we can all look over and see the Statutes of British Columbia stacked up against the wall. There’s a pretty serious set of volumes there. I would have thought that there would have been more statutes that had provisions for sworn statements that can now be replaced by signed statements.

Candidly, we’re not dealing with that many statutes. We’re dealing with the Local Government Act. We’re dealing with the School Act, Cooperative Association Act, the Credit Union Incorporation Act, the Gaming Control Act, the Insurance Premium Tax Act, the Land Act, the Land Title Act, the Water Sustainability Act, the Weed Control Act, the Continuing Care Act, the Hospital Act, the Hospital Insurance Act, the labour relations code, the Election Act, the Recall and Initiative Act, the Trustee Act.

The Wills, Estates and Succession Act. That was a significant improvement, again through recommendations of the B.C. Law Institute. I just want to take this moment to again compliment them for the work they did to assist the B.C. Legislature in bringing forth that particular piece of legislation.

The Petroleum and Natural Gas Act.

The Rent Distress Act. Just for the members opposite who think rent distress has something to do with missing your bills, it does. It allows the landlord to seize your assets. I’m sure the members are terribly interested in that and will want to read it now that it’s been brought to their attention.

The Liquor Distribution Act, and finally, the Employment and Assistance Act.

So it does cover a number of particular bills. Again, I’m somewhat surprised that there aren’t more. One would have thought that in the vast array of bills that have been passed by the B.C. Legislature over, well, literally decades, more legislation wasn’t impacted by this change.

I’m sure the Attorney General looks forward to further debate on this at committee stage with as much anticipation as I do — and the members who’ve been listening carefully to every word I’ve had to say for the last 15 or 20 minutes. A quite riveting debate here this afternoon in the B.C. Legislature. I think it’s fair to say that the opposition will be supporting this legislation. We won’t be vigorously opposing. I’m not anticipating anything calling division on this particular statute.

As I say, I’m reminded…. I think it is a line from the Bible, and someone will correct me if I’m wrong: “The mills of the gods grind slowly, but they grind exceeding fine.” Well, it’s taken 40 years to get us to this stage. I think it’s actually time…

Interjections.

L. Krog: …and a little more, some of the members have indicated, than anticipated. It’s taken us 40 years to get to this stage where we’re actually going to make these changes that all go back to the good old days of the Dave Barrett government.

I want to offer my compliments to delivering something that even the Harcourt and Clark and Dosanjh and Miller governments didn’t deliver, which was to allow for the completion of the process started by the Dave Barrett government 42 years ago when they commissioned this report, and 40 years since this report arrived on the desk of government. It’s good to see them finally ticking off some of the things they need to do before they leave office in May of 2017.

With that, I want to thank the members for their rapt attention and move adjournment of the debate.

L. Krog moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Committee of Supply (Section A), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. T. Stone moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 6:24 p.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); D. McRae in the chair.

The committee met at 2:34 p.m.

On Vote 21: ministry operations, $117,182,000 (continued).

[1435]

G. Heyman: Thank you, Minister and staff. I am going to pick up where we left off on Thursday afternoon with a few more questions on conservation officers, and then I think we will be moving into climate and climate action for some period of time.
[ Page 10843 ]

I was asking some questions on Thursday about the adequacy of the conservation officer service, which has seen dwindling numbers to deal with a growing number of complaints and a pretty broad mandate. In a June 2011 report, the then chief conservation officer Edward Illi wrote: “The conservation officer service does not have adequate uniformed officers deployed throughout B.C.” This is 2011, five years ago. “An increase of 40 officers is necessary in the short and medium term.” Since that time, the number of officers has continued to shrink, not go up, and officers actually have to do more with less.

There are 25 provincial acts and six federal acts for which conservation officers are responsible for oversight and enforcement. Greg Hoyer, a retired conservation officer, said in an interview with the Province newspaper that “they just keep adding more hats, more responsibility. But they’re not staffing us. They just kept adding more, more, more. Do more with less. If you dearly love the environment and everything that goes with it, then yes, this should be a worry because, basically, the officers are the thin green line that keeps everything functioning out there, keeps everybody lawful and law-abiding.”

The Society of B.C. Conservation Officers has also said on their website: “With B.C.’s population growing and the value of our natural resources increasing, our numbers have declined. Inadequate staffing levels is resulting in higher caseloads, slower response times or no response at all.”

My question to the minister through the chair is: if the conservation officer is this strained, how can you justify not adding more staff, and do you not think that environmental protection and enforcement is suffering in B.C. because of staffing issues?

[1440]

Hon. M. Polak: Before I begin and answer the question, I’ll introduce the staff I have with me: to my left, my deputy minister, Wes Shoemaker; to my right, assistant deputy minister Jim Standen, with the B.C. Parks and conservation officer service.

Also joining us are Mark Zacharias, assistant deputy minister in charge of the environmental protection division; Kaaren Lewis, assistant deputy minister, environmental sustainability and strategic policy, which is a terrible name that we should change because the minister can never remember it; Michael Lord, our acting EFO in corporate services; Susanna Laaksonen-Craig, head of our climate action secretariat; Kevin Jardine associate deputy minister with the environmental assessment office; Michelle Carr, assistant deputy minister with the environmental assessment office; and Gwenda Laughland, director of compliance policy.

With that, I’ll jump into some of the numbers here. First, we have to recognize how the numbers have evolved over time.

If you, for example, look at the difference between the number of front-line officers in 2002 and compare it to now, you’ll find that in ’02, the front-line officers was 116. They are now 128. And total overall sworn officers in ’02 was 122, is now 148. There was an important matter that occurred in 2010-11, and that is that government instituted a whole other set of enforcement officers on the ground. Those are the natural resource officers.

So there was a peak in terms of the number of conservation officers in 2010-11. It dropped in ’09-10 not because of cuts but because of shifting resources with respect to the natural resource officers. Then, of course, it has continued fairly regularly along the same numbers, going up slightly to the point where we are at today. With slight fluctuation, it goes around…. I’ve got to make sure I’m going in the right direction. But essentially, it stays flat.

Your change there is that you have front-line officers increasing, not at a tremendous amount but modestly increasing — certainly, not having been reduced.

We look at a number of different metrics. There are a number I could use, but if we take a look at the number of total tickets issued in court convictions, for example, you’re looking at a fairly robust number, going to 2,295 in 2015 from around 1,400 in 2011. But there certainly doesn’t appear to be, from the statistics, a reduction or any negative impact on enforcement activities of the officers, and they do a tremendous job for us, as I know the member agrees.

While we always hope to give them as much resources as we possibly can, certainly we believe that we have adequate resources at this stage and are providing the service in a way that is beneficial to all British Columbians.

G. Heyman: Thank you to the minister. She is absolutely correct. I believe the work done by conservation officers is critical. I know they are hard-working, I know they often work in quite dangerous conditions, and I think the public is increasingly aware of that.

[1445]

On Thursday, notwithstanding the fact that even if you make allowances for reports that perhaps are not in the jurisdiction of conservation officers themselves, we pointed out that in a number of areas, there were some very significant increases to environmental violation calls to the RAPP line. If you look at 2014 over 2008, we saw that waste had gone up by over 100 percent, pesticides by over 300 percent — 338 percent.

In Budget 2014, the program budget line for the CO service was expected to be $16.7 million in fiscal 2015-16 and $16.7 million again in fiscal 2016-17 — the fiscal year of the current budget. But this year’s budget documents — that amount actually is less. It’s dropped by about $1½ million in ’15-16 and about the same for fiscal 2016-17, to $15.2 million and $15.3 million respectively.

When conservation officers themselves are saying that they need more officers, that they can’t keep up, their or-
[ Page 10844 ]
ganization says quite openly on its website that there’s a serious problem, how can the minister explain a drop in the amount of money dedicated to the service in this year’s budget and three-year fiscal plan compared to last year’s? And how does the minister expect conservation officers to manage to do the important work that we call upon them to do in this circumstance?

Now we’re not even talking about growing the service. We’re talking about addressing a drop in the budget from last year to this year.

[1450]

Hon. M. Polak: First, I just want to reiterate what we spoke of last time around the RAPP line calls. It’s a really difficult metric to apply. There are so many items — even the ones that the member references — that would not be ones that the conservation officer service would respond to. There would be other aspects, other departments, of the Ministry of Environment or, indeed, sometimes of other ministries that would respond. They’re not actually all conservation officers service responses.

In addition to that, we often get multiple calls in relation to a single event. You can have one bear sighting, for example, and you could get 20 to 25 calls. It’s a difficult metric to use to really gauge what’s happening in the service.

I’m sorry we took so long, but our numbers aren’t the same. I’m not sure where the discrepancy is. For numbers for ’14-15, we have 15,120, and then going up in ’15-16 to 15,221, and then going up in ’16-17 to 15,284, and then going up in subsequent years as well.

[1455]

I’m not sure why we have different numbers, but our numbers show that there has been a lift from ’14-15 going forward, albeit a slight one.

G. Heyman: I’ll check the numbers, but what I have is a drop of about $1.4 million, $1.5 million, from what was projected for the fiscal year we’re currently ending and the next fiscal year that was in the Budget 2014 fiscal plan. I will check those, and I will come back to them if there is need to, but my general point remains the same.

There is tremendous demand on conservation officers. They themselves have repeatedly said that they’re understaffed, can’t manage the workload and can’t be effective. There doesn’t appear to be, in this budget, any adequate response to these concerns. For instance, as I said, the chief conservation officer said five years ago that an increase of 40 officers was necessary for the short or medium term, which presumably would be the five-year period since he made the statement. We have seen nothing notable since that time and nothing more in this budget.

I will set conservation officers aside for now and move to climate action. I want to ask a number of questions with respect to climate action generally, greenhouse gas emissions and perhaps more specifically, the report of the climate leadership team, which was established in May 2015. It held some public consultations throughout the spring and summer and released recommendations in November 2015.

I think, at that point, the government said they would consider and hold public consultations on the leadership team recommendations. I think the deadline for responding and addressing the deadlines…. Deadlines, perhaps, is not the right term, but the promised time frame has come and gone. We are now looking at some time next month, and then presumably next month or the month after we’ll know what climate leadership plan 2.0 looks like.

I would also note that in April 2015, Premier Clark announced that B.C. had signed on to a new global climate leadership pact called the Under 2 MOU with California, Oregon, Washington, Ontario and some other subnational governments, the goal being to limit the increase in average global temperatures to less than 2 degrees Celsius by the end of the century.

[1500]

Whether we’re going to quibble about the end of the century or some other point in the century, I think it’s generally understood by most people in the public that scientists have said that if we exceed 2 degrees, things are going to be difficult and challenging. They’re going to be difficult and challenging in any event, and others, including the Canadian government, have said that perhaps it’s more appropriate to focus on 1.5 degrees and take some immediate action.

In any event, the pact signed by the Premier includes new greenhouse gas reduction targets of between 80 and 95 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. Premier Clark has said a number of times that B.C. is a leader in climate action. She’s talking about the legislated limits on greenhouse gas emissions — the targets for reduction that were enshrined in legislation during former Premier Gordon Campbell’s time in office. In addition, she has pointed to the carbon tax in B.C. as being a very significant move toward putting a meaningful and effective price on carbon.

It has been effective. I think it’s also been demonstrated that the B.C. economy has not suffered, but perhaps one of the most important measurements of whether one is a climate leader or not is very simple: are your emissions going up, or are they going down? And the fact is that they’re going up. Recently in British Columbia, they’re projected to go up even higher, so my questions will focus to some extent on this.

The other thing I would say, and I would certainly put this question to the minister…. We claim to be climate leaders, but the signal initiative of this government — the carbon tax — has been frozen since 2012. I know what the government says and the Premier says about waiting for other jurisdictions to catch up, but the truth is that climate change isn’t waiting for anyone to catch up. It’s just proceeding apace.

So let me ask a series of questions, starting out with respect to the climate leadership team report and its
[ Page 10845 ]
32 recommendations. First of all, it’s notable that Mark Jaccard, who was asked to join the team — and he was on Gordon Campbell’s initial climate leadership team — declined to join.

He declined to join because he said the team’s recommendations, in his view, would not be taken seriously. He was worried that government would choose one or two recommendations — in other words, cherry-picking recommendations — and focus on these recommendations, wrap themselves in the recommendations and get off the hook for not adopting a suite of recommendations that were meant to work together in order to assure British Columbians and the world that we were doing our part to reduce emissions in this jurisdiction, as our contribution to Canada’s reductions.

He said: “A short list of truly effective policies would expose an insincere government…. But the long list enables such a government to loudly enact one negligible policy after another…while ‘waiting for the right time’ to implement the few truly effective policies. This has happened repeatedly.”

My question to the minister. I understand the minister is going to say they’re in a consultation phase. I understand the minister is going to say that no decision by government has been yet made. But I would ask the minister: how many of the climate leadership team recommendations does the minister look forward to adopting? I would ask her to say, personally, whether she thinks all of them should be adopted or just a select few.

[1505]

Hon. M. Polak: I want to start with the commentary from Mark Jaccard that has been out there for some time now. I have not had an opportunity to address this in the media because nobody has asked me. But I will address it here.

I was the one who directly telephoned Mr. Jaccard and spoke with him. Contrary to what he’s been saying in the media, he told me that unless he was going to be paid to do it, it wasn’t worth his time. He was already being paid to do work for someone else, another jurisdiction, and he felt that he should be paid if he was going to be on this team. So he declined to be on the team.

What I can say, though, is: with respect to the team that did form up, these people did incredible work. They volunteered their time. They had their expenses covered, reasonable expenses for meals and travel. Some of them travelled quite great distances. They had lengthy, lengthy meetings — sometimes multiple-day meetings — going through modelling, going through analysis.

I know the member has seen the report. I think what is important to emphasize for the public, in terms of just the incredible work these people did…. Imagine getting this mandate in front of you, which is the mandate they had to deal with, the terms of reference.

They were asked to give recommendations to do the following: maintain British Columbia’s climate leadership; update the current climate plan as well as new programs and policies required to achieve British Columbia’s greenhouse gas reduction targets within the context of economic growth, B.C.’s LNG strategy and the B.C. jobs plan; actions to achieve GHG reductions required across the industrial sector, transportation sector and built environment; further and advance the government-to-government relationships with First Nations as we find climate solutions; and further the province’s collaboration with local governments in the context of mutually beneficial climate actions.

A very daunting task. I have heard from members, both on the environmental side and also on the industry side, that when faced with that, they really did not believe that they would get to a consensus set of recommendations at the end. Yet they did, with one member not being able to provide consensus on one recommendation. So really, an incredible amount of work.

We take this very seriously. I think probably the best example of that is the fact that the Premier has struck a cabinet working group on climate leadership. That puts it into a fairly rare echelon of topics that are government’s priorities, including the cabinet working group on liquefied natural gas and the cabinet working group on First Nations. This is something that government, by its actions, is taking very seriously as we consider how to address the recommendations.

We recognize that our emissions are going up, and that’s why we need to take action. That’s why we called the leadership team together, and I would thank them for their work.

I’ll just add to what the member mentioned around the Under 2 MOU. We’ve actually signed on to a number of different agreements, some of which occurred in Paris: the International Zero-Emission Vehicle Alliance, the RegionsAdapt initiative as well as the Governors Climate and Forests Task Force. The member will also be aware, I’m sure, of the Pacific Coast Collaborative and the work that we’ve done together there in signing the action plan.

We recognize it’s going to take a suite of initiatives. That is what’s represented by the team’s recommendations. I’m not going to speculate where government is going to land or how government is going to address those. That’s not for me to speculate about. But I think it is evident, by the actions that we’ve taken, that this is an extremely serious matter for government and one that, with the Premier chairing the cabinet working group on climate leadership, I think shows the direct attention that this report is getting.

[1510]

G. Heyman: I hope the minister’s stated intention to not speculate won’t derail the lengthy list of questions that I have to ask today, but I’m going to ask them regardless, because I think they are questions of concern
[ Page 10846 ]
to British Columbians, and they’re important to the future of the planet as well as British Columbia residents.

The minister has referred to the seriousness with which her government takes emissions rising and climate leadership. But I would say that there’s really just…. I’ll say this again, and I’ll probably say it again and again. There’s really one test of commitment to action on climate change, and that is: are your emissions going up, or are your emissions going down?

I will also say that in the five years that we’ve had the current Premier overseeing the actions of this government, there has not been a substantive new initiative — unless you count freezing the carbon tax a substantive new initiative, but I would say it’s a negative substantive new initiative.

Mr. Jaccard went on to suggest that a serious shortlist of recommendations had to address the issue of ongoing pricing of carbon, either an increase in the carbon tax or joining a cap-and-trade program. We are well into a carbon tax. It’s been established. I think the government doesn’t intend to switch from a carbon tax to a cap-and-trade system, although we’ll find out.

My question to the minister is simple. If pricing of carbon, as has been proven, is a significant action that virtually everybody agrees has to be taken to reduce emissions, does she believe that the government’s final action on responding to the recommendations of the Climate Action Team needs to include addressing their recommendation to increase the carbon tax?

Hon. M. Polak: Actually, we can draw some knowledge from the team’s report itself with respect to the kinds of things that the cabinet working group are wrestling with. For example, on the competitiveness side, far from the team rejecting that as an issue, they actually confronted that quite directly.

[1515]

They said, reading from the report:

“The government must develop clear policies that protect emissions-intensive, trade-exposed industries, because there is a real risk that their competitiveness will be materially impacted if the increases in B.C.’s carbon tax exceed the rate at which carbon pricing and regulatory policies are strengthened in competing jurisdictions.”

It’s a real issue. As we recognize the value of the tool that the carbon tax is, we have to, at the same time, recognize what the leadership team found — that there is work to be done to determine how we address those very real competition issues. They also, of course, paid attention to the affordability factor for everyday people who don’t have a big business that they’re running. They said this: “The impacts of carbon pricing on households — especially low-income households — have also been an important consideration in our deliberations.”

I read these out only to make it clear that it’s not just the government who have been concerned about what a rise in our carbon price would mean to both industry and to everyday householders with respect to competing jurisdictions and not seeing high enough prices in those areas. It’s not just government saying that. The team tasked with looking at this and examining it and who did extensive modelling, both on the GHG side and on the economic side, came to the same conclusion.

We have to wrestle with those things. The Premier’s already committed that those are going to be key considerations as we review what happens with the carbon tax post-2018. But they are not just government’s considerations. They are those that the team themselves recognized.

G. Heyman: I was remiss, when I introduced my last question, to echo the words of the minister that I think the climate leadership team was a skilled, knowledgeable, diverse range of British Columbians representing different interests and different sectors. They came together. They did good work. They put together an amazingly comprehensive set of recommendations, including the two that the minister referenced.

I agree. We need to ensure that we don’t hamper the competitiveness of B.C. industry. But we also need to ensure that there are both incentives and levers that encourage those industries to be as effective as possible at reducing their emissions and doing that over an extended period of time.

I also agree that measures need to be taken to address — inequities is perhaps the wrong word to apply — the fact that lower-income people or renters have less flexibility than others about addressing their carbon footprint because they either don’t have the capital to make changes quickly, or they don’t actually control some of the sources of emissions for which they ultimately pay. In addition, people in the north, who are living in a cold climate, who require vehicles to get around because there isn’t transit, have other considerations.

All of these are things that I think could be addressed, should be addressed, and probably should be included in the framework of implementation of the carbon tax going forward, especially increases in the carbon tax.

Unlike the government, I don’t believe that the carbon tax should not be used to help reduce emissions and should be used more than it has been to address inequities for lower-income groups. In fact, the supposedly revenue-neutral carbon tax has actually been revenue negative.

More has been given in tax cuts than has been recouped through the carbon tax, which isn’t particularly helpful, particularly when we know that by the fourth year of the carbon tax implementation, the lowest quintile — 20 percent of British Columbians — in income were no longer getting rebates that balanced things out for them, in terms of the low-income support coupled with the income tax cuts, while the top quintile could do absolutely nothing…. The top quintile is the richest 20 percent, who, coincidentally, generally will have a larger
[ Page 10847 ]
carbon footprint because they’re able to travel. They’re able to do many other things.

Notwithstanding all of that, the richest 20 percent — the richest quintile — by the fourth year of the carbon tax, actually got far more in tax cuts than they were required to put out by the carbon tax.

[1520]

These are the kinds of things that need to be addressed. But let me go back to the recommendation I started the question on, which is the recommendation of the climate leadership team to increase the carbon tax once the current freeze is off. My question to the minister was simply — and I’ll restate it: does the minister believe that we can meet emission reduction targets without putting on and increasing a price in carbon?

Hon. M. Polak: I’m not aware of any modelling with respect to reducing GHG emissions that would show a pathway to getting to 2050 targets, such as the ones that we’ve signed on to, without having an increasing carbon price, be that cap-and-trade or carbon tax.

Now, when do we do that? How much? What form does it take? Those are all the questions that are in front of the cabinet working group, including: how do you do that and, at the same time, address the very real issues of competitiveness and affordability that the team outlined?

Jurisdictions around the world…. In fact, the entire world recognizes that to get to the midcentury targets, there has to be carbon pricing, and it has to continue to rise. But for British Columbia, and the Premier has committed to this, we have to do that in the context of protecting our emissions-intensive, trade-exposed industries and protecting affordability for people.

When? How much? That is part of what the cabinet working group is wrestling with right now.

G. Heyman: My question is fairly simple. Was it always the government’s intent to make the full list of the climate leadership team recommendations public? If the answer is, “That was not always the intention of the government,” my question would be: why not?

[1525]

Hon. M. Polak: It was always the intent. In fact, it was in the terms of reference.

G. Heyman: In the recommendations of the climate leadership team, the first three are to revise the government’s climate reduction targets. The minister referred to steps necessary to meet emission reduction targets that have been set for 2050. But the climate leadership team says that the current 2020 target, the legislative target, can’t be met.

It says: “B.C.’s 2020 target was ambitious when it was established in 2007, and the original climate action plan included a set of policies that were an important step on the way to that target. New policies have not been added to the original policies, which plateaued in 2012.” That is when the last increase to the carbon tax took place before it was frozen. “The 2020 target is extremely difficult to meet at this point. Because of these challenges, the climate leadership team’s recommendations will not enable the province to meet its 2020 targets.”

My question to the minister is: will the minister be forced to amend the current legislation, which actually lays out the 2020 targets, because that 2020 target cannot be met?

Hon. M. Polak: As I’ve said, and as the report outlines, we are not in line to make our 2020 targets. The team, of course, recommends establishing a new 2030 target. We are, at the current time, of course, also dealing with a new federal government that is looking to establish targets of their own and a pan-Canadian framework.

We have more than a few considerations here as to how we would address target legislation. It will have to be addressed, but we are wanting to, of course, work with our federal counterparts. If there is an ability to align with a pan-Canadian framework and what national targets would look like, we will want to do that. So a number of issues remain to be seen before we would be able to make a final determination as to what new legislative targets might look like.

We have recommitted to the 2050 target as outlined in the team’s recommendations. But with respect to further work around adjusting between 2020 and 2030, there is still more information that we need before we can make that decision.

G. Heyman: This is beginning to sound a little bit like balanced-budget legislation, where you’re required to balance the budget, but if you can’t, you simply provide a release valve in the legislation.

[M. Hunt in the chair.]

So 2050 is a long way off. I’d like to be around in 2050 to see if we meet the targets, but I’m not entirely sure that I will be.

Interjection.

[1530]

G. Heyman: The minister is expressing some lack of certainty that she’ll be around either.

But to take us back to the 2020 targets, I think we all know we can’t possibly meet them. But they were legislated. They were meant to state government’s intent and, by placing them in legislation, presumably to hold government accountable.

My question to the minister is: what are the reasons she believes that these targets will not be met? And is
[ Page 10848 ]
there a consequence to government or anyone else for the failure to meet the targets set in legislation?

Hon. M. Polak: I’ll just do a bit of time travel. And I’ll show this to the member after because he’d be interested.

Interjection.

Hon. M. Polak: Yeah, time travel. No, but you would be impressed by the youthful appearance of then Environment Minister Barry Penner in the photo from the original plan.

It is important to note that it was always envisioned that we would be needing to add more to the plan. In fact, let me read from the first of its kind: “The climate action initiatives we have already announced will take us approximately 73 percent of the way to our 33 percent 2020 reduction target. This climate action plan, phase 1, describes how the government will build on the framework established since 2007.” So it has always been the case that we knew there was going to have to be more that was done.

In terms of what happens when you miss a target, I actually think the member is right. This is very much like balanced budget legislation. I think it’s a very good analogy. So let’s look at what happens when we miss a budget target.

We have, on occasion, as government, gone into deficit. What happens when we go into deficit? Well, the Finance Minister doesn’t just say: “Well, that’s it. We’re in deficit. It’s all over.” The Finance Minister, instead, has to produce not only the budget that shows the deficit but also a fiscal plan that shows how we’re going to get back to balance. We have done that, and we have done it more than once.

If we are truly going to be effective in reducing our GHG emissions, I think we have to start looking at the way we approach climate action planning in a similar way, holding ourselves to account to a plan that can realistically see us getting all the way to our 2050 target.

Now, how do you do that? It’s about as complicated as putting together a budget — maybe even more so. But it is something that all jurisdictions are confronted by. We are not unlike any others, albeit we have some different circumstances. So what do we do for British Columbia? That’s why the team came together, it’s why we have the recommendations, and it’s why we’re considering them so seriously.

G. Heyman: The minister’s response to the analogy is partly correct and partly not correct. The area in which I would say it’s not correct is not that it’s insignificant if we run a fiscal deficit, but when times are good and we can generate revenue, as well as the other measures that control spending, we can get out of deficit and begin to pay off a debt — which I’m reminded of constantly, every time the Finance Minister gets to his feet.

[1535]

However, when we run an environmental deficit, it’s not as simple. Scientists are very clear that it’s not just a matter of once we reduce the emissions, everything’s clear sailing. The fact is that we have a cumulative impact of all of the emissions that have been released to date and the excess of those emissions, and at this point, we’re already experiencing negative impacts of climate change. They’re expected to get worse, and if emissions continue to rise, they will get worse.

Even if we find by 2020 or 2030 the magic bullet, we’re going to be dealing with consequence for somewhere between 50 to 100 or even more years, depending on where we’ve actually managed to hold climate change in terms of degrees.

So recommendations 4 through 9 were on fiscal measures. The leadership team recommended an increase in the carbon tax once the current freeze expires, but here’s another place where the minister’s analogy was perhaps correct. She talked about the response to budget deficits — that it wasn’t just throwing up government’s collective hands or legislators’ collective hands; it was laying out a fiscal plan and a plan for the future to get out of deficit, as well as to address debt.

But here we have a recommendation from the climate leadership team that said that Budget 2016 should send some signals and include some measures about carbon pricing so that people and industry could see what was coming.

Now, I’m going to presuppose the minister’s answer, in part, will be, “We’re in the middle of consultation, and we haven’t made a decision,” but there was nothing in Budget 2016. And when the final report is released by government this spring, in terms of reactions to the climate leadership team recommendations, presumably all of the recommendations will be addressed in one manner or another.

Does the minister expect that budget 2017 or, perhaps, even a statement by the Minister of Finance will actually demonstrate what British Columbians and what B.C. industry can expect in the future with respect to carbon pricing, rather than be silent in terms of measures to control the climate deficit as opposed to the fiscal one?

Hon. M. Polak: It is true that they said that “the fiscal policies described in these recommendations should be included in the 2016 budget.” They did add, though, I would point out, “where applicable.” That’s actually pretty important.

[1540]

Finance ministers don’t speculate in their budgets with respect to decisions that government has not yet taken. That has been true over many years — at least as long as I have been here — if you are looking out at a fiscal plan. For example, the Finance Minister is not booking revenues from liquefied natural gas that are in some cases anticipated within the life of this fiscal plan. That’s not
[ Page 10849 ]
how budgets are built. When decisions are made, then they are reflected in a budget. But they would not be at this stage because those decisions have not yet been taken.

G. Heyman: I have one follow-up question, and then my colleague from Vancouver–West End has a question.

My question actually was whether we could expect to see in budget 2017, at which point government will have made its decision, a clear reflection of whether or not there will be an increase in carbon pricing after the current freeze is off.

Hon. M. Polak: I’m not going to get into a speculation about how decisions are going to be reflected in budget and when. Ultimately, that can be something that members can explore with the Finance Minister.

I think it’s clear from the back-and-forth we’ve had that government is taking very seriously the recommendations and taking a look at what decisions they need to make and will make. Ultimately, those will find their reflection in various pieces of legislation, including the budget. But I’m not going to speculate as to what that would look like at this stage or when.

S. Chandra Herbert: Thank you to the minister and her staff. I just want to say thank you for my time as your critic or opposite member. I’ve enjoyed it, but you’re not done with me yet.

I wanted to ask specifically on climate change. There was a discussion about who would be around in 2050, and I kind of plan on being around in 2050. It’s an important problem with climate change, as so many of the decisions we make today, or the lack of decisions we make today, are visited upon our children, our grandchildren and our great-great-grandchildren on into the future.

So far we haven’t found a really smart way to pull all that pollution we put out into the atmosphere, out of the atmosphere. It’s a little different than a budget deficit, in that we know we can pay back loans that we have to make. It’s not so clear that we are able to do that on the extent required for the climate.

It did prick up my ears. I got interested in the question of seeing our carbon budget as a budget. It’s something we have to consider. There’s only so much carbon we can pollute, and really, most of it needs to stay in the ground from here on out.

My question would be: if the government does not meet the 2020 emission reduction law, if we blow past the 33 percent emissions reduction we are supposed to make, will cabinet members be finding themselves creating some sort of a financial incentive for them to follow the law, similar to how they’ve argued we need such a financial incentive for balancing budgets?

[1545]

I understand that currently if a minister does not meet their budget targets and goes over budget, then they have to pay from their salary a small fine just as a way of sending a signal that they’re serious about it. I think it would be great if the government would do the same thing on climate to show they’re serious about it, just as serious as balancing budgets. Will the minister be looking at bringing forward that tool in this discussion?

Hon. M. Polak: That’s not something that we have been exploring. I’m not sure what appetite my colleagues would have for it. It’s an interesting suggestion.

I’ll just point out, for the satisfaction of ministers who may be listening and who had to endure this: it’s not small. Many people don’t know this, but during the full time that government was in deficit, for each and every one of those years, cabinet ministers were shorted 10 percent on their pay. Most people don’t believe me when I tell them we had to take a 10 percent pay cut during the time of deficit, but the truth be told, we did.

Now, is it an effective tool? You can be the judge of that. It’s not something we’re exploring. If the member wants to, he can lobby my colleagues. I’m not sure what appetite they would have for it.

S. Chandra Herbert: Well, I would just say that we can treat it lightly. We are in deficit right now. We’re in a seriously bad climate deficit. It’s a climate crisis. We’re facing it head-on. I would hope that ministers would actually treat this with….

I’m not speaking about the current minister. I know she understands the file, but unfortunately, the attitude of government, in my view, is one that is: “Well, it’s a problem for the future. We don’t want to have to impact our current living standards today, whether it be salaries or what have you, to actually take the bold decision to effectively drive down the emissions we’re producing and reduce them so that we’re not producing any eventually.”

I just threw it out there as an option, because I think it is one that should be considered, and I would hope that the minister might take it forward just as a way to show that the cabinet is actually serious about this. Right now, to say: “Well, we’re serious about balancing financial budgets, because we’ve shown it in legislation. We lose salaries….” It doesn’t look like it in terms of actually addressing the climate crisis we’re facing, and I’d hoped the minister might take it forward as just one way to reduce emissions in this province.

Hon. M. Polak: I promise you I will raise it. I should point out this, though. It’s not the only method of accountability. One of the things that we have seen that I think is significant progress is a transition over the years away from government and other ministries thinking of climate action as merely a topic for the Ministry of Environment. I can tell you that at the beginning of this effort, that certainly is the way that other ministries saw things and other ministers saw things. Now you can look
[ Page 10850 ]
across government, and virtually every ministry has an active climate action plan of their own.

I think of Transportation, for example. I think of Forestry, for example. Those kinds of things weren’t happening in the past. It’s going to take more of that. But remember that those things find their life in the service plans of those ministries. Ministers are held accountable to those things, internally and externally.

I will certainly pass on the member’s idea about financial penalties, but I think as far as accountability mechanisms, perhaps the greatest thing we can do is continue to increase the level of transparency that there is around government operations. Our carbon-neutral government report is a good one, but I think we could go, in the future, perhaps even further than that.

V. Huntington: If I could, perhaps, just canvass with the minister. One of the objectives within the service plan is the management of the risks associated with climate change. It lists out the strategy: evaluating the human and financial risks; developing and disseminating risk management approaches; and “reviewing, updating and implementing legislation, policies and programs to ensure B.C. is prepared for and resilient to….”

The coastal flood protection information is pretty serious. There is a significant risk. All of the municipalities, certainly in the Lower Mainland, such as mine — Delta — and Richmond, which I think is farther ahead in preparation than most others are in the province….

[1550]

The fact is that there are a lot of new requirements starting to be initiated for dike height, for instance, and dike construction. Yet the bureaucracy that’s starting to surround these new requirements is huge. There are many people living on these dikes, many people who are wanting to rebuild and to enlarge their economic outputs and are stymied completely by a whole barrage of requirements on dike heights, and nobody seems to be in charge of these new requirements.

The expense is absolutely impossible for a single person to absorb. The heights…. Nobody seems to be really on top of it or how they’re going to require these. When you raise the dikes, you have to widen them. A lot of dikes have roads right along the base of them now.

What I’m getting at is: what are the plans for actually getting this issue under control? How are you going to afford to increase the dikes? It has to be done. How is the province going to work with the municipalities to do this? How are you going to subsidize or assist homeowners, who have enormous pressures being put on them right now, and businesses to…? Before they can touch anything or do anything, they have to increase the dikes. Well, they can’t. How do you start increasing bits and pieces of dike and not the neighbouring portion of it?

Could the minister just tell us, really, what the long-term plan is here, how it’s unfolding and how we are going to manage this substantial and very real and very expensive risk?

Hon. M. Polak: Coming from the community that I come from in Langley, I can identify with the member’s concerns around diking, especially residents who live in those areas. Albeit, I will grant you that Delta has a more pronounced risk, given its location. But very serious issues.

Now, I regret, though, I’m not going to be able to go into too much detail, just because of the role that we play in the adaptation plan. If you take, for example, the 2010 adaptation plan — which, essentially, forms the underpinning for all of the strategies that are then employed — each individual ministry then puts together their adaptation plans. In the case of diking and flood mitigation, that is FLNRO together with EMBC.

I’m sure the member’s aware that the budget this year did allocate another $50 million to flood mitigation projects around the province, but the Ministry of Environment itself doesn’t deal with diking, dike heights, requirements, things like that. We don’t deal with it at that level. We provide a support and a facilitating role to ministries as they develop plans that relate to their own line ministries.

V. Huntington: Could I just quickly follow up, then?

[1555]

Who, then, in government is going to be held responsible for a real honest-to-goodness plan for diking control within the Lower Mainland — in any area of the province? But it doesn’t seem to be a significant, ongoing plan. It doesn’t seem to be one that’s being actioned anywhere.

It is a question of money, no matter what the governments want to think. And the planning is not there. The recognition, the adaptation plan and the recognition that something has to be done are there. But this is a real issue, a very real issue, and I just don’t see coordinated planning of the vital nature that is necessary.

Hon. M. Polak: I’m sorry that from the Ministry of Environment’s files, we can’t provide the detail. But I know there are others who can.

We spoke about Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations but also emergency management B.C. There is a tremendous amount of work going on. EMBC is currently working with Public Safety Canada, for example, on an overarching plan.

The province has been supporting the Fraser Basin Council in their Lower Mainland flood hazard assessment, which also will assist in forming the detailed plans. But again, the questions are best directed to EMBC and also to Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations.

G. Heyman: Moving back to the climate leadership team report and recommendations. I note that the Premier
[ Page 10851 ]
has stated often that B.C. will have the cleanest LNG in the world but surprised many by saying that upstream emissions from the extraction of the gas would not be counted. That seems to be an arbitrary line to draw.

Recommendation 11 of the climate leadership team is to amend the Environmental Assessment Act to include the full social cost of carbon emissions in major projects. The federal government has recently announced that it will include upstream emissions in their environmental assessments in the future. Does the British Columbia government intend to do the same?

[1600]

Hon. M. Polak: The member will recall from some of our conversation on Thursday that we have been operating under a substituted assessment process, whereby we conduct the assessments on behalf of the federal government. Actually, at the beginning of a project — because it’s project by project — when we do that, we discuss with the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency what requirements we need to add to our British Columbia assessment in order to meet their requirements. In the case of them adding a consideration of upstream natural gas, we would add that to our assessment in a substituted project.

With respect to the level of GHGs that are attached to a given project, such as a liquefied natural gas facility, one of the challenges, of course, is how to tie the project to upstream emissions. In some cases, for example, you have companies that are integrated, where the same company that will be running the LNG facility is also the same company that owns supply in our northeast, for example. But in some cases, that’s not the case. Some cases — I’m being redundant now. I’ll try to pull my thesaurus out and use more eloquent language.

You will find situations where, first of all, it’s difficult to attach directly to where their supply is from. But more importantly, it’s difficult to model as to whether or not the natural gas emissions, or the emissions from the upstream natural gas production are, in fact, incremental new. So in the case of a production facility in the northeast that is currently shipping natural gas to the United States, for example, many of those, given the current state of the pricing for natural gas, are struggling at this time.

It could also be that a liquefied natural gas facility doesn’t cause an increase in production, therefore not causing incremental new GHGs. So a lot of different, complicated aspects of this to evaluate, to be able to put into an effective framework that one could use for assessment. But to go back to the very first part of my answer, when we operate in that substituted assessment, then we must take into account what CEAA requires us to look at. If they are requiring it, then we would be looking at it.

G. Heyman: I appreciate the minister’s answer that if British Columbia is engaged in a substitute process for the federal government and the federal government has certain requirements, it will meet those requirements. I also understand that it can be a little difficult, depending on the circumstance, to determine whether upstream emissions are incremental and wouldn’t have been incurred in any other scenario, or whether they are.

I will get to some figures in a few minutes, but I think it’s safe to assume that at least some portion of them add to increased emissions, if not all of them. I’m trying to make my question specific. As the minister will appreciate, a tonne of GHG or CO₂-equivalent emissions is a tonne of emissions. It’s all going up into the atmosphere, and it’s all making a difference.

[1605]

How we look at economic development, transit, household heating and any number of things in British Columbia that result in emissions really can’t be parsed finely. We have to figure out how they interact and, if one’s going up in one place, what we’re going to do somewhere else to counteract it and still continue to reduce. As the minister has acknowledged, we’re not on track to do that at the moment.

On the Pacific NorthWest LNG project, specifically, the federal government has said that the project would be among the largest single point sources of greenhouse gas emissions in the country. Their draft environmental assessment report said that the project would increase greenhouse gas emissions for B.C. by 8.5 percent and for Canada as a whole by three-quarters of 1 percent.

Now, that is substantial, and that isn’t the upstream emissions, necessarily. The upstream greenhouse gas emissions associated with the project would represent 10- to 14-percent of provincial emissions and between 0.9 and 1.2 percent of national emissions. Now that is, I’m sure the minister will agree, substantial.

The agency goes on to include in its environmental assessment that the project is likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects. The B.C. government has approved the project. It said that it believes the benefits outweigh any adverse impacts. But the B.C. process did not include consideration of the significant upstream emissions.

The minister is correct, at least in part, that an argument could be made that the upstream emissions are already taking place and that this is simply a transfer of the product to a different location in a different form. But I think the minister would likely also agree that in practice, it’s quite likely — if not immediately provable — that there will be an increase in emissions associated with the upstream activity as well. But in either case, it doesn’t really matter. These are substantial emissions.

Will the minister reconsider the characterization of B.C.’s LNG as the cleanest in the world, given these findings of the federal environmental assessment report? And will the minister reconsider the government’s approval of this project, at least in its current form without steps be-
[ Page 10852 ]
ing taken, such as perhaps those recommended by the climate leadership team to actually address and minimize the emissions?

[1610]

Hon. M. Polak: I guess this is where I make the point of highlighting again the mandate that the climate leadership team was given. They have actually shown us a pathway where we could be developing liquefied natural gas as an industry here in British Columbia and, at the same time, meeting our 2050 targets. So they have shown us that there is a pathway there.

In terms of: is it the cleanest? We made no bones about the fact that what we were comparing was the emissions intensity of plants. Ours will have the lowest emissions intensity of plants anywhere in the world, and I do believe that on that basis we can call it what it is, which is the cleanest LNG production in the world.

With respect to accounting, though, for the upstream, that’s not something that we’re ignoring. In fact, as part of the discussions that are underway and the consultations that are underway on the climate leadership team’s recommendations, there are important discussions that are taking place between line ministries, the various stakeholders that are in touch with their ministries. That certainly includes the Ministry of Natural Gas Development and talking with those who work in the upstream as well as those who are pipeline proponents for natural gas.

We have to also remember that when it comes to liquefied natural gas facilities, it’s likely that not all of that natural gas is going to come from British Columbia. Some of it will likely come from Alberta. I’m sure the member is aware that Alberta is going down a path of aggressively looking at what they can do in their upstream. We are doing the same.

We are looking at the kind of opportunities that there are, whether that is in looking at things like electrification in the upstream — that’s something that we are aggressively pursuing — looking at stronger standards for the kinds of technologies that they’re using, standards to regulate leak detection. There is all manner of opportunities in the upstream to see those emissions reduced, and we’re examining all the different opportunities that are there.

So the liquefied natural gas facilities themselves are not the only thing we’re looking at, but at the same time, certainly we believe that it is fair to characterize them as the cleanest in the world because their emissions intensity is the lowest of any in the world.

G. Heyman: I’ll differ with the minister a bit. The statements by the Premier initially were simply: “We’re going to have the cleanest LNG in the world.” It was later qualified to talk about the actual plant and process and production of LNG.

But in any event, as the minister has pointed out, upstream emissions are important or, as she’s agreed…. And I’m gratified to hear that government intends to take these seriously. I also agree that there are recommendations from the climate leadership team that talk about how to do LNG and meet our emission reduction targets, but they are quite specific, and I’ll ask some questions about the specifics shortly.

They have to do with electrification. They have to do with controlling emissions upstream. They have also to do with, frankly, the scope and breadth of the industry, because at some point — and I’ll ask the minister about this — there may be a conflict between an unlimited number of projects and meeting 2050 targets.

[1615]

So let me ask the minister two questions. One is that given the report of the federal environmental assessment panel on the upstream emissions of the Petronas project as well as the intent of the federal government to include upstream emissions as part of its environmental assessment process — which will force the provincial government, at least in a substitution assessment, to include them — is the minister considering reviewing or amending the B.C. environmental assessment certificate that was issued, as well, or the process itself?

And at what point does the minister believe that there is a potential limit on our ability to develop LNG without any constraint whatsoever as to the amount of LNG being produced, whether it be from a number of small plants or a combination of small, medium and large plants? Does the minister believe that there is a number, whether on the tonnes of LNG produced or the number of plants, beyond which it becomes impossible for us to meet our 2050 targets?

Hon. M. Polak: We actually legally can’t go back and amend a certificate, so that question is moot.

In terms of the process itself, our environmental assessment office is working together with the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency to try and develop how it is they would assess GHG emissions with respect to upstream. There are, of course, some complications with that, not the least of which is: to which project do you account the emissions? Do you divide them up between a plant, a pipeline and an upstream production facility? Do you count them separately — three times for each project? Practical considerations in terms of how to apply these things in an assessment.

[1620]

As far as any changes that British Columbia may consider making, we will wait to see what the results are of the work that is being done together with CEAA right now and make decisions at that point as to whether we need to be addressing anything within our own processes. That work continues.

In terms of: is there a number? We’ve never operated
[ Page 10853 ]
that way with any sector. We don’t have a number that says: “You can’t have more than this number of mines” or “You can’t have more than this number of sawmills.” Name the industry. We don’t operate that way. We never have.

The target is the number, and the target is what we’re aiming for, what we asked the team for recommendations to get to. Some of the recommendations the team made were around looking at the individual sectors. Could you develop goals within those sectors? That’s another area that we’re looking at very closely. But no, there’s no number that we set for any industry in B.C.

With that, Mr. Chair, I wonder if we might have a short recess.

The Chair: Certainly. We will recess for five minutes.

The committee recessed from 4:21 p.m. to 4:27 p.m.

[M. Hunt in the chair.]

G. Heyman: Picking up on the theme of greenhouse gas emissions and how they should be counted, I think the minister would acknowledge, as the climate leadership team has acknowledged, that LNG poses challenges to meeting the greenhouse gas emission reduction targets. It doesn’t say it’s impossible, but it says that we can’t just assume that it’s going to happen. There are certain measures that have to be taken. In order to maintain leadership on climate change, the government needs to figure that out, along with industry, and take those measures, saying that if we’re going to be climate leaders, we actually have to reduce emissions. We can’t simply talk about it.

There are studies out there that question some of the assumptions about LNG. We talk about LNG being a transition fuel, about enabling China to get off dirty coal. David Hughes from Cornell University has said that the GHG impacts of LNG are generally understated and that in some instances, they might actually exceed coal, depending on what technologies are used, the methane content of the shale formations from which the gas is taken. We know that one of the major formations in B.C. is about five times higher in methane emissions than the others. That makes a difference. Electrification will make a difference as well.

We’ve talked about the federal environmental assessment report that indicates the significant amount of emissions from the Petronas project.

[1630]

In addition, it pointed out in their report on Woodfibre LNG that while the company has estimated 129 kilotonnes per year of C0₂ equivalents in its environmental impact statement, they believe that it’s closer to 1,000 kilotonnes, which is a significant difference.

[D. Plecas in the chair.]

My question to the minister is: has the ministry done any studies on the GHG impacts of LNG in B.C. generally, and has the ministry studied the relative methane contents in B.C. gas with respect to the LNG industry?

[1635]

Hon. M. Polak: The member is right. There is a difference between which formations you’re drawing from and which you aren’t — the Horn, high in carbon; the Montney, lower in carbon.

In terms of the overall look that we have taken, as government, at GHG emissions and what impact an LNG industry will have and what information we can gain from modelling around emissions…. There are four reports that we have done in preparation for the work we needed to do to produce the benchmark that was included in the GGIRCA, the Greenhouse Gas Industrial Reporting and Control Act.

We did a number of reports. I’ve got two of them named here. We’re hunting down the titles of the others, but what we’ll do is get you the links for them so you can see them. The first two: LNG Emissions Benchmarking and LNG Production in British Columbia. Both reports were done for the climate action secretariat. We’ll get you the links to the other two as well.

G. Heyman: Recommendation 19 is to develop a low-carbon transportation strategy. Transportation is responsible for approximately 40 percent of B.C.’s GHG emissions.

However, notwithstanding the opportunities to make some significant strides by getting a jump on rapid transit and public transit infrastructure in Metro Vancouver…. Instead, we saw the government throw up a roadblock by way of a plebiscite — a term and condition which, coincidentally, is not being applied to the proposed Massey bridge, which, while it will have some provision for transit, is essentially about moving cars and moving more cars. The Minister of Transportation has recently said that the Massey Tunnel is government’s number one transportation priority.

How does the minister see implementing this very critical recommendation from the climate leadership team, given that the actions in the last three years of the government have not been to actually address emissions significantly with respect to transit and transportation generally?

Hon. M. Polak: Well, I’m going to disagree rather strongly with the member, especially given the place that I live and the experience that we’ve had in Langley. If it wasn’t for the construction of the Port Mann Bridge, for example, Langley residents would still not have transit across that corridor. The congestion meant that the transit couldn’t effectively keep to a schedule. It certainly couldn’t be increased. Now, as a result of that and as a re-
[ Page 10854 ]
sult of further investments, we have an express bus system out to Langley that gets people directly to a SkyTrain in the HOV lane and gets them there in about 17 minutes. I ride it myself frequently. It’s a fantastic service.

The same can be said for the Massey Tunnel. As a former Transportation Minister, I can tell you that opportunities to expand transit across that corridor, for the people who live on the other side of the river, just do not exist, effectively, without a new crossing. In this case, the analysis showed that a bridge would be the best way to do that.

There are other investments in terms of transit that are important and need to be made. But you have to drive buses on the road. You have to have freed up movement for vehicles so that you can actually improve transit in those areas. We’ve seen the evidence of that in what’s happened over the Port Mann Bridge. We’ve also seen reductions in emissions from those who are not any longer idling in their cars and sitting there for hours and hours waiting to get through the tunnel.

[1640]

So I disagree with the member that there is an inconsistency between the desire to reduce emissions and improve transit and the need to build a new crossing there and build the bridge that has been designed.

Now, having said that, we are obviously looking to expand other transit opportunities. There’s an investment in this budget with respect to B.C. Transit. That’s highly important because, of course, other jurisdictions outside of Metro don’t have the same access to transit. So any time we can see the B.C. Transit numbers improving, that is, again, helping people in outlying areas beyond Metro Vancouver to reduce their own emissions by utilizing transit to a greater extent.

I don’t think it’s correct to say that it’s either-or, and I also don’t think it’s correct to say that there haven’t been the actions taken in the last number of years to improve transit. The actions taken have been significant.

G. Heyman: I’m going to disagree, not unexpectedly, with the minister.

Like many British Columbians, I both take transit and drive a car, when I need to. I don’t disagree with the minister that it’s important to increase transit options outside of Metro Vancouver — critically important, I would argue — and much could be done. If my memory serves me correctly, I think the amount in the budget to which the minister referred is $7 million, which….

Interjection.

G. Heyman: I believe it’s seven. The minister believes it’s 17. Whether it’s seven or 17, it is better than nothing. But it is not what it could be to substantially increase access to transit.

I would also say that many of the drivers who the minister says are reducing their emissions by no longer idling in traffic on the freeway and the Port Mann are idling in traffic on New Westminster’s major thoroughfares and the Pattullo Bridge because they’ve chosen the untolled option.

In the meantime, the fact remains that in Metro Vancouver, we are not adding buses. We are not meeting demand for buses in the Broadway corridor. We’re not adding rapid transit south of the Fraser. There is no concrete plan to do that, notwithstanding the fact that the Premier says we have to do something about transit and we have to do it fast — today. And yesterday she said there will be no approved funding for the regional third of transit expansion in the Lower Mainland without a plebiscite — a plebiscite which the government put very little, if any, energy into having passed, notwithstanding the fact that the broadest coalition of environmental groups, labour groups and business groups were all trying to get this done. Not only is transit critical to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, congestion is costing the B.C. economy around $1.4 billion a year. We need to do more.

I recognize that that’s essentially within the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure, but with 30 to 40 percent of the greenhouse gas emissions coming from transit and transportation, I think British Columbians want to hear some more from the minister about how she would address this going forward in the future, in order to meet the recommendation of the climate leadership team, instead of telling us what she believes has already been done that is adequate.

I’ll just simply close by saying that there may be an analysis of options between an expanded tunnel or a bridge to replace the current Massey Tunnel now, but there certainly wasn’t when the Premier of the province made the promise that the Massey bridge was going to be built. I think I and other British Columbians are still waiting to see if, in fact, that option is the best option and the most practical option to both move traffic that needs to move through the tunnel today that is waiting in lineups, as well as to add to the transit capacity.

Hon. M. Polak: So 12 was the number I was remembering, as opposed to 17. But here’s the reason why I think 12 and you think seven. It’s because the total ends up being 12 — the incremental new is seven. There you go. My apologies for the correction.

[1645]

I’m not going to get too far down the path here, because we’re starting to sound like we’re doing Transportation’s estimates. But I was Transportation Minister at the time when the Massey Tunnel replacement was first announced. At that time, we announced that we would engage in analysis around what would be the best way to construct a new crossing, whether it was a tunnel, bridge, what have you. That consultation occurred and that planning occurred.

At the end of the day, we now have a project before us — one that I’ll be certainly turning my mind to as I’ll have
[ Page 10855 ]
the responsibility, together with my colleague, on the environmental assessment.

It’s easy, in some respects, to identify what needs to be done on climate. Really, all you need to do is look at the pie chart of emissions, and you can tell right away where we need to take action.

One of those places is transit. We have to find ways of expanding people’s transportation options in respect of their own vehicles, in respect of planning of communities where people can walk more, but, indeed, in terms of transit. I don’t know yet what those options will be.

Obviously, part of that work is multigovernment, multilevels of government, between the federal government, local government and the province of British Columbia. That work will continue. But it is certainly the case that transit has continued to expand in British Columbia and that, as we look to the future, those expansions will continue.

S. Chandra Herbert: The Pacific Coast Collaborative agreement made by this government back in 2013. In that agreement, it said that each of the signatories would expand zero-emission vehicle use in their jurisdictions. They committed to 10 percent of new vehicle purchases in both public and private fleets to be electric or zero emission. The date in the agreement was 2016.

I’d asked the minister about this a few times in the past — about how we were going to determine they had reached the 10 percent and what the existing amount of zero-emission vehicles in the current fleets were. I’m hoping that I can get an answer today.

Has the B.C. government met that standard that 10 percent of all new vehicle purchases are zero emission? What private sector fleets have met that vehicle use goal that the government committed to back in 2013?

Hon. M. Polak: This is one of those files where, while we provide policy support, etc., we actually don’t track that. The Ministry of Energy and Mines does. They track the success toward the goal. You’ll have to pursue that with them, I’m afraid.

S. Chandra Herbert: I will track that or follow that up with them. I guess it was just a surprise to me that the Minister of Environment wouldn’t have an answer in terms of if we have met that target as it was signed by the government. To me, it speaks very strongly to the climate change file.

I’m guessing any questions around this will be sent to that ministry. Is that correct?

Hon. M. Polak: The short answer is: it depends. Maybe I’ll put it this way, just to save the member any difficulty.

By the way, if we can assist in terms of passing on questions that you have an interest in so that the ministry responsible is prepared and ready or what have you, we’ll certainly do that.

I suppose I can make it simpler this way. We, in terms of clean energy vehicles…. I’m going to look at Susanna in case I get this wrong. I think the only place we have line responsibility is when we are engaged in helping to put together the agreements in which those are contained.

[1650]

I don’t think we actually have any of the policy levers ourselves. They’re all in other ministries and mainly in Energy and Mines.

S. Chandra Herbert: Well, then I might try a different tack on that question. As the putting together of the agreements came forward through Ministry of Environment and the climate action group, I’m curious what kind of reporting is required to the other collaborative members. Is it a signed document saying, “We’re going to do all these grand things,” and there is no requirement to actually report or hold yourself accountable, as is often the case in political agreements like this? What kind of communications have happened this year in relation to, I guess, this goal?

Hon. M. Polak: I can’t speak to the overall question of what kind of communications has been taking place because that happens through the Premier’s office, through the Intergovernmental Relations Secretariat. As part of the agreement, though, and as part of our participation, annual progress summaries are produced. Those are available on line. They are posted on the Pacific Coast Collaborative website.

G. Heyman: Emissions from buildings account for an additional 30 percent of greenhouse gas emissions, yet the effective and popular LiveSmart program has been first cancelled and then significantly curtailed.

There’s now a program run by utilities that doesn’t necessarily require home energy assessments, so there’s no way of measuring whether people getting grants for home renovations are actually reducing their emissions or potentially increasing them, which I’m told is actually quite possible.

It seems that if we’re going to meet this recommendation of the climate leadership team, we need a comprehensive retrofit strategy. The opposition has put forward a comprehensive retrofit strategy that lines up more closely to B.C. Hydro’s recommended demand-side management option 3, which was where they were originally going to take B.C. until the government scaled them back to DSM level 2.

With this in mind, how does the minister expect to address this set of recommendations from the climate leadership team and help British Columbia address the very significant percentage of its GHG emissions that stem from homes?

Hon. M. Polak: Again, these are recommendations from the team that we are carefully considering. We
[ Page 10856 ]
know that the built environment represents a significant amount of our GHG emissions. With respect to any kind of specific actions around retrofitting or talking about the LiveSmart program, etc., those actually fall under the responsibility of the Ministry of Energy and Mines again, so I can’t speak with any detail around current efforts that are underway. But with respect to the recommendations of the team, again we take those seriously, and we’re looking at them very seriously.

G. Heyman: In 2011, the Premier promised to create a cap-and-trade program through the Western Climate Initiative. She said: “We will continue to play a leadership role through the Western Climate Initiative to design a cap-and-trade system that works for our environment and our economy.”

Part of the rationale for excluding some large industrial process emissions — for instance, those associated with natural gas as well as chemical industrial processes and some waste management processes — was that these would subsequently be captured by a cap-and-trade system.

However, B.C. appears to have abandoned the Western Climate Initiative and isn’t about to enter into a cap-and-trade system. My question to the minister is: will the government take steps to cover the previously exempted process emissions under the carbon tax?

[1655]

Hon. M. Polak: Of course, again, those are recommendations that the team has made, and we’re looking at those very seriously.

While it’s true that we have not joined an emissions trading system at this stage, we do still participate on the Western Climate Initiative. In fact, one of our staff sits on their board, so we do participate. We have not entirely shut the door on opportunities for emissions trading, but we have not made a decision to go in that direction at this time.

G. Heyman: The Premier has stated on numerous occasions, including in Paris, that B.C. is a climate leader. We expect that she is going to make the same claim when the Premiers meet with the federal government representatives this week. She may make the same claim at the GLOBE 2016 conference.

But the facts are that we’ve seen no actions since the carbon tax was frozen in 2012. Emissions have gone up every year since the current Premier became Premier. There’s a 4.3 percent total increase since she became Premier. And according to Environment Canada’s National Inventory Report…. Well, let me back up for a minute; let me just look at those numbers. We see an increase in 2011 levels over 2005, of significance. The National Inventory Report of Environment Canada, which was released in April 2015, says that B.C.’s emissions have been increasing year over year since 2010. According to this report, as I said, there’s been a 4.3 percent increase.

My question to the minister is: how can the government continue to say it’s a climate leader when emissions are increasing every year and there is no plan in place to turn that around?

[1700]

Hon. M. Polak: I am going to try not to filibuster my own estimates with this answer, and I apologize if this is overly complicated. I don’t mean that as any kind of slight to the member, because it’s overcomplicated to me as well.

It speaks to something larger at issue and one of the things that there were extensive discussions about at the recent federal-provincial-territorial meeting with Canada’s Environment Minister, and that is the need for all of us — provinces, territories and the federal government — to arrive at a common set of tools we use to measure and report.

For example, the National Inventory Report is not the figure that British Columbia uses in determining how we would lay out our emissions, and that’s consistent. You can look at our measurements over time and see where they’ve gone. Why is it different? Well, because different jurisdictions count different things when they are outlining their emissions.

While it’s true that in the last year or so…. In the last year — we have reports on 2013 — we’re seeing emissions start to tick up. When you include things — for example, forest management offsets — which we have always included in ours, the case cannot be made that emissions have gone up since 2012.

I think the important piece, though, of what the member said is that emissions are going up again, and we are going to have to do more if we’re going to see them start to trend down.

One of the things we are working on together with our federal counterparts and other provincial and territorial counterparts is to arrive at a common set of measuring and reporting tools so that we are all talking the same language with respect to how our emissions track and trend. Everybody sees that as something valuable, because right now there are a number of different methods for doing that, and it means that different jurisdictions are reporting on a different basis.

G. Heyman: The figures that I was looking for earlier and couldn’t quite put my finger on do in fact demonstrate the difference between the federal government’s numbers and B.C. numbers. For instance, the year-over-year increase clocked by the B.C. government in 2011 was 0.45 of a percent, and it was 0.5 federally. The difference is more significant going forward. In 2013, the B.C. government says 0.91 and the federal government says 1.45.

The minister will forgive me, I hope, for pursuing this line of questioning. Many of her answers are: “We aren’t
[ Page 10857 ]
sure what we’re going to do yet because we’re consulting on and considering the recommendations of the climate leadership team.” But from the perspective of my ability as opposition spokesperson to actually question her on this, I’m somewhat limited to this set of estimates that are taking place right now — although I certainly intend to be back in 2017.

Even in April 2015, under the former federal Conservative government of Stephen Harper, they pointed out to B.C. that emissions are rising and that we’re not on track to meet GHG emission reduction targets. Then-Minister Aglukkaq wrote to this minister on April 10, saying: “B.C. is on pace to increase emissions 11 percent by 2020 from 2005 levels.”

Will the minister admit that B.C. isn’t even holding its own? It’s falling behind, and we’re missing targets. We’re on track to miss targets. British Columbians deserve to know how we’re going to turn this ship around and do our best to, if not meet the 2020 targets, which I think we all agree can’t be met, meet new targets for 2030?

[1705]

Hon. M. Polak: The numbers…. It’s important, as we go forward and try to build a pan-Canadian framework together with our federal and provincial and territorial partners, to arrive at a common set of data. But the point the member makes is absolutely valid. It’s the reason behind the work we’re doing. That is that emissions are now trending up in B.C.

We can disagree about how to count them or how much they might be going up, but they’re going to be going up. That’s why this work is so important. That’s why the team was tasked to provide us with these recommendations. It’s why we’ll be considering them very carefully. We know that this is important to our children, our grandchildren. We all know that we need to act if we are going to make the difference that we need to make in order to see this trend line change.

There’s no disagreement that we have emissions going up. We know that we are not going to meet the 2020 targets. Whether or not we are establishing a new 2030 target, or what it might be…. All of those things are being considered as the cabinet working group goes through the recommendations from the team, and, of course, as first ministers meet together in Vancouver, understanding that they are also trying to put together a pan-Canadian framework that we will hope to align with.

G. Heyman: With respect, I’ll repeat again that since 2012, the last year the carbon tax got its final bump, there have been zero new policies from this government on climate change. Most people believe, notwithstanding the government’s policy on a revenue-neutral carbon tax — which is actually, as I pointed out earlier, revenue-negative today…. They would like to see a carbon tax that’s actually used to assist them with measures or assist industry with measures that actually reduce carbon emissions.

You know, the government continues to say it’s a climate leader, based on past actions by former Premier Gordon Campbell. But emissions are forecast to increase significantly.

Let me ask the minister. Will the minister consider recommending to cabinet that real investments be made by this government in terms of budget allotments and assistance to reduce emissions, whether they are industrial, whether they are commercial or whether they are residential or transportation in nature?

What will the government do to take concrete action to be able to legitimately say it’s a climate leader? You cannot say you’re a climate leader while emissions are rising.

[1710]

Hon. M. Polak: There’s no question that more needs to be done if we’re going to maintain our climate leadership. That was part of the terms of reference provided to the team, which I think is an important acknowledgment that government has made. We wouldn’t be asking them to consider that if we didn’t think there was more that needed to be done in order to maintain that.

It is recognized around the world that the fact that we have maintained one of the highest and broadest carbon taxes in the world is significant. The fact that we still are the only jurisdiction in North America to be carbon-neutral across our entire public sector. The fact that we have seen those initiatives turn into advantages for those in the SUCH sector in terms of the carbon-neutral capital program. There are many ways in which we still lead, not the least of which is in our approach now to addressing a new climate leadership plan. We have those decisions in front of us. We’re considering them very seriously.

With respect to any further carbon tax, though, the Premier has made it very clear. Our carbon tax is revenue-neutral and it remains revenue-neutral.

Are there challenges with that? Yes. One of them, which the member highlights, is that the way in which the tax operates requires that the Ministry of Finance estimate in advance what revenues they will collect and therefore estimate in advance what tax reductions will be in place. There are strict penalties on them if they get it wrong, and those are financial, so it stands to reason that they err on the side of caution in terms of projecting revenues versus taxes that they need to cut in order to meet their requirements.

The Premier has made it clear that we intend to keep our carbon tax revenue-neutral whether it rises in 2018 or not, so that question has already been answered.

With respect to what we will do, we need an update to our climate plan, and we have committed to delivering on that.

G. Heyman: I thank the minister for the answer, but I have to say this the first time I’ve heard leadership de-
[ Page 10858 ]
fined as “not undoing what we’ve previously done” and “simply maintaining the status quo.” I don’t think most British Columbians would agree that that’s a forward-looking plan. I look forward to seeing the government’s response to the recommendations of the climate leadership team, which are substantial and will make a difference if they are all implemented.

Let me respond to the minister on the carbon tax with another question which is related to…. I believe the minister attempted to answer my question about actions to help British Columbians reduce emissions — whether they’re residential, transportation, industrial or commercial — by saying that the Premier has insisted that the carbon tax must remain revenue-neutral. In fact, the carbon tax is now revenue-negative and has been for a while. Carbon taxes bring in less than the corresponding tax cuts that were implemented.

It seems to me that if it’s really going to be revenue-neutral, there is some room for government to collect some of the missing revenue and use that to take some actions to advance some aspect of a meaningful climate action plan that can assist British Columbia as a province and British Columbians as a whole, whether as individuals or as businesses or industry, to reduce emissions. That is what we all agree we need to do, and we need to do it sooner rather than later.

My question to the minister is: if the carbon tax is revenue-negative, how does that meet the Premier’s commitment to have a revenue-neutral carbon tax? Will the minister consider recommending other actions to this government to address the fact that we now have a revenue-negative carbon tax?

[1715]

Hon. M. Polak: We will not be taking carbon tax revenues and investing them into projects or programs. As soon as you do that, it is just another tax. You could charge that tax on anything else and put it into government programs, put it into initiatives. If you are going to fund initiatives, those come from direct line ministry budgets, which is what we have done in the past.

The member will be familiar with the long list of actions that began with respect to the 2007 climate plan, many of which continue to this day, not the least of which is the ongoing investment that comes from things like the carbon-neutral capital program.

We will not be taking incremental carbon tax revenue and putting it into programs, services, etc. We intend to continue to reduce the tax burden on British Columbians and on British Columbia businesses.

Insofar as: can there be a different design so that there’s a more accurate fit between the estimate of carbon tax revenue and the estimate of taxation that needs to be addressed in terms of reduction? I don’t know the answer to that. I don’t know if Finance is perhaps pursuing that. I don’t know the answer to it, but I dare say that I’m going to be far less concerned about giving back too much in tax revenue than I would be about collecting too much in tax revenue.

G. Heyman: I’m a bit mystified. We have a commitment to a revenue-neutral carbon tax. The use of government revenue, as the minister herself has pointed out, to support initiatives that would help British Columbia reduce its emissions could certainly happen and be funded from general revenue. But it’s very hard to do that when you claim to have a revenue-neutral carbon tax and in fact you have a revenue-negative carbon tax and cuts have been made to revenue under the guise that they’re being replaced by the carbon tax when they’re not.

Let me move on to a figure I’ve recently had brought to my attention that causes great concern. I would hope it causes concern to the minister. It should cause concern to British Columbians.

Environment Canada released new greenhouse gas emission numbers in Canada’s second biannual report, submitted to the United Nations framework convention on climate change on February 10, this month. It’s important to note that Environment Canada’s projections are peer-reviewed and they’ve been right in the past, even though they are projecting forward. For B.C., they’re projecting carbon pollution to go from 63 megatons in 2013 to 72 in 2020 and 83 in 2030.

The climate leadership team has made a bunch of recommendations, asking the provincial government to take these measures to cut our emissions by 40 percent by 2030. Instead, we have a report from the federal government that says we’re on track to have emissions go up by 32 percent — 32 percent by 2030. That’s a 72 percent gap between the climate leadership team recommendations and what we are currently on track to do.

Meanwhile, other provinces — Ontario, Quebec and Nova Scotia — are projected to go down. Now, I understand the minister will say there are reasons for that. They get much of their electricity from sources like coal, and they’re addressing that, and B.C. has hydro power. I get that.

But it doesn’t change the fact that we have a projection of a 32 percent increase in greenhouse gas emissions in British Columbia on our current trajectory — that is, 14 years from now — and that’s a 72 percent gap between what’s projected and what the climate leadership team has suggested we need to do.

[1720]

My question to the minister is: does this concern you? Does this concern the government? When can we expect to see the adoption of a full suite of recommendations that can actually match up and change the trajectory, which these numbers were based on from the federal government, so that instead of projecting a 32 percent increase, we can say with some confidence that these measures that we are about to begin taking — whether it’s in
[ Page 10859 ]
March, April, May or June — will turn the ship around and start heading us toward a reduction that we know we need to make by 2030?

Hon. M. Polak: It concerns me, it concerns the Premier, and it concerns our government. That is why we established the climate leadership team. That’s why we gave them the mandate that we did. That’s why the Premier has established the cabinet working group on climate leadership. It’s why we will be releasing a plan this spring in order to address those recommendations.

G. Heyman: Does the minister have confidence that a plan will be released that can actually significantly change these numbers from an increase projected to 2030 to a decrease?

Hon. M. Polak: We have a path that is laid out before us in the team’s recommendations. Insofar as the cabinet working group is now considering those and will make recommendations to cabinet, then I have confidence that we will seriously address the need to reduce our emissions. We know we have to. So I have every confidence that the plan that comes out will be credible, will be meaningful and will give people the confidence that British Columbia is continuing to move forward to address our emissions.

G. Heyman: A few months ago in this House, an MLA on the government side said: “I’m not naturally inclined to believe in the science of global warming. I think I represent many of my constituents as well. Although I’m not convinced of human caused or so-called anthropogenic global warming, I wouldn’t call myself a denier either. I’m more of an agnostic on the question.” This was the member for Chilliwack-Hope.

Obviously, from what she said, the minister doesn’t agree with the member. I would ask the minister what she would say to the member in order to help build a full buy-in on the government side to take actions necessary.

Hon. M. Polak: Actually, on that occasion, after the member made those comments, he was mocked repeatedly by members in the House. I got up and actually made a speech about that.

One of the things we must grasp if we are going to be successful in seeing British Columbia turn its emission trend lines downward instead of upward is that we need British Columbians all across the province to buy in. We’re not going to be successful if we just approach industry. We’re not going to be successful if we just try to do it through government policy. We actually need everyday British Columbians participating in this effort. We are not going to bring them along by mocking their viewpoint.

The member has a different viewpoint than I do and obviously a different viewpoint than what the member opposite has with respect to climate change, global warming. However, he does represent the view of thousands of British Columbians all around the province. If we are going to bring those British Columbians along with us, we have work to do in terms of bringing the knowledge base to them, providing accurate information, making sure that they understand the reasons why we are doing some of the things that we need to do.

We need to be very careful to listen when people express those views and try to understand where they’re coming from and respect them, because they may have a different view than we do, but they pay taxes. They live in B.C., and they have elected representatives who represent their views as well.

[1725]

G. Heyman: I’m sure the minister didn’t mean to imply that I was mocking the member.

Hon. M. Polak: No, I didn’t mean you.

G. Heyman: I’m not, and I haven’t, although I profoundly disagree with the member for Chilliwack-Hope. I will say that I was somewhat taken aback when I heard the comments in the House.

The minister is right. There are British Columbians who either don’t believe that climate change is caused by humans or are skeptical about it. But I would say they are not in the majority. They are a minority. And the difference here is that I believe that those of us who are elected to come to this place have a special responsibility not only to reflect the views of our members but to look at available information carefully.

We’ve come through a period nationally where science didn’t hold a lot of sway with the federal government. I believe science should hold a lot of sway with people on both sides of the House as we consider policy. My question to the minister was simply: what does she have to say to the member, because a good start on convincing other British Columbians is to find ways to talk to her own colleagues when we have disagreements. But I won’t pursue that question any further right now.

I’m going to ask one more question on climate generally, at which point we will move on to species at risk. I will temporarily yield my place to one of my colleagues who has some specific questions.

Following the report and recommendations of the climate leadership team, one of the processes put in place by this government and the minister, I believe, as part of the consultation and the development of a response to the recommendations by this government, was to establish three stakeholder committees.

However, these committees aren’t actually engaged in public consultation. There aren’t any representatives of environmental organizations. As far as I know, there are no scientists. There’s no public interest. There’s no call for
[ Page 10860 ]
public submissions. The meetings, as I understand them, are secret. They’re held behind closed doors, and the only members of these stakeholder consultation groups are government representatives and industry representatives.

I’m wondering if the minister can comment and tell British Columbians why this process was set up this way, and if we can expect to have access to either the proceedings or the decisions at that point.

[The bells were rung.]

The Chair: We’ve been called for a vote. Therefore, this House stands recessed.

The committee recessed from 5:27 p.m. to 5:40 p.m.

[J. Yap in the chair.]

Hon. M. Polak: With respect to the stakeholder discussions that the member referenced, these are sectoral consultations that line ministries are conducting with the different sectors. They are a complement to the broader public consultation that is taking place, and certainly that will inform the kind of considerations we are giving to the recommendations, as will the responses we get from the broader public.

But there’s nothing as formal as minutes or reporting out in that kind of a sense. Ultimately, what will form up is a view with respect to how we respond to the recommendations that is built on both the broader public consultation and the sectoral discussions.

G. Heyman: My question to the minister is…. Just as the Ministry of Environment has comments to make on sectoral issues that are considered by other ministers or with respect to industrial and economic development, people with an interest — whether they be environmental groups or scientists — in the activities within a sector and in what the sectoral representatives might be saying to government likely believe that they have a contribution to make or, at the very least, they’d like to be aware of the commentary that’s being made to government.

Am I to understand that if an FOI request was put in for recommendations of any discussion at these sectoral subcommittees or any commentary that was provided to government, the response would be, “There is no record,” or is there a record?

Hon. M. Polak: Yeah. It would be up to each deputy, each ministry, to determine how it is they are going to conduct themselves — if they make notes, if they decide to record different commentary. There’s no formalized process in that sense.

But the same can be said for environmental organizations that come to us and discuss with us their issues. We don’t take those and circulate them around to the industry folks either. Each ministry is responsible for making sure that, within their sectors, they’re asking these folks for their views, and that includes all the sectors, not just the industrial ones.

So the broader public is having a chance to have their say, and within ministries, we are receiving input from the various sectors that we represent.

G. Heyman: This is again one of these lines of questioning that just keeps leading to other questions. I asked the minister earlier — with respect to the fact that the cap-and-trade system would not cover process emissions as was originally envisioned when the carbon tax was designed — whether the carbon tax would now be expanded to apply to those emissions for the gas industry, for waste management, for certain chemical processes and industries.

I think at some point the government is going to come out with policy on this, partly in response to the recommendations of the climate leadership team and partly because it’s government’s responsibility. Would the minister agree that British Columbians have a right to know what advice or positions were taken by affected industries as that policy was being developed, or are we supposed to just guess and surmise what that might have been?

Hon. M. Polak: As far as I know, they’re all making formal submissions to government on behalf of their sectors, and those certainly will be public, along with the rest of the submissions that we receive. So I don’t think there will be any secret as to the positions the different industry sectors have taken.

[1745]

I did miss out that we all have specific consultations that will be taking place with local governments and also with First Nations. I didn’t want to leave the impression that they’re not included as well. The idea is for everyone to have a chance to have as much input as possible.

With respect to what organizations are saying when they’re in discussions, I don’t think anyone expects that when you’re meeting with different folks, be it around climate or anything else…. Unless it’s some kind of formal meeting session, nobody is taking minutes, for example. That’s not the way discussions occur. But all of these sectors are making submissions. All of those will be public, so their positions will be well known, I’m sure.

G. Heyman: There may not be formal minutes, but it’s hard to imagine that you would have a sectoral meeting with stakeholders, even if it’s a select group of stakeholders, and senior members of ministry staff and that nobody would be taking notes.

Is the minister prepared to commit, if there was a freedom-of-information request for notes that stemmed from these sessions, whether it’s fee sessions or consultations with First Nations or local government or ENGOs, that they’ll be released?
[ Page 10861 ]

Hon. M. Polak: As the member knows, there is a process. If requests were made, the process would be followed, and anything that was applicable would be released.

G. Heyman: Thanks to the minister for her answer.

We’re now going to do some questions on species at risk, but I’m going to yield my place to my colleague from Kootenay West for the first questions.

K. Conroy: I want to talk a little bit about the south Summit Lake western toad, which is a blue-listed species provincially and a red-listed species by the IUCN, the International Union for Conservation of Nature.

I’m going summarize the problem for the minister, but I think part of the problem is that government doesn’t have a concrete plan for dealing with species at risk. I think that’s a bigger issue that my colleague is obviously going to take up at some point in this estimates process.

What has happened is the Nakusp and Area Community Forest, NACFOR, are looking at logging in an area that is the winter habitat for the adult western toad. Now, the western toad — its breeding grounds are at Summit Lake. People in the region have done a lot of work to save the western toad. They’re born, and they go across the road. There’s now a Toadfest, where hundreds of little baby toads are carried across the road so that they don’t get squished.

Also, the Ministry of Environment, B.C. Parks, the Ministry of Transportation, Columbia Basin Trust, fish and wildlife…. There are a number of groups that have worked together. They actually built toad tunnels. They found they didn’t work quite so well, so now they’re building concrete box culverts, which are working better. But they’re still helping these massive toads get across the road.

They’re born in a riparian zone in Summit Lake, and then they go across the road and up into the hillside. This very hillside is the hillside that NACFOR, the Nakusp and Area Community Forest, is going to be logging.

This has been an ongoing issue now for some time. NACFOR has taken their responsibilities very seriously about this habitat for the western toad. They’ve done considerable research. They have two biologists working on how they can do this logging properly to save the habitat. At the same time, other people have also done studies to show that this probably isn’t going to work.

What’s created is a situation in our region and in our community where we have the people that are wanting to save the western toad — which is, as I said, definitely a species at risk — and the community that wants to get the logs and the jobs that come with logging. They had requested to the Ministry of FLNRO that NACFOR be given another section of land to log.

[1750]

That didn’t go over well, and that’s an issue I’ll be taking up, through estimates, with FLNRO. They were told that the land was going to be logged, regardless of who was going to log it. That was the response. NACFOR has taken that very seriously and wants to log it and save the toads.

The government has put out communications bulletins, and I’m just going to quote the government’s bulletins. They said that this western toad migration is “among the greatest wildlife migrations in the world” and that it’s also one of the key breeding areas for western toads in the Kootenay region, if not the province.

It’s raised all kinds of questions of why the land can’t be exchanged and what the ministry is going to do to save these toads. It’s also created the question…. It’s actually a direct question to the minister. There’s actually Crown land outside of NACFOR’s operating area which was reserved for park status. People in the community are asking: what’s happened to that land? What’s the status? Is it going to be made into a park? Is this something that is on the radar? Is this happening soon? Is this something that can help with the situation?

Hon. M. Polak: I take it, from the way the member framed the question, that the member is aware that the bulk of the issues surrounding this do really rest with FLNRO.

On the status, though, of the land that the member mentions, just talking with our parks staff, they’re not aware of what that status might be with respect to having been set aside for parkland. We will endeavour to hunt that down for you and find out just exactly what status the land holds or what, if any, future plans there have been for that area. It’s just not something that we’re aware of at this point. It could be that it just predates the staff that we have with us here today.

K. Conroy: also, people are interested in knowing what portion of the parks budget is typically used for research. So far, the research has been done by non-profit organizations. NACFOR itself has done a lot of the research, and as I said, they have hired two biologists to do the research. Really, when you think of it, the ministry has invested in saving this toad. So has the Ministry of Transportation. Government, as well as other organizations, have been investing in trying to save it.

Now the question is: how much has the ministry done, as far as the research goes, to try to help save the toad?

[1755]

Hon. M. Polak: We have an amphibian species biologist who works to support the regional staff from Environment and also from Forest, Lands and Natural Resource Operations. She does partner with respect to activities undertaken by not just government but other outside agencies.

We don’t know with certainty if there has been specific research that she’s been involved with on the western toad, in terms of direct research that we as ministries have been conducting, but we will endeavour to find that
[ Page 10862 ]
out. Typically, her involvement would be in supporting those regional staff who are there on the ground making decisions, be they in Environment or in FLNRO.

K. Conroy: That’s one way, then, I understand, that the ministry would collaborate with FLNRO or the Ministry of Transportation to work together. But are there ways in which the ministry actually works with FLNRO, the forestry portion, when they’re working together to ensure that species at risk are not endangered? Other than a biologist, are there ways that the two…? Do the ministers communicate with each other?

I mean, this is a highly charged situation in a small community, in a region where you’ve got people that want to log and have jobs, which is really important in this day and age, especially in a community the size of Nakusp. And the community forest has been working on this since 2013, and diligently working on it, making sure that they’ve crossed all the t’s and dotted all the i’s.

[1800]

At the same time, there are people that desperately want to save the western toad. It’s a blue-listed and red-listed species. When you see the amount of people that come every year to Toadfest to make sure these little critters that don’t find their way into the culvert get across the road, I just wonder if there are not ways that the two ministers would communicate with each other to try to ensure that one ministry’s policies are not hurting another ministry’s policies.

Hon. M. Polak: Under the Species at Risk Act, the toad is listed as a species of special concern. What that means is that typically, when species are listed as a higher concern level within SARA, we have an agreement with the federal government where we would develop a management plan with respect to that species.

In this case, though, because it’s a species of special concern, we have conducted or established our own management plan, which was released in 2014. There are more than just the western toad. There is quite a large number of amphibian species that are in areas of concern.

We actually have an amphibians and roads working group that involves the Minister of Environment, FLNRO, Transportation and some other outside agencies as well, and they are working to implement the 2014 plan. Hopefully, the kinds of solutions they come up with are ones that are going to give some comfort to those who want to protect the species and, at the same time, some comfort to those who want to see the economic activity continue as well.

K. Conroy: Well, with all due respect to the minister’s response, NACFOR has been working on this for three years now — actually, a little longer than that. The agencies that are saving the toads have been working on it for a long time, and a plan was put in place in 2014.

It’s 2016 now. That’s two years, and people are still going: “We need help, and we’re not getting it.” I’m a little concerned. Things maybe move at a glacial speed, and I’m just missing it. But in the meantime, I think there are over 1,500 species at risk. Whether you’re a species of question or a species at risk, I don’t think it matters to people that want to save those species. We’re in a situation like this.

I’m just putting it on the record before I hand it back over to my colleague that that’s a concern. If it takes two years to just get to a point where you haven’t even got a situation yet where you can come out and say: “This is what we’re going to do.” In the meantime, we’re losing species.

Something has to happen, and I’m at a loss as to why it can’t be hurried up. We’re not talking about something that can go on and on and on. We’re talking about the species at risk. I think that communities shouldn’t have to be taking the brunt of a situation where it’s taken a long time to come up with some kind of a plan here.

[1805]

I’m putting that on record, expressing my concern and expressing the concern of the community — for those people who want to log responsibly but also those people who want to save a species at risk. I’m hoping that somehow the ministries, in their wisdom, could come up with a plan a little quicker so that we’re not in a situation where you have communities in conflict, which isn’t good for anybody.

Hon. M. Polak: I understand it’s a very emotional thing in the community and very divisive, but that is what the group has been working on. The plan was released in 2014, and they have been diligently doing their work to implement the plan. Although everyone is concerned about species at risk and I’m sure, as the member says…. I agree that for the public, they don’t take a differentiation with respect to them. Nevertheless, in terms of how governments operate, there are different approaches taken based on different listings of species.

With respect to this, they certainly take this seriously. I know that the working group is diligently working on the management plan. They certainly haven’t been waiting for two years to do anything, but these things are complex and it does take time for them to develop the appropriate solutions that are going to create that balance.

It’s certainly a concern to the ministry folks working on it as well, and hopefully, they’ll be able to find a resolution that works for everybody.

G. Heyman: As the minister knows only too well, B.C. has incredible biodiversity. Particularly in some specific areas of this province, it’s almost unparalleled. Yet we also have 1,500 species at risk within that network of biodiversity that is both important to British Columbians and, in many ways, sustains the ecological integrity upon which our economy and our lives both exist.
[ Page 10863 ]

Yet despite repeated calls by environmental groups, members of the public and others, British Columbia remains one of only two provinces in Canada that has no provincial endangered species legislation. The provincial government, as far as I know, has simply resisted the calls to do this. They have said that where applicable, the federal Species at Risk Act will be applied, yet in previous estimates it would appear that SARA in British Columbia is only being applied on federal reserve lands, which creates some sense of unfairness and inequity in application.

My question of the minister is: are there any plans to revisit the idea of a provincial stand-alone endangered species act?

[1810]

Hon. M. Polak: Actually, the reason that we have not pursued stand-alone legislation is because in 2005, we took the decision instead to be the first province or territory to sign a bilateral agreement with the federal government with respect to the roles and responsibilities that the jurisdictions would enact with respect to the species-at-risk legislation federally. Effectively, SARA becomes in effect in British Columbia through the bilateral agreement.

We have, at this point, 221 species listed under SARA. We now have recovery or management plans in place for more than 200 of those. So we have done some very successful work together with the federal government, but that is why we don’t have stand-alone legislation. We do have a suite of regulations, policies, programs, but they operate together with this bilateral agreement that we have with the federal government on the Species at Risk Act.

G. Heyman: The fact remains that B.C. and Alberta are the only provinces without a stand-alone act. Does the minister believe there is value in a B.C. act, or does she believe that there are no gaps that exist by using the equivalent of SARA federally?

Hon. M. Polak: When you combine the bilateral agreement we have with the federal government on the Species at Risk Act together with the policies and regulations we have in British Columbia and the work we have been doing around recovery and management plans, I think we have a very, very robust system. I don’t believe there’s a need for stand-alone legislation.

G. Heyman: And how would the minister respond to allegations that the federal Species at Risk Act is applied unevenly and perhaps unfairly in British Columbia?

Hon. M. Polak: Noting the hour, but just so we can finish this off…. Not trying to be difficult, when you say applied unfairly or unevenly, I’m not sure from which angle you’re asking that. Do you mean unfairly to the province? Do you mean unfairly to the species? Just greater clarity on the question, and I can give you an answer, hopefully.

G. Heyman: And my answer to the minister’s question is that I meant with respect to the implication that SARA is applied on federal reserve lands but not as robustly on other lands or species in question in British Columbia.

Hon. M. Polak: That is why we have the bilateral agreement. It allows that to apply on our land as well, not just on federal reserve land. That’s why that bilateral agreement is important and why we think what we have in place in British Columbia works very, very well on behalf of endangered species.

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

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:15 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 © 2016: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada