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)

Tuesday, May 10, 2016

Morning Sitting

Volume 39, Number 5

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

TUESDAY, MAY 10, 2016

The House met at 10:05 a.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Madame Speaker: Good morning, Members.

The B.C. Memorial Quilt today, at noon, will be unveiled in the rotunda. In honour of that event, we are having Wanda Good, the Deputy Chief Councillor of the Gitanyow First Nation, lead this house in prayer.

W. Good:

[Simoghet Lak’h Hagee.

Toyikhsii Niin Win Da’akhw Diim Siit Godiim’ Ama Sa Tun. Kweniiyiim’ Eles Niin Diim Amgootkh’wh’l Sim Gighyetiim Lakh’ Moinim Salish Wiin Nidiit’hl Lakh’yiip Win Nee Lit’kh’wiim.

Kweniiyiim Eles Niin Diim Hlaboih’l Kwelganidiit An’t Kwodiinh’l Hlk’ooh’lkiim Hanaakh diit. Kweniyiim Diim ’WeDiit Skwa’iitkh’w Ganh’l Dakhgyet wiin Walayiim Gaskoh’l Kakwest’hl GaGotdiit.

Kwenyiimh’l Niin Dimin AmaGyaidiih’l Dim Wila Yaah’l HaH’Lei’lst Dim Jeph’l Kwelga Nih’l Lu Wilt T’siim Wilp Ama Sa Tun Diim Amh’l Diim Wila Wilh’l Kwelga N’om’ Nee Jogiit Lahk Yip Tun.

Am Gootkh’w Niddit gwin Haakh’wh diit. Dim Am’t Ja’an’ Weh’l Ama Genah’k Dim Am Diim Wila Wil Diit.

Niit Dim Gan Wilt Simoghet Lakh’ Hakh’ Hagee.]

[Chief in the sky.

We thank you for this wonderful opportunity to gather together on this beautiful day. We ask blessing upon the Coast Salish people upon whose traditional territory we stand.

We ask that you hold the families of those who have lost their loved ones in your hands. We ask for healing and strength for them as we know their heartache.

We ask that you guide all of the work that is to be conducted in this House today for the benefit of all of those of us who live on this great land.

Please bless those who are in crisis today. May we all find the right path along this journey.

Thy will be done. Amen.]

[Gitxsanimaax text and translation provided by W. Good.]

Madame Speaker: Thank you very much.

Introductions by Members

J. Yap: I have two guests in the gallery today, both constituents. Coming back for his annual visit is my good friend Peter Boddy. Also with him, I believe her first time in the people’s House, is Sheridee Lee. They’re here for a visit to Victoria and are going to tour the parliament and take in question period. Would the House please give them a warm welcome.

C. James: I have a former colleague and friend visiting in the gallery today. Paul Barnett has had a distinguished career in the field of community services and youth justice. He is also currently president of PARCA, which is the Provincial Association of Residential and Community Agencies. I’d ask the House to please make him very welcome.

Hon. A. Virk: It gives me great pleasure today that joining us in the gallery is a group of fierce advocates for the B.C. tech industry. I’m speaking, of course, of the British Columbia Technology Industry Association. They’re led by the president and statesman Bill Tam and board chair Jill Tipping, CEO and vice-president of operations at Schneider Electric. They’re also joined by David Hargreaves of MDA, MacDonald, Dettwiler and Associates. That’s the godfather of tech companies in British Columbia.

Of course, Karn Manhas — who is no stranger to this chamber, having served here — of Terramera, which is replacing chemical pesticides with high-performance organic products for agriculture. We have Matthew Switzer, the senior vice-president of Hootsuite and one of our most recent success stories. We have Jean-François Béland of General Fusion, a company that is creating tomorrow’s energy solutions today right here in British Columbia. We have Raseel Sehmi, who does policy and strategic initiatives for the BCTIA.

[1010]

Ladies and gentlemen, this tech industry is on fire in British Columbia. It’s making a mark across the world. Would you please make my guests feel welcome.

M. Karagianis: Today, in the gallery, we have Mr. Jim Pine and his grade 12 social justice class from Victoria High. They are in the gallery here today and will be meeting later on with the member for Victoria–Beacon Hill, the member for Victoria–Swan Lake and myself. They want to talk about changes they’d like to see to sex education curriculum in British Columbia. I’d like the House to make them very, very welcome.

M. Hunt: In the precincts today is a class from Colebrook Elementary School in my riding, here to view the proceedings in this wonderful building that we all get to work in. I’d ask the House to please make them welcome.

J. Darcy: Today in the House we are honoured with some very special guests: Curtis Brandell, the president of the B.C. Chapter of the Canadian Hemophilia Society; Kat Lanteigne, the advocate and co-founder with BloodWatch.org; Adam Lynes-Ford and Jen Kuhl from
[ Page 12894 ]
the B.C. Health Coalition; Zachary and Tomiko Spicer; and Darlene Taylor and her daughter Johanna Puusa, a B.C. family that has been gravely impacted by the tainted blood scandal.

Ms. Taylor testified at the Krever inquiry into tainted blood and is here in Victoria today to urge us not to ignore Justice Krever’s recommendations. They’re also holding a town hall meeting tonight at 6:30 at the Cook Street Village Activity Centre. They encourage those of you who are not taking part in skits tonight to join them.

Would the House please join me in welcoming these very special guests to the Legislature today.

Hon. M. Bernier: It’s my pleasure, which I don’t often get to do, to introduce some distinguished friends of mine who have travelled down here from the Peace country, some fellow elected officials. It’s my pleasure to introduce in the precinct the mayor of Dawson Creek, Dale Bumstead; the mayor of Tumbler Ridge, Don McPherson; the mayor of Pouce Coupe, Lorraine Michetti; the mayor of Chetwynd, Merlin Nichols; and Peace River regional district directors Dan Rose and Leonard Hiebert, all of whom are down here today and tomorrow for meetings with fellow ministers. Would the House please make them welcome to the precinct.

C. Trevena: I, too, would like to acknowledge the presence of Paul Barnett. If it wasn’t for him, I know that I would not be here in this place. I’d like to acknowledge him and welcome him and thank him for his hard work.

I’d also like to continue the tradition that has been established in this Legislature of welcoming our grandchildren to this world. I hope that the House will make very welcome Edward Oscar McIvor. He is a beautiful newborn son to Frances and Joshua McIvor and a little brother to Penelope. I hope that the House will please make Edward Oscar very welcome.

B. Routley: I, too, want to join in welcoming Darlene Taylor to the House — Darlene and her family. I also want to welcome her daughter here today, but she had two sons. One of her sons was impacted by contaminated blood and passed away some time ago. She’s got another son that, thankfully, survived a contaminated blood incident but is still experiencing concerns with contaminated blood. That makes Darlene an expert in a way that none of us would want in our lives. However, I thank you, Darlene, for standing up for your son and being here to educate others on this important issue. Please join me in welcoming Darlene and her daughter to this House.

Hon. M. de Jong: If I might lend my voice to the welcome the House has extended to Kat Lanteigne and the delegation that she is leading.

[1015]

Prior to taking up residence with her husband in Toronto, Ms. Lanteigne was a resident in the Fraser Valley in Abbotsford. She is a playwright, a performing artist but, I think, more importantly and most importantly today, a powerful advocate for a cause that she believes deeply in. I know that she and her colleagues will be advancing and advocating on behalf of that cause with all members and would like to make her welcome.

G. Heyman: I’d like to join the minister in welcoming Bill Tam, Jill Tipping and their colleagues to the precinct, to the discussions they’re going to have. They’ve been both instrumental in building the strength of our technology sector in British Columbia as well as being fierce advocates for the potential growth of the sector.

They’ve both, I know, been very encouraging to young people as they begin and advance their studies and consider science and the stem disciplines in order to help this sector grow. I’ve had a personal experience with high school students who have been encouraged by them and by the activities of the industry association, in Bill’s case, and Jill Tipping’s activities with the association. With people like this working to build a modern, diverse economy in British Columbia, we will all be better off. Please join me in adding my voice of welcome to them.

Introduction and
First Reading of Bills

BILL M228 — SAFE BLOOD FOR
B.C. ACT, 2016

J. Darcy presented a bill intituled Safe Blood for B.C. Act, 2016.

J. Darcy: I move that a bill intituled Safe Blood for B.C. Act, of which notice has been given in my name on the order paper, be introduced and now read for a first time.

Motion approved.

J. Darcy: I rise today to introduce a bill that would safeguard B.C.’s precious blood supply by prohibiting pay-for-plasma clinics in B.C.

Over 30,000 Canadians — among them, thousands of British Columbians — were infected with hepatitis C and HIV from tainted blood and plasma in the 1980s. Many of them have since died. It was Canada’s worst public health disaster. The Krever inquiry that followed made critical recommendations for safeguarding Canada’s blood supply, including that blood is a public resource and donors should not be paid. Tainted blood survivors would never have imagined that a day might come when multinational corporations would set up shop in B.C. and pay donors for their blood plasma, but that’s exactly what could happen soon in B.C. Elsewhere private pay-for-
[ Page 12895 ]
plasma clinics have opened up in poor neighbourhoods and preyed on people to sell their plasma, because they have no other options.

The World Health Organization is clear that the risk of tainted blood increases when donors are paid for their donations. There is also clear evidence that paying people to donate blood reduces the number of voluntary donors and puts our supply of safe blood at risk.

The motto of Canadian blood donation is: “Blood. It’s in you to give.” Let’s not change it to: “Blood. It’s in you to sell.”

Ontario and Quebec prohibit paying donors for blood and plasma. I urge members on both sides of this House to say no to pay-for-plasma by supporting this bill today.

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

Bill M228, Safe Blood for B.C. 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.

Statements
(Standing Order 25B)

HEALTH CARE AUXILIARIES

G. Holman: Today is Health Care Auxiliary Day in British Columbia. The B.C. Association of Health Care Auxiliaries has 80 member auxiliaries, representing 6,600 adults and 800 youth volunteers. The BCAHA has been operating since 1945 to strengthen member auxiliaries through education, information and other support. In 2015, these 80 member auxiliaries reported almost 1.3 million volunteer hours and over $9.5 million donated to health facilities throughout B.C. — a remarkable gift to us all. I want to congratulate two auxiliaries in my constituency.

[1020]

The Saanich Peninsula Hospital Auxiliary was established in 1974, has 125 volunteers and supports a variety of fundraising activities that benefit the Saanich Peninsula Hospital, its extended care facility, and the entire community. Since 1974, the auxiliary has raised a total of $2 million, funding a bus for extended care residents, high-tech surgical and diagnostic equipment and other furnishings. In 2015-16 alone, the auxiliary raised $170,000. The peninsula auxiliary also provides services within the hospital, such as the gift shop and monthly birthday parties for extended care residents. They provide support for the mobile screening mammography clinic and award two bursaries every year to post-secondary students entering medically related fields.

The Lady Minto Hospital Auxiliary Society on Saltspring is celebrating its 80th anniversary this year and has about 150 members. They operate a thrift shop, which is their main source of revenue, but also do other fundraising activities as well. The Lady Minto auxiliary donates up to $150,000 per year to the hospital, as well as to the Greenwoods assisted living and residential care facilities.

The peninsula and Saltspring auxiliaries are just two of 80 such organizations in B.C. that, year after year, mobilize thousands of volunteers, raising millions of dollars. Would the House please extend our heartfelt thanks to these groups for their work.

CANADIAN MEN’S HEALTH FOUNDATION

S. Sullivan: Someone once described the difficulty of health care prevention this way: “It’s like we’re standing at the edge of a river, next to a steep waterfall, trying to fish people out of the water before they plummet over the edge. This job is so important, so all-consuming, that there never seems to be time to send someone up the river to stop people from jumping into it in first place.”

Thankfully, in B.C., we are delivering and developing stronger health planning and illness prevention. A great example of this is Canadian Men’s Health Foundation, a group started here in B.C. and supported, from the start, by our provincial government. It is a brainchild of the inimitable Dr. Larry Goldenberg.

In his work with prostate cancer, he was seeing patients come to him for treatment who also had many other barriers to good health, barriers that could be fixed if the men could make some small changes to their daily habits. He looked into this further and realized that men’s health is a missing piece of the community health puzzle.

The statistics are alarming. Men are 79 percent more likely to die from heart disease, 57 percent more likely to die from diabetes, 84 percent more likely to die from arterial diseases. Today, on average, men have more than nine years of poor health at the end of their lives. Much of this is preventable through healthy lifestyles. An unhealthy lifestyle has an impact far beyond the individual or even the family.

In B.C., the cost of poor lifestyle choices by men, which results in chronic disease, is $4.5 billion per year. To address this, the CMHF launched a program called Don’t Change Much, aimed at creating awareness and getting men to make small changes to improve their health and, therefore, the overall health of our communities, while reducing costs to the health care system. In its first full year, 72 percent of users of the programs report positive changes in their health and their healthy behaviours.

As we near Men’s Health Week, which is June 13 to June 19 this year, I encourage everyone in this House to visit don’tchangemuch.ca and to use the tools there to help to make healthy choices for the sake of their health and the health of their loved ones.
[ Page 12896 ]

NOOTKA SOUND COMMUNITIES AGREEMENT

C. Trevena: We know our history of B.C. and that contact was made between First Nations and Europeans when Captain James Cook came to Nootka Sound, and the contact was made with then-Chief Maquinna.

Now a descendant of that Chief Maquinna, Chief Mike Maquinna, has participated in another moment of history, one that everyone in Nootka Sound, and I hope that all of Vancouver Island, hopes will have a lasting influence. The communities of the Mowachaht/Muchalaht First Nation, the village of Gold River and the village of Tahsis signed an agreement in March which will commit all three communities to work together for the common good — for their common good and the community’s good.

[1025]

I’d like to read into the record what this statement says, because it is significant for Nootka Sound and for, I believe, B.C. It reads:

“The three communities of Mowachaht/Muchalaht the First Nation, Gold River and Tahsis, each with our own form of government, peoples and cultural backgrounds, share a desire to move forward together for the betterment of our residents, members and businesses.

“Through ongoing effective communications, relationship-building and strategic positioning, the three communities shall strengthen their ability to influence the outcome of developments throughout the lands, waters and air of the Gold River area, Nootka Sound and Tahsis Inlet.

“We cherish and enjoy healthy lifestyles surrounded by some of the world’s most beautiful and pristine natural environment on the west coast of Vancouver Island, British Columbia. We are progressive communities that share a desire to responsibly manage our natural resources in a manner that will stimulate new business opportunities and develop a diversified economy, whilst always respecting each other.

“Our success shall be built on a strong work ethic, open communications, honesty, understanding, respect and productive working relationships with each other and our partners. We shall strive to provide superior services to our people on a timely, effective and efficient basis and shall maintain the highest levels of professional integrity while maintaining our uniqueness of independent entities.”

Madame Speaker, this was signed in Tsaxana in March. I hope the House will recognize the importance of this declaration.

POLITICAL DEBATE AND
CONFIRMATION BIAS

G. Hogg: “It is an undeniable fact…” “The truth is…” and “The evidence shows…” are three of the more popular preface phrases that we have used in this House to support our positions and our arguments. They’re intended to help us to win a debate, to help uncover an elusive truth.

It seems that our phrases and our rhetoric often ignore the facts and thus push potential agreement further away. Aldous Huxley said that facts do not cease to exist just because they are ignored. I suspect that we don’t as much ignore them as interpret them in ways that will bolster our pre-established beliefs.

Andrew Coyne stated that it just “doesn’t matter what you say or write, or how many times you say or write it; the screen of prior assumption is impermeable.” That screen may be our way of protecting our beliefs from attack. We use confirmation bias as a shield to ensure that we can hold onto and protect what we want to believe.

Isaac Asimov believed that there is a cult of ignorance winding its way through political life, “nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that ‘my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.’” Imagine that: “My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.”

It seems that with increased politicization of debate, there comes increased public cynicism. Perhaps that’s why polling has shown that four out of five Canadians believe that when politicians make public statements, they tell the truth less than 50 percent of the time. Of course, it is an undeniable fact that polling does not apply to us, thank goodness.

REGIONAL SPELLING BEE CHAMPIONSHIP

H. Bains: On April 16, I had the honour to attend the regional spelling bee championship hosted by Khalsa School in Surrey. The Spelling Bee of Canada and Khalsa School principal Kamalpreet Kaur Baga, as B.C. regional chapter president, conducted the regional championship.

Students from all over the province qualified for this regional spelling competition. There was a total of 510 contestants from public and independent schools who participated in all categories. It was very impressive, to say the least, to see these students take this very tough challenge. Clearly, they have shown great courage and commitment and hard work to enter this provincewide competition.

After it was over, Sukhmani Kaur Gill took first in primary from Khalsa School, Old Yale Road. Harvir Singh Sukhija took second in primary from Khalsa School, Old Yale Road. Avi Maru took first in junior from St. George’s School in Vancouver. Mehar Kaur Sahota took second in junior from Khalsa School, Old Yale Road. Arsh Sandhu took first in intermediate from Simon Cunningham Elementary School in Surrey. Gurshan Singh Sangha took second in intermediate from Khalsa School, Old Yale Road.

To sum it up, Khalsa School cleaned up in the competition. These students will have the honour to represent their schools this coming weekend in Toronto at the Spelling Bee of Canada’s national championship.

[1030]

I would like to congratulate these scholars and all who participated in the regional spelling bee. I’m proud of each and every one of you who has taken the time and practised for this wonderful event. You are all winners. I ask this House to join with me in congratulating all of these students and wish those who are going to Toronto good luck in this enormous endeavour.
[ Page 12897 ]

TECHNOLOGY SECTOR

D. Ashton: The technology sector has positive implications throughout our province, producing approximately $23 billion in annual revenues. There are more than 86,000 jobs in the tech sector and over 9,000 companies. Wages in the sector hit an all-time high in 2013, averaging approximately $72,000 per year, 60 percent higher than B.C.’s average.

Many large companies are moving to Vancouver and Kelowna and hiring local talent. Microsoft, Sony, Amazon, Electronic Arts, Disney and Animal Logic have all opened up offices in British Columbia and are employing local workers. There are also homegrown success stories like Hootsuite, Global Relay, Slack, Westport and Stemcell Technologies, all of which are competing now on an international level. B.C. companies continue to thrive and hire.

Technology areas showing particular growth are visual effects, software development, life sciences and aerospace. Clean technology is quickly developing a very substantial subsector, crossing over into traditional industries and creating more efficient, effective and sustainable practices in this province.

The digital media subsector has shown strong growth also in B.C. and is currently comprised of more than 1,100 companies employing over 16,000 people, generating revenues of approximately $3 billion a year.

Engineering is one of the most developed and mature subsectors, representing a significant portion of firms and a strong pool of talent within the province. With almost 3,990 firms, the engineering subsector features companies engaged in engineering activities, research, development, consulting services, surveying and mapping services, and robotics.

The information and the communications technology subsector is one of the largest and most mature subsectors in British Columbia.

Finally, our life sciences subsector is the strongest in Canada with more than 600 firms engaged in drugs, pharmaceutical development and research testing, medical labs, medical devices and equipment, and agricultural feedstock and chemicals.

In addition, the tech sector boosts other key sectors in our province, including agrifoods, LNG, resource extraction and health care. With $23 billion in annual revenues, our province’s technology sector is truly worth celebrating.

Oral Questions

HOUSING AFFORDABILITY
IN LOWER MAINLAND

D. Eby: You’d have to be earning a quarter-million dollars a year to live in Metro Vancouver and not realize that the region is in serious housing crisis. This Premier — despite plea after plea from business, from organizations, from academics, from families — has refused to step in and protect housing affordability for people who work hard helping to build Metro Vancouver. Now a new report from SFU has been released conclusively showing that international speculators are the main factor driving the out-of-control real estate in Metro Vancouver. This report will come as no surprise to anybody who has been paying attention.

To the Finance Minister, when will this government finally take action on the international money that is driving Metro Vancouver’s real estate market?

Hon. M. de Jong: Firstly, I should say that given the state of the market, I think it’s important that people offer their views, their ideas, their opinions and their theories. I have the report that I think the member is referring to, and of course, the author, Mr. Josh Gordon, has done that. I do note in the forward, though, that he offers this qualification and says: “I do not claim any expertise in this area…. My academic work is far removed from this area.”

[1035]

Now, Madame Speaker, that doesn’t in any way disqualify Mr. Gordon or anyone else from offering views on public issues, including this one. But you know, I recall that it was just a few months ago that the member was standing in the House and telling us that one of the key fundamental issues that required intervention on the part of the state and on the part of the government was the vacancy rate in Vancouver. Yet when we secured….

Actually, when the city of Vancouver commissioned a study, it was determined that the vacancy rate today is actually lower than it was 12 years ago. The government is taking steps. The member knows what some of those steps are. We are resolved to base our decisions on sound data and not theories or conjecture.

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

D. Eby: The minister’s dismissive tone is entirely consistent with this government’s response to the crisis. The Premier….

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

D. Eby: The Premier mocked Metro Vancouver families worried about housing affordability. She told the media that these families should just move north if they don’t like housing prices. The Housing Minister said that Vancouver housing was, “actually pretty affordable.” That was the same year an international study said it was the least affordable housing market in the entire world.
[ Page 12898 ]

Instead of blaming Metro Vancouver families, blaming the assistant professor who pulled together multiple studies done by very distinguished individuals, Prof. Tom Davidoff from UBC’s Sauder School of Business found responsibility somewhere else. He said: “International money in the housing market can only be a bad thing if politicians are too stupid and lazy to not make sure everybody benefits.”

When will this government stop blaming families, stop blaming professors, stop blaming researchers and take action on the international speculators in our housing market?

Hon. M. de Jong: I have a study commissioned, I guess, by the National Bank, A Global Comparison of Property Prices for Downtown Living, Price-to-Income Ratio. These are on the apartments and condominiums. It does say, actually, that within Canada, Vancouver is higher in that regard than Montreal and Toronto. But here are the cities that they list as being actually higher and less affordable than Vancouver: Sydney, San Francisco, Stockholm, Paris, New York, Rome, Tokyo, London, Beijing and Hong Kong.

We’re actually proud of the fact that we have a jurisdiction in British Columbia that people want to come to, that they feel they can succeed in, that they want to invest in. I know these are publications that the member and his colleagues probably don’t often get to, but Bloomberg a day or two ago, in a rather banner headline, described British Columbia as Canada’s newest economic star performer. Proof of that just yesterday from CMHC — confirmation that housing starts in British Columbia generally, and in Vancouver and Metro Vancouver in particular, are reaching record levels.

The hon. member, I’ve discovered, likes to hide behind the ideas and the suggestions of others. Maybe he’d like to stand up and tell British Columbians how much he’d increase taxes. Tell us about the vacancy tax. Tell us about the economic wall he and his colleagues would build if, God forbid, they were ever given the chance to govern British Columbia.

Madame Speaker: I recognize the member for Vancouver–Point Grey on a supplemental.

[1040]

D. Eby: The minister has our private members’ bill, which is based on a proposal from the UBC Sauder School of Business. He knows that the Royal Bank of Canada called Vancouver’s housing market “astounding, dangerous, ‘potentially’ detached from reality.” He knows these things, and so do families in Metro Vancouver.

Countless governments around the world act to restrict international speculators in their housing market, for an obvious reason. They put the interests of local residents who work and help build the economy ahead of the profits of international speculators. This new report says that the B.C. government’s inaction on this issue is a choice. It is a choice to prefer the profits of international speculators over the interests of hard-working families in Metro Vancouver.

To the Finance Minister, a simple question, yes or no, will he act on this issue?

Hon. M. de Jong: Well, I’m a little astounded. We introduced a measure in the budget that’s valued up to $13,000 for British Columbia families. For the first time since the 1980s, a family can buy a new home in British Columbia and not pay the property purchase tax. We have created incentives for the construction of new housing, and if there’s a part of that economic equation that eludes the member, I’ll repeat it for him. When demand exceeds supply, prices are going to go up.

We’re working with people, we’re working with families, and we’re working with builders to ensure a greater supply of housing right across British Columbia. I know that it is galling and troubling….

Interjections.

Hon. M. de Jong: Well, the members are going to want to hear this, because I don’t think that they read this kind of stuff.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members. Members.

Hon. M. de Jong: Two significant dates, and by the way, this time it’s not the 1990s. I’m going to go back a little further. For the first time, dating back to 1976, the province of British Columbia has the lowest jobless rate in the country. We are poised to lead the country in economic growth in back-to-back years for the first time since 1961. It’s good news, and we’re working to ensure British Columbians can realize their dream to own a home in British Columbia.

M. Mark: Sometimes I feel like it’s the Last Comic Standing in this House.

Vancouver’s housing market is so out of control that it’s now the subject of a reality TV show. People who call this city home don’t want a housing crisis fuelled by foreign speculation. People shouldn’t have to feel like their lives are the subject of a reality TV show.

My question is for the Minister of Finance. Don’t you think it’s time to stop denying the role of foreign speculation in our housing market?

Hon. M. de Jong: Doesn’t the member think that it’s time to base public policy of this import on actual data and facts? I’ve never attempted to convey this in an accusatorial way, but it was actually during the 1990s that
[ Page 12899 ]
basic questions about people’s citizenship were deleted from the forms that have to be signed when people purchase real estate.

Now, the member purports, and her colleagues purport, to stand here and offer up these theories. These are the same members who said just a month or two ago that the cause of the distress in Vancouver was vacancy. They said that. And they were advocating for a vacancy tax until the facts revealed that the vacancy rate is lower today than it was 12 years ago.

[1045]

I am sorry I’m destined to disappoint the member, because on this side of the House, the government will base decisions on the most important asset that British Columbia families will ever own on facts and not theory and conjecture and what is politically expedient for members of the opposition.

Madame Speaker: Recognizing Vancouver–Mount Pleasant on a supplemental.

M. Mark: I’d love to see that minister collect some data on the housing crisis here in British Columbia.

Back to SFU, the study from SFU is clear.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

M. Mark: When it comes to Vancouver’s housing crisis: “We have mostly a demand problem, not a supply problem, and it’s foreign demand.” So what happens when you have a government asleep at the wheel and foreign investment being poured into the housing market?

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members. Members.

M. Mark: So what happens when you have a government asleep at the wheel and foreign investment being poured into the housing market? Well, as the study tells us, we see millennials getting pushed out of the housing market, rising debt levels, ghost neighbourhoods where houses and condos are sitting empty. We also see unscrupulous real estate activity, money laundering and tax inequity. These are the things people in Vancouver are seeing every day, and it’s unacceptable. The fact is, reality bites when it comes to housing affordability in Vancouver.

To the minister, what will it take for this government to address the housing crisis?

Hon. M. de Jong: To the member….

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

Hon. M. de Jong: I should say to the member, who I think asked these questions in good faith, that I disagree fundamentally with her premise when she says this is a demand issue and not a supply issue. I make this confession. I actually think it’s a good thing that people are coming to British Columbia in record numbers from other parts of Canada.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members. Members.

Hon. M. de Jong: I actually think it’s a good thing that when people cast their eye around the world and think about where they want to raise a family, they decide British Columbia is that place. They come here, they generate enterprise, they create jobs, and they make investments. I think that’s a good thing.

I also think this. In a market where there is a finite supply of land bordered by mountains, ocean and an international border, we have some difficult decisions to make. There is a finite supply of single detached homes. That is not going to change. The demand for those homes, based on where we live, what we are blessed with naturally and the country’s leading economy, is only going to increase. So we have some decisions to make about density, about land use, and British Columbians will be better served if all governments work together to make those decisions on behalf of citizens.

B.C. LOTTERY CORPORATION
MANAGEMENT OF CASINO TRANSACTIONS

C. James: A few weeks ago, I asked the Finance Minister about his government’s response to money laundering. The minister will recall that in 2014, in response to an audit, the B.C. Lottery Corporation promised to deploy a new anti-money-laundering computer system that would help with “identification of high-risk persons and patterns of activity using data analytics.”

We know the system failed to detect Mr. Mancini, who is accused of laundering at least $70,000. Could the minister explain how much this computer system cost and why it failed to detect Mr. Mancini’s activities?

Hon. M. de Jong: I’m not in a position to answer the first part of the member’s question off the top of my head, but I’ll certainly get the information for her.

[1050]

With respect to the general issue, though, the member will recall from the conversation we had at the time and what followed that we have taken some very significant steps in coordination with law enforcement agencies, with the Solicitor General, and are devoting significant
[ Page 12900 ]
additional resources to work in partnership with the RCMP as the investigating authority to ensure that steps are taken to detect and prosecute those who are engaged in money-laundering activity or who attempt to use British Columbia’s lawful gaming centres as venues for money-laundering activities.

I should say, as well, that the Lottery Corporation has also been working actively to ensure that systems are in place and that less cash is used in favour of electronic transfers of money. This is all part of the strategy to better detect those who engage in criminal activity and attempt to launder the proceeds through lawful gaming activities in B.C.

Madame Speaker: Victoria–Beacon Hill on a supplemental.

C. James: A few weeks ago, when the minister made the announcement he just spoke of, he said that over the course of 12 months, $119 million in suspicious cash transactions went through B.C.’s casinos. This is despite the B.C. Lottery Corporation’s pledge to use an expensive IT system that was supposed to be in place to catch all of those transactions.

While I appreciate that the minister will get back to me on the specifics around exactly how much that computer system costs, I would like to ask the minister: is the computer system up and running?

Hon. M. de Jong: I’ll confirm that for the member as well. I do, though, want to….

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

Hon. M. de Jong: I do want to, though, in quoting the figures that she has, make the distinction for the member and the House that the reporting of suspicious transactions can’t be taken as confirmation that a transaction…. I think the member knows that. There is a strict threshold and guideline around which the Lottery Corporation, the gaming agencies, service providers and casinos are obliged to operate, and they are being very diligent about reporting what are construed as suspicious transactions.

PAID-DONOR PLASMA CLINICS

J. Darcy: A multinational corporation which currently has pay-for-plasma clinics operating in Saskatchewan is interested in setting up similar clinics in B.C. When Mr. Justice Horace Krever completed his inquiry into the tainted blood scandal, he specifically recommended against paying donors for their blood. He said safety was the primary reason for his recommendations, and the World Health Organization today maintains that same position.

Victims of the tainted blood scandal and their families are here in the gallery today calling for a ban on these clinics in B.C. Ontario and Quebec already have bans in place on selling blood and blood products. Will the Minister of Health stand up and stand with the survivors of the tainted blood scandal and the blood advocates in the gallery today and support a ban on pay-for-plasma clinics in B.C.?

Hon. T. Lake: It’s really important that people understand that the technology for handling and processing blood products has advanced dramatically in the past 30 years. Health Canada is responsible for regulating the safety of Canada’s blood system, and manufacturers of plasma-based products must be licensed and must meet the stringent quality and safety standards of Health Canada.

Canadian Blood Services has assured all of us that the technology and systems now in place for these types of products safeguard the supply of these products. The Canadian Hemophilia Society states that paid plasma donation is not a health risk.

[1055]

While the member notes that some provinces have banned the sale of paid plasma products, they haven’t banned the use of paid plasma products. In fact, British Columbians and Canadians are saved by paid plasma products. The paid donors are in the United States and in Europe. In fact, 80 percent of the plasma protein supply currently comes from paid plasma.

We do not take an ideological position on this. Our concern is for the patients whose lives are saved by an important medicine derived from plasma products.

Madame Speaker: The member for New Westminster on a supplemental.

J. Darcy: The World Health Organization is crystal clear that by the year 2020, they want all countries in the world to stop paying for plasma and have a strictly voluntary system for blood donations. In terms of supply of our blood products, there is no guarantee whatsoever that this multinational corporation will use that blood here in British Columbia. They will sell it to the highest bidder around the world.

And what about the ethics? What about the ethics of turning blood into a commodity? In the U.S. and elsewhere, pay-for-plasma clinics have set up next to payday loan shops and pawnshops. Kat Lanteigne, a co-founder of Bloodwatch, said recently that plasma is literally being farmed off the veins of the poor. We have laws that ban the sale of organs and human tissue. Why would we treat blood any differently? Will the minister support a ban on pay-for-plasma clinics today?
[ Page 12901 ]

Hon. T. Lake: The World Health Organization may want to ban the use of paid plasma donors by 2020. What would they say to the member’s family that critically needed the plasma proteins derived from a supply that is only 20 percent supplied by the voluntary market? What would the member say to a family? “I’m sorry. We do not use paid plasma products, so we can’t treat your inherited disease.” What would the member say to those families?

The reality is that only 20 percent of our plasma proteins are supplied by the voluntary market currently, and we spend $175 million every year with Canadian Blood Services. Currently 80 percent of the plasma protein products come from paid donors. Would we rather they be from the United States than here in British Columbia? That is a question for society to deal with.

I know this. Lives are saved with plasma proteins, and if we don’t get them from the supply we currently have, those lives would not be saved.

WILDFIRE PREVENTION

H. Bains: Last week we brought up the government’s failure to protect British Columbians from catastrophic wildfires. These are the facts. In 2004, after the Kelowna fire, the Filmon report identified 685,000 hectares as high risk and said that the government needed to clean this forested area around communities to protect them. After a decade of neglect, just 10 percent of that work that was considered high risk has been done — just 10 percent. Last year the Forest Practices Board report on wildfire prevention clearly said that the Liberal government is “not addressing the hazard in a meaningful way.”

My question to the minister is, again, this week: why is this government failing to take real, meaningful steps to prevent catastrophic wildfires and keep communities safe, as they were told to do so?

Hon. S. Thomson: The member opposite is wrong. I’m not quite sure what he doesn’t see in an $85 million investment in the forest enhancement program in British Columbia.

[1100]

So $85 million for fire mitigation to reduce fire risk on a landscape level across British Columbia, an additional $10 million into the strategic wildfire interface program with UBCM that is working with local governments and First Nations across the province to protect those communities on the interface area. So over $95 million investment in reducing fire risk.

That’s an investment we can make, as I said last week, because we have a growing economy here in British Columbia. We continue to stay focused on economic development that’s providing us the resources to make those investments.

Madame Speaker: Member for Surrey-Newton on a supplemental.

H. Bains: No matter how this minister adds those numbers and throws out those figures, the bottom line is that only 10 percent of what he was told 12 years ago to clean up was conducted — only 10 percent. After warning after warning, if that is not a neglect of duty of this government to protect those communities, I don’t know what is, then.

A warning in 2003. A warning in 2014 by the Forest Practices Board and then, again, last year. The Forest Practices Board again warned them that they’re not taking actions that are needed to be taken to protect those communities.

My question again to the minister is this. Can the minister explain why this government isn’t taking real, meaningful actions, rather than throwing out those numbers? They represent only 10 percent of the work that needs to be done so that those communities can feel that they are getting from this government the dollar and the value for their protection, which they are not providing.

Hon. S. Thomson: Again, very, very significant investment to be made — over $95 million being made in protection for communities across the province. That’s why we have over 13 recognized communities that have achieved FireSmart community status. That’s why we’ve got a number of communities that have received Canada-wide FireSmart recognition — communities like Logan Lake, communities like Salmo, communities like the city of Nanaimo, all receiving Canadian FireSmart designation.

That’s why we also have over 17 communities that have got FireSmart bylaws in place in their communities, protecting their communities. We’re working. It’s a collective effort. It’s investment from the province, investment from the government.

It’s collective work in local governments. It’s collective work in municipalities and a very, very important role for homeowners to fire-smart their properties — information being provided to them. That’s why we’re continuing to make that investment. But it takes a collective effort of all the communities across the province to address this risk.

[End of question period.]

Reports from Committees

L. Larson: I have the honour to present the report of the Select Standing Committee on Health.

I move that the report be taken as read and received.

Motion approved.

L. Larson: I ask leave of the House to move a motion to adopt the report.
[ Page 12902 ]

Leave granted.

Madame Speaker: Please proceed.

L. Larson: In moving adoption of this report, I’d like to make some brief comments. This unanimous report entitled Improving End-of-Life Care is not a report about dying. It is about living and living well in our later years.

The 42 recommendations to improve end-of-life care are the result of a public consultation process, which was conducted over one and a half years. Government is already working on some of the initiatives to improve end-of-life care. However, many of the committee’s recommendations offer new and innovative approaches.

The committee recommends implementing an integrated and interdisciplinary palliative model of care, including appropriate supports and services for families and caregivers and advanced care planning.

We also recommend improving the training, recruitment and retention of physicians, nurses and other health care professionals, particularly for remote, rural and isolated communities. The committee also recommends a responsive patient-centred model of care, particularly for those living with dementia or Alzheimer’s.

Discussions around end-of-life care are not always easy ones. On behalf of the committee, I would like to thank all the individuals and organizations who took the time to share their experiences with us and for the ideas and suggestions that were brought forward. Your contributions were greatly appreciated and valued, and we would like to note your stories have stayed with us.

[1105]

In closing, I would like to thank the Deputy Chair, the member for New Westminster, for her valuable and supportive participation. I would also like to thank my fellow committee members, past and present, for their hard work and the many hours spent in bringing this report to the House today.

With that, I move adoption of the report.

J. Darcy: I’d like to join with the Chair of the committee and make some brief comments on the report.

I want to thank the Chair of the committee, first of all, and all of the committee members. We worked exceptionally well in developing this report over many months. I also want to thank the hundreds of British Columbians who made submissions, whether in person or in writing. Their stories were very, very compelling and very much drove the recommendations in this report.

As the Chair of the committee has indicated, there is a whole lot of innovation in this report, including talking about expanding home primary care services for the frail elderly, building on models that are already in place in this province.

There’s a huge focus on interdisciplinary team-based care in palliative care, in residential care and in end-of-life care using the entire spectrum of health care providers and enormous focus on improving access in rural British Columbia. We heard from so many people from rural B.C. that, really, we have a two-tier health care system when it comes to access to palliative care and hospice care in rural communities.

There are also some very innovative proposals in the report, including one that says that we should implement proactive home visits to seniors over the age of 75, as they do in Denmark. But I want to be very clear that that proposal, the initial proposal, while I strongly support it — having been born in Denmark and checked out health care there regularly — was put forward by the Chair of the committee and unanimously supported.

A whole lot of innovation, a whole lot of recommendations that will be good for improving care for our frail elderly. And I certainly urge both sides of this House to support the report.

Motion approved.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: In Committee A, Committee of Supply — for the information of members — continued estimates of the Ministry of Natural Gas Development and Housing.

In this chamber, continued committee stage debate on Bill 21.

[1110]

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 21 — ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
AMENDMENT ACT, 2016

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 21; R. Chouhan in the chair.

The committee met at 11:11 a.m.

On section 4 (continued).

G. Heyman: I believe the minister wished a moment to report on an issue we were discussing when we last sat.

Hon. M. Polak: Yes. We did as we had advised and reviewed the section with the drafters. If the member wants to refer to 91.11(2), I’ll ask the member to join me in an exercise, because this helps in understanding what the drafters’ response has been.

If you take a look at that section, it reads: “Before a spill contingency plan is prepared in relation to a regulated person, the regulated person must ensure that investigations, tests and surveys are undertaken….” At this stage,
[ Page 12903 ]
I’ll ask the member, just with a pencil, to cross out “in accordance with the regulations, if any” — and then carry on — “that are necessary to determine the magnitude of the risk to” — and then we have the following.

Now, if we read it as a whole without that portion: “Before a spill contingency plan is prepared in relation to a regulated person, the regulated person must ensure that investigations, tests and surveys are undertaken that are necessary to determine the magnitude of the risk to the environment and human health, and infrastructure…” etc.

In conducting that exercise, it’s to show that in placing those words back, you are not taking away the obligation to ensure that those tests and surveys are undertaken. The reason that that wording is in place is because, as we have discussed, there is an obligation to adhere to regulations, if any, that may be a result of this act, or, as we’ve discussed, there are other circumstances under which a person may be obliged. But in the case of the presence of regulations specific to them, they would have to follow them.

The long pathway to the answer brings us to the place where, indeed, the wording “if any” does not pose any risk of exempting someone from the obligation.

G. Heyman: I’m now stretching my memory back a couple of weeks to the lengthy discussion we had, but I assume that in the interim period the minister has checked, has received legal advice. I believe her commentary in this debate would support, in part, her point. If the minister believes that the wording, without amendment, will meet her intent, then I will pursue this no further.

[1115]

On section 4, with reference to section 91.41(1) of the act, the wording says: “On application in accordance with the directions of the minister and the regulations, if any, the minister may issue a conditional PRO certificate to a preparedness and response organization that demonstrates to the minister’s satisfaction that the organization has the capacity to be fully capable and intends to be fully capable, within the period and the area specified by the minister….”

What is not contained within this language is anything with respect to mandatory membership, to thresholds that would trigger the existence of a PRO or the utilization of a PRO. Could the minister expand on what intent, if any, there is to establish direction in this regard?

Hon. M. Polak: We have that regulation-making authority in section 92(1). It’s probably not necessary for me to read it here. We’ll get to that point.

G. Heyman: The minister’s answer, I think, points to an area of some discomfort for a number of interested stakeholders who have commented on this bill, and that is that so much of it is left to regulation.

I would also, for instance, ask the question. I’ll just simply put it on the record, because I’m sure the answer to this question will be the same as the last. That is, necessary training requirements, equipment standards — how these will be set. Presumably, the answer is that these will all be by regulation as well.

[1120]

I will ask further. I believe we canvassed this a couple of weeks ago. In the course of developing regulations, can the minister confirm that it is her intention to do that with publication of intentions papers or with public consultations or expert advice and recommendations that will somehow be a matter of public record so that people can have a fuller understanding of what went into the creation of standards that are to be set by regulation, and what advice the minister took or did not take in that event?

Hon. M. Polak: I’ll first absolutely confirm for the member that we recognize that government, in fulfilling its obligations through this legislation, is in need of the expertise of those who have been involved in cleanup of spills, those who have been involved in handling of hazardous materials, communities that need to provide us with their expertise around their local area, First Nations and their traditional knowledge. So there’s a range of expertise that we are seeking to employ in order to develop the best possible regulatory scheme.

We have published the third intentions paper. The consultations with respect to that are already underway. That will continue.

It’s important to note that we recognize that over the life of this legislation, our knowledge of the field will grow and change as technology and materials change. We need to be able to move with that, and we are taking a very purposeful focus on continuous improvement as we not only develop and establish the regulations to support this legislation but also as we manage those going forward in further years. We will have to continue to monitor the regulations for their ability to support fully the legislation and all the work that that entails in implementation.

So we’re absolutely committed to that consultation. The member knows, and we’ve discussed it, that there’s been significant multi-year consultation to previous intentions papers. We do believe that that is the best way for us to develop the model that will serve British Columbians.

G. Heyman: I have an amendment to move at this time. The proposed amendment is to section 91.41(1)(a) of the act. The amendment deals with the point I made previously in two other amendments that we need to have terminology we understand. We need a definition of “effective.” That should be set out in regulation following public and expert consultation.
[ Page 12904 ]

[By adding the following text highlighted by underline and deleting the text highlighted by strikethrough:

91.41 (1)(a)

promptly and capably deal with spills effectively respond to spills, according to standards for effective spill response set out in the regulations, following public and expert consultation, and the impact of spills within the area, including having access to the necessary equipment, personnel and other resources, and]

On the amendment.

[1125]

G. Heyman: I have spoken to this previously. The public has a great interest in knowing what the standards will be. Specifically, we have terms like “capably” and “effectively” used interchangeably. “Effective” needs to be given some meaning so that people, whether it’s industry or the public, know what standards we’re talking about. The best way to do that is to commit to do it in regulation and to commit to do that with public and expert consultation. That is the reason that I am moving this amendment.

[1130]

Hon. M. Polak: I want to make it clear that those who have carefully drafted this legislation actually have not been using “capably” and “effectively” interchangeably and without definition. They rely on the dictionary definition. I will provide those, and then I’ll talk about them a little bit.

Definition of “capable”: having power and ability; competent. Definition of “effective”: adequate to accomplish a purpose; producing the intended or expected result. The reason this is important is because when we are assessing whether or not a PRO should receive a conditional certificate, it would be virtually impossible to determine whether or not they were able, at that point, to provide an effective response, because they will not likely be the only player that determines whether or not the response ultimately is effective.

They are responsible to ensure that they are capable, that they have the capacity. There are many things that will be outside of their responsibility — for example, the role that others in an integrated response would play. So the choice of words here is actually purposeful.

One could also think about it in this way, that the idea of capability is around what the agency — in this case, the PRO — is bringing to the table in the response. The issue around effectiveness is much broader, because they are responsible to be capable, to have their capacity. There could be intervening circumstances as a result of the activities of others that could have an impact on effectiveness. So the drafters are careful where they are using the word “capable” or “capably,” versus the word “effectively.”

[1135]

I also want to speak to the portion of the amendment that suggests we should include “spill response set out in the regulations.” It’s actually unnecessary to include that, because the PRO would be acting for only one of two parties — either the regulated person, who of course is already regulated, or they’d be acting on behalf of government. In that case, again they are already subject to our regulations.

Lastly, with respect to following public and expert consultation, I think I’ve addressed before my belief that it’s not necessary to include that in the legislation, given the significant record we have for consultation on this matter and the fact that we already have released the third intentions paper and are well underway with consultations in developing the regulations.

Amendment negatived on division.

Hon. M. Polak: Mr. Chair, I apologize. I wanted to just make a correction for what I said before. I misspoke and said “regulated person” instead of “responsible person.” I apologize for that. And thank you for understanding that we were figuring that out when everything else was going on.

G. Heyman: Sub (2) says that “the minister may, at the expiry of a conditional PRO certificate, revoke the conditional PRO certificate.” I’m curious what…. I mean, I can imagine any number of reasons why a certificate would be revoked, but I could also imagine that those reasons might occur prior to the expiry of the conditional certificate. Perhaps the minister can explain the wording in this subsection.

Hon. M. Polak: The certificate could be revoked either because they have completed their work and are now ready to be fully certified, or it could be revoked because they’ve not met some of the conditions of the conditional certificate.

G. Heyman: Does this, in any way, limit the ability of the minister to revoke a certificate, with cause, prior to its expiry?

Hon. M. Polak: No. In fact, this is there to enable that.

G. Heyman: Could the minister just point out the specific words that allows the revocation of a conditional PRO certificate at some time other than its expiry?

[1140]

Hon. M. Polak: I’ll correct half of my answer. The first part of the answer is correct. It doesn’t limit the minister’s ability to revoke a certificate at any time if they’re not meeting the requirements. However, I was, in my mind, thinking ahead to sub (9), which is where the power is identified to cancel or revoke a certificate, notwithstanding the fact that it has not yet expired.

Sub (2) does not limit the minister’s ability to do that, but the power for that, the enabling of that, is actually in sub (9). My apologies.
[ Page 12905 ]

G. Heyman: Thank you to the minister for that explanation. I was looking for that, and I hadn’t gotten quite that far.

At this point, I would like to move another amendment to section 91.41. It would be a new subsection (10) to 91.41, following subsection (9).

[By adding the following section:

91.41

(10) It is a term of a conditional PRO certificate and a PRO certificate that the conditional PRO or PRO, as applicable, must be governed by a board of directors or similar governing body whose membership is composed of a majority of persons representing:

(a) the government,

(b) local governments, and

(c) first nation governments.]

On the amendment.

G. Heyman: I will speak briefly to this amendment.

In my consultation with stakeholders and interested parties as well as in my own review of the bill, there was considerable concern that these preparedness and response organizations…. It is appropriate, as I’ve said earlier in my remarks and at second reading of this bill, that responsible persons be responsible for funding preparedness and response activities both to be ready for a spill as well as to respond to a spill. Effectively, this is still a government responsibility, in my view and in the view of many people, with respect to the public interest.

[1145]

It appears to many, including myself, that there is a potential inherent conflict between industries who have a responsibility to prevent and address spills but who also are in the business, of course, of maximizing return to their shareholders that in the establishment of preparedness and response organizations, while they may be industry-funded, they in fact will be led and governed by industry without a majority of representation from others who are elected to represent the public interest.

It is with this in mind that I move this amendment to assure ourselves and the public that notwithstanding the responsibility of regulated or responsible persons, which includes financial responsibility, the public governance and oversight of these organizations and how they conduct themselves at the day-to-day level is not left entirely to industry, or even left to majority control of industry. The public interest, through elected officials, will hold the majority on governance boards. That is the reason for this amendment.

Hon. M. Polak: I suspect that the desire to put in place a governance structure of this nature is rooted in the idea that the PRO would have some decision-making authority with respect to how it is they respond to an incident. They could make decisions…. The member mentions profit-making as a motive, and certainly we know that companies large and small wish to make a profit. Perhaps they would sacrifice spill response in order to retain profit and not spend money. However, the PRO will have none of those decision-making authorities. All of those authorities rest with the legislation, the regulation.

I don’t believe that the very premise for having this representation is correct. In fact, it isn’t correct. We have the power and are, in this legislation, and will be, in regulation, exercising that power to outline precisely what a PRO is responsible to do and how they are responsible to act in the case of an incident.

[1150]

I will say also that we are enabled, through this legislation, to establish various advisory committees. We also are requiring that the PRO involve and engage with First Nations, local government.

The nature of the organization is not one…. Well, maybe I’ll say it this way. The day-to-day operating of the organization, I don’t believe, is something that requires representation as is outlined here because, again, they are not making decisions about how it is that a spill must be responded to. That is what we are doing with our legislation and our regulation.

A. Weaver: I’d like to speak briefly in support of this motion.

The preparedness and response organizations need to have public confidence and public trust associated with them. This rather reasonable amendment is suggesting that there be representation from First Nation governments, from local governments and the government itself on the PRO.

The problem here is this whole bill is essentially kicking everything into regulations. It’s not inspiring a lot of public trust in doing so, particularly in light of the fact that there are kind of loophole clauses that we’ll get to shortly as well.

This is a key amendment in that it’s actually specifically pointing out, at this juncture, that the PRO will include membership from other stakeholders, critical stakeholders, in and around the region where preparedness and emergency preparedness needs to be done.

It seems a fine amendment, one that I think should be supported and I hope is supported by government.

Amendment negatived on division.

G. Heyman: I just have a brief question of clarification.

There are a number of requirements for PROs to publish — for instance, in 91.51, response plans. There are other references to publish. I just want to clarify — it may seem obvious — that when the term “publish” is used in this bill it means that it will be publicly available in some manner.

Hon. M. Polak: The default position is for everything to be public.
[ Page 12906 ]

Now, as the member knows, that’s subject to some legal limitations with respect to provisions in the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act or, potentially, security issues. But our default position is we want the public, we want responders, we want everyone to have access to all of the information that is related to spill response. So our default position is to have it all public.

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

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:54 a.m.

The House resumed; Madame Speaker in the chair.

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

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

Hon. N. Letnick moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Madame Speaker: This House, at its rising, stands adjourned until 1:30 this afternoon.

The House adjourned at 11:55 a.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
NATURAL GAS DEVELOPMENT

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); J. Thornthwaite in the chair.

The committee met at 11:19 a.m.

On Vote 37: ministry operations, $24,218,000 (continued).

[1120]

B. Ralston: Just to resume the area of questioning that we left off with last day, the minister had spoken, in a fairly long answer, of various meetings he’d had in Ottawa with ministers and senior officials concerning the proposed Petronas project and the outstanding requirement that it meet the regulatory requirements of the federal government. In the report that was prepared by the agency, it was unclear, I should say at the outset, about what the federal government now requires, given what is essentially a shift in policy.

What the report itself says is:

“Environment and Climate Change Canada advised that the project, as scoped in the EA, would cause significant adverse environmental effects. Even with the proponent’s statement it would achieve a greenhouse gas intensity of 0.16 t CO₂e/t per tonne of LNG through compliance with the B.C. Greenhouse Gas Industrial Reporting and Control Act, Environment and Climate Change Canada viewed this level of emissions to still be significant.

“Environment and Climate Change Canada noted that it would be necessary to look at the full life cycle of the project to determine whether the environmental effects resulting from the project’s implementation would be positive or adverse; however, this analysis is beyond the scope of the EA.”

The report goes on to say:

“Further, as a part of the government of Canada’s interim approach for environmental assessments announced on January 27, 2016, Environment and Climate Change Canada provided an assessment of the upstream greenhouse gas emissions associated with the project.”

They go on to speak of their assessment of that. The proponent has responded to that.

I guess my question is…. The minister seemed to suggest or say that the life cycle, including, therefore, upstream emissions of this project, would not be included in the environmental assessment of the project, notwithstanding that the government has announced a new policy. Is the minister saying, notwithstanding these comments and notwithstanding the assessment of the Environment and Climate Change ministry, that those upstream emissions would not be considered in approving or not approving this particular project?

I think that’s an important question. It’s also some sense of a test of the new federal policy. I’d appreciate the minister’s response to that.

Hon. R. Coleman: The GHGs on the climate piece is on the plant only for the CEAA certificate. The federal government has said that Canada will consider the upstream effects of GHGs in their deliberations once a project is referred. But they’re saying, at the same time…. The certificate is about the plant only, but they’ve indicated to us, as I indicated yesterday…. That’s why we’re looking at how we can reduce GHGs in the upstream in advance of any further discussions with the feds.

I should be clear that the piece on the GHGs in the upstream is new. It’s something the feds have identified they want to look at, and we’ve said we’re prepared to work with them on that. But the CEAA certificate is the plant only.

[1125]

B. Ralston: As I understand the process, the certificate, if it’s approved by the agency, would then be referred to the cabinet for the ultimate decision. What I take the minister to be saying is that the consideration by the
[ Page 12907 ]
cabinet may very well involve some consideration of the upstream impact.

The report itself has some fairly strong language in characterizing the potential upstream emissions, and I just wanted the minister’s comment on this. I know he referred to it yesterday in terms of potential mitigation. I’m quoting from the report:

“The upstream greenhouse gas emissions estimate of 6.5 to 8.5 million tonnes CO₂e per year can be characterized similarly to the direct emissions — high in magnitude, continuous, irreversible and global in extent. Accordingly, the upstream emissions could be considered likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects. This information will provide additional context for the environmental assessment decision and help inform the government’s development of a national climate change plan.”

Given that characterization by this important federal agency of the upstream emissions, does the minister have any comment?

Hon. R. Coleman: Yeah, and as the member knows, what he just quoted me says “could” affect. It’s language that, obviously, we’re very aware of. All of that is prior to any initiative that we would take to electrify or do other changes in the upstream which would significantly reduce the GHGs from the upstream down a long way.

In fairness to both parties, the CEAA certificate on the GHG levels and all of that that we put in the legislation…. The federal government seems to be relatively comfortable with that with regards to the plant. As we’ve come through it, the new government has said that because of the climate action that they want to look at, they’re looking at upstream GHGs as part of the piece with regards to not just gas but also significantly on the oil side as well. We really don’t play in that piece, because we don’t have a lot of oil in British Columbia.

The difference, though, for us is that we had already started to do a number of things that were not understood initially by the federal government. We actually had the Dawson Creek area transmission line that goes out to the Montney. Our recycling of water and using grey water from, for instance, Dawson Creek is another thing. As we go through the education discussion, we’ll do that. But at the same time, we’ve already signalled to the federal government that we will go do work on the upstreams in anticipation of whatever they may come up with as a policy.

There’s just one little correction I want to make for the member on the process. What happens is CEAA does a draft report, and they send it to the minister. The minister has the ability to make a decision, as a statutory decision–maker, but has made it clear that the intention is that it would be referred to cabinet, because they do that pretty much as a matter of course for major projects.

B. Ralston: I appreciate the minister’s nuancing of that particular part of the process.

The question that I have now is related to what will take place. I’m looking at the project development agreement between the government and Pacific NorthWest LNG.

As the minister will be aware, on page 8 there is a definition of what are called project certainty matters. The outstanding federal approval is one of the project certainty matters. In the definition: “(c) The issuance to the proponent of the following certificates for the LNG facility: (i) an environmental assessment certificate by the provincial Minister of Environment under section 17(3) of the Environmental Assessment Act…and (ii) a decision statement by the federal Minister of Environment under section 54 of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012 (CEAA 2012).”

That second approval is the one that appears to be waiting. There are a number of others which, perhaps, I can just confirm with the minister.

[1130]

My understanding is that the proponent has satisfied all of these prerequisites to what are described as project certainty matters: completion of the FEED phase for the LNG facility — that is, the preliminary engineering work; issuance by the proponent of a notice to proceed in respect of the material, engineering, procurement of construction contracts for the LNG facility; the National Energy Board natural gas export licence; the proponent having the financial resources and the funding plan to enable the investment decision for the LNG facility referred to be reached.

Presumably, once and if the Canadian Environmental Assessment decision statement is positive, (f) would fall into place: “the proponent reaches a positive final investment decision, including obtaining all the necessary internal and shareholder or investor approvals required to proceed with the LNG facility.”

The significance of that is that in the agreement, assuming that the province is satisfied, the province then ratifies what is described as a project certainty, and a clock begins to tick on a bundle of rights terminating, potentially, ten years down the road. Can the minister confirm that that is, indeed, the process that will be followed pursuant to the project development agreement and that the sole outstanding matters are the remaining federal environment decision statement and then, following that, a final investment decision?

Essentially, from media reports, one understands that Petronas is simply corporately awaiting a decision from the federal government on that, and then a final investment decision would be taken one way or the other after that.

Hon. R. Coleman: The member has described it pretty well, actually. As a matter of fact, last July, when the project development agreement was done and the FEED had also been done, the pricing of the project had been done, manufacturing costs analysis…. Basically, it’s a partnership of five companies. The major partner, of course, is Petronas out of Malaysia, but other significant partners are Sinopec out of China and JAPEX out of Japan. Indian Oil and Brunei Oil are smaller partners in it but very keen,
[ Page 12908 ]
on the Indian Oil side, to start to build infrastructure on natural gas in India long term, to see their opportunity.

Given the time frame it has taken…. They’re still waiting for a CEAA certificate. I would anticipate the prudent thing that the company would do is reconfirm its pricing with regards to its FEED contractors to see if there was any change in the market price for things like pipe or other things like that that may have come down and that would affect the project.

They would have to, once the CEAA certificate is issued, look at the conditions that are issued with the certificate, because there are bound to be some conditions, and see how that affects the economic viability, one way or the other, of the project.

They would then do what I suspect…. I know they have done it in the past. They have an international, for lack of a better description, document room that’s virtual. The documents are in a computer in a specific area where the companies can go in and look and do their analysis both in, basically, the language and the economics in whatever country they’re doing business in as an investor.

All indications, at this point, from Petronas and their senior people — because I’ve met with all the senior partners, all of the companies within the last couple of weeks — are that: “If you give us a certificate, we will move quickly to do our final analysis and make a final investment decision. But we really can’t make that decision based on anything until we know that we have the CEAA certificates.”

If you don’t have the permit, it’s pretty tough to bank. It’s pretty tough to move forward and make sure that your design is going to work. So it really is sitting in one place right now, and that is with the federal assessment process.

If it were done tomorrow, then I would think that probably within a month or so the rest of the analysis would be done and the company would make their… More confirmation of their analysis would be done. They’d bring their partners together and make their final investment decision. Those are all the indications that we’re getting from the company.

In the international media, recently the CEO of Petronas has made it clear that they’re still interested and that they still want to proceed with the project in British Columbia. And when I met with the other partners, they’re of the same mind.

[1135]

But it’s pretty tough to make the final investment. You can’t make the final investment decision or actually have your final shareholder meeting to proceed until you’ve actually got the certainty of being able to go ahead. That certificate is the only thing that’s holding up that certainty right now.

B. Ralston: As the minister will know and his staff will know from their knowledge of the project development agreement, upon triggering the project certainty matters and being ratified by the government, a series of rights come into effect that govern the rights of the proponent into the future. One of those rights is that there is an agreement to the terms of the project development agreement with the province that only terminates on certain conditions. In section 7, there are specific termination rights for the province.

According to the discussions I’ve had with some industry sources, it’s generally agreed — and page 24 of the agreement, section 7, “Termination,” would appear to confirm that — that there is a date that’s called the commercial operations date. That is defined as the date on which the first shipment of commercially produced LNG sails in a ship from the plant. That is considered to be the commercial operations date.

What the agreement says is that upon satisfying the project certainty matters and upon being ratified by the province, that date, from then until the commercial operations date, is effectively ten years. The company has, effectively, I’m suggesting, an option to proceed within a ten-year time horizon.

Simply the fact that the company has taken what is called the final investment decision gives them those rights and gives them the rights to proceed at any point within the next ten years. Does the minister agree with that?

Hon. R. Coleman: Well, first of all, if they went to a final investment decision, the final investment decision would be based on construction. In the case of Petronas, they tell me, they’d go in the ground as soon as they had their final investment decision.

The ten-year window, though, is there for a number of reasons. One is that the construction period of time for a plant of this size and magnitude can be anywhere from 48 months plus. So it could take up to five years — the commissioning of the plant, and all of those things. It allows for if there are any difficulties with, let’s say, the pipeline or the feedstock, with regards to how that would come into play.

At this stage, everybody’s comfortable — that being the company is comfortable with the fact they’ve got their FEED, they’ve got their pipeline benefit agreements with First Nations and the route, and those processes are done.

It really is the window. But the member’s correct. If they decided…. They could decide. It’s highly unlikely, from what I’ve been told by the company. They have a window. The difference would be, of course, that the environmental certificate, after a short period of time, would probably have to be refiled for if they decided to not build the project or get into the ground within a couple of years. Then they would have to go back and redo the environmental assessment, because there could be additional activities on the land base that would affect that certificate in the future if it was being applied for at another time or if the project was going to start at a different time.

[1140]

It was the prudent number that was basically discussed with all companies. It’s not just…. When we built the project development agreement formulas with consultation with industry and with how these things work worldwide, that clause is in there to ensure that there’s enough time to build and commission a plant and to make sure it allows for any nuances or difficulties that come relative to the project to make sure that they could stay within the window.

B. Ralston: The minister introduces the element of the expiry of environmental approvals. Can the minister state, under subsection 17(3) of the Environmental Assessment Act of British Columbia, if that approval has been granted, how long is it valid for?

Hon. R. Coleman: We think it’s five years, but we will confirm it for the member. It’s not directly in this ministry, but we will attempt to confirm it as we go through estimates today, to give the member the answer to that question.

B. Ralston: Perhaps when the minister is seeking an answer…. What regulatory power, either by order-in-council or by ministerial decision, is there to extend that, and for how long without any additional filings? Could the minister agree to provide that answer as well?

Hon. R. Coleman: Yeah, I can. I do know that when they’ve been extended, there is additional information often required to actually look at what has transpired in a period of time relative to the permit. Not so much on a project like this, because obviously, the financial decision to go ahead is substantial. So when it’s made, you’re talking, in the case of a plant, $15 billion to $20 billion of investment there.

I do know that on land use, because I’ve had some experience in and around that, that after a period of time, more information can be required, and that statutory decision–maker makes that determination under whatever rules under the law, provincially, they have with regards to provincial statutes.

I’m not sure I can actually get you an answer on federal statutes and how that works, because it’s really not in my purview, and I don’t know if we have anybody that we can get that information from, unless our EAO can provide it to us. Certainly, we will attempt to get that answer for the member.

I do know that after a certain time of expiry, or to an extend, there’s usually a request for additional information or an update to information to make sure that the information hasn’t changed with regards to the original environmental certificate that may have been issued. I’m seeing that particularly on some long-standing land projects in B.C., where they’ve taken an extreme number of years and they’ve gone back and forth with regards to additional information, and that sort of thing.

We’ll attempt to get that information to the member.

B. Ralston: The minister has acknowledged that there is a ten-year window but, based on the representations by Petronas, seems to believe that following the final investment decision, the assurance that’s been given by the company is that they will proceed.

I take it that in a subsidiary way, the minister is also acknowledging that if the company decided, for example, that their cash flow from global operations was such that they were not able to proceed, much like many of the other global multinationals, that the price arrangements they could make with offshore purchasers — whether it’s China, Korea, the Philippines or anywhere else in Asia — were not at a price that made the project economic, the company has the option to wait up to at least a number of years — it would appear at least five years — before proceeding. That would be a commercial option that would be open to them, based on the terms of the project development agreement that exists between the province and the company.

I just want the minister…. I appreciate that his view is that that’s unlikely. But the company certainly doesn’t have to disclose all of their corporate strategies publicly. They may well make that decision and could delay approval or could delay proceeding for at least five years, perhaps even longer, and that would be totally within their rights under this agreement.

[1145]

Hon. R. Coleman: Practically, obviously, the member is correct. At the end of the day, after you get your permits, you sit down. You look at your price. You look at what your supply opportunities and gas contracts are to see if the project is financially viable to make a significant multi-billion-dollar investment — none of which is being made by the province and which is made by the partners.

On this particular project, part of the significant piece of that is the company itself — the main company, Petronas — has substantial natural gas relations worldwide. They’ve been in the business since 1968, when the first LNG plant was built. So they have long-term supplies and customers who are actually having more capacity and want to continue that relationship. At the same time, two of the other companies, which would be Sinopec and JAPEX, are significant possible off-takers.

On the environmental piece, provincially, basically the permits for five years…. You must be substantially started. They can ask for one extension for no more than five years, which can be granted by the decision-maker with regards to that. There are no extensions past that with regards to an environmental certificate in B.C.

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

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:47 a.m.

Access to on-line versions of the official report of debates (Hansard),
webcasts of proceedings and podcasts of Question Period is available on the Internet.
Chamber debates are broadcast on television.

Copyright © 2016: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada