Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: I call second reading, Bill 37, Financial Institutions Amendment Act.

[2:35 p.m.]

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 37 — FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS
AMENDMENT ACT, 2019

(continued)

R. Sultan: I’m pleased to continue my participation in second reading debate on Bill 37, intituled the Financial Institutions Amendment Act, 2019, amending the Financial Institutions Act of 1996.

As I’d previously indicated, my remarks are focused on how Bill 37, which encompasses many categories of financial institutions, particularly impacts British Columbia’s credit union sector. There are almost 50 of these cooperative deposit-taking and lending institutions. Altogether, their assets in British Columbia add up to about $85 billion.

Credit unions are a uniquely important institution in this corner of our country. To illustrate that point, almost one-third of all credit union employees in Canada will be found right here in British Columbia. The comparable geographic distribution of employment in chartered banks is quite different. We have about 10 percent of that employment base here in British Columbia.

Credit unions come in all sizes. Vancity, which is about our largest, has $23 billion in assets, while Vancouver Firefighters Credit Union, our smallest, has only $17 million in assets. They are major players in the British Columbia residential mortgage market, extending about one mortgage in five in this province, by some estimates. They are also significant players in the small business lending sector, perhaps extending about one-third of all small business loans in British Columbia. That these institutions are important to the fluidity, operation and competitiveness of our lending industry in British Columbia is the point I wish to make.

I previously mentioned BlueShore Financial, the credit union leader in my own community and the second-largest private sector employer on the North Shore, after Seaspan. Several days ago, I spent an informative afternoon with BlueShore’s CEO, Chris Catliff; with the director of governance and legislative affairs, Anna Hardy; and also with Ryan Burgess, the manager of technology infrastructure. They reminded me of hours already spent in consultation with government officials in refining this new statute, Bill 37, and they complimented both the previous government and this government for the draft which has emerged — but not 100 percent.

Credit unions strongly recommend the removal of the words “at all times” from section 67, on liquidity. They believe that the continued inclusion of these three small words, “at all times,” would be inconsistent with other jurisdictions and is deeply problematic in a liquidity event, because it would force credit unions to break this proposed new law to access their liquidity, currently held at Central 1. Central 1 is the credit union industry’s central bank, just like the Bank of Canada is the chartered banks’ central bank. You might say the lender of last resort.

[2:40 p.m.]

The words “liquidity event” refer to those infrequent occasions when depositors — fearful, perhaps, of financial disruption or worse — descend upon a bank, perhaps many or even all of the banks, demanding their money back. If the bank has all of its assets tied up in longer-term mortgages, this can be an embarrassment, so they resort to other lenders or their central bank to provide all of the cash which depositors are demanding, and more. When the panic subsides, the money invariably returns back home again since keeping it under the mattress isn’t very secure.

That’s a classic liquidity event. So anything in Bill 37 which will impede or even make illegal the response of a credit union to a liquidity event is not, to say the least, very helpful.

Credit unions also borrow money from other institutions. These three little words in Bill 37 could result in a credit union’s borrowing facilities being rescinded if they access their statutory deposits first in a liquidity event, just as an example.

Finally, these three little words, I was told, would strongly disincentivize credit unions from holding liquidity collectively, which is a practice that they have successfully pursued for well over 30 years.

It is my understanding that my colleague from Surrey South will be making an amending motion and explaining the reasons for this small but critically important modification of language proposed for Bill 37. Therefore, it would not be appropriate for me to go further into the subject here, except to note the fundamental importance of liquidity management during periods of fright, stress and uncertainty, which might trigger a so-called run on the bank.

Let me comment further on the overall importance of the credit union sector in our provincial economy because it is important. With some envy, I must admit that…. In the United States, one cannot fail to be impressed by the depth, the variety and the hustle of credit-granting institutions, large and small, in comparison with the more concentrated and, no doubt, more disciplined financial sector we enjoy here in Canada.

We tend to be paragons of caution and accurate bookkeeping, whereas south of the border they seem more inclined to smart risk-taking and are willing to tolerate a degree of financial wreckage along the way. A very different philosophy. Perhaps, on balance, the innovativeness of Canadian commercial enterprise itself, the customers, comes off second best, as a consequence. I believe such speculations, even if warranted, would be less valid in British Columbia due to our rather large, robust and diversified B.C. credit union sector.

I previously emphasized that Bill 37 was to be commended since it aimed to strengthen the smaller, less giant, secondary financial institutions in our province, as represented by credit unions. The bill aspires to accomplish this in part through legislating better management practice — for example, by requiring routine risk analysis of operations, which is merely good practice, after all, and by encouraging well capitalized growth.

Why are such strategies particularly important at this time? Well, one reason is that competition, particularly from the chartered banks, grows ever more intense, the search for profitable niches in financial services grows ever more difficult, and the need to spend more and more on continually evolving technology shows no signs of slowing down.

If we are to have the depth and diversity among British Columbia financial institutions which are ingredients of a successful economy, then the credit union system needs all the support and regulatory certainty the government can provide but within, I hasten to add, a level playing field’s avoidance of government subsidy and minimum taxpayer risk. That raises another strategic public policy issue.

Let me begin with deposit insurance. A new Financial Services Authority, FSA, replaced the prior FICOM in the legislation enacted last spring, partially in response to deficiencies identified by the Legislature’s own Auditor General in the prior FICOM.

[2:45 p.m.]

Under FICOM, credit union deposits were guaranteed by deposit insurance fully backed by the provincial government. In prior days, a helpful FICOM even offered advertising mockups to its credit union clients, broadcasting: “All deposits 100 percent guaranteed by your government.” About the time I complained, the ads seemed to quietly disappear.

So what’s wrong with the government offering a 100 percent guarantee of credit union deposits, you might ask? Well, one could envisage, under the right circumstances — and, assuredly, there are a lot of shady people out there, searching for the right circumstances — a credit union coming under the control of dubious people who deposit significant funds, borrow money to the max, allow the institution to fail and request reimbursement from the taxpayer. Ouch. That could be painful. Not that I’ve ever heard this happening. So it is theoretical, I concede.

We should also concede that deposits 100 percent backed by government, such as we offer to provincial credit unions, could conceivably encourage abuse. And it is a higher degree of taxpayer backup than chartered banks enjoy. Moralizing economists have a label for this: moral hazard. You can look it up.

Deposit insurance, whether 100 percent or not, cannot be blamed for other forms of malfeasance. Here I draw on some of my own personal experience. Banks and credit unions are just like conveyor belts: money coming in, money going out, take in the funds, set aside a certain portion for reserves and lend out the balance. If you want to make shaky loans to your friends, you don’t have to see the institution fail, even though perhaps it should. You recycle a portion of your wobbly loans back into the institution as deposits or even capital, keeping the institution onside with required ratios, and simply carry on. As flaky as this sounds, I’ve actually seen it happen.

The upshot of such tales from the front lines is to emphasize that the management, regulation and inspection — not to say the ethics — of lending institutions is tricky and demanding. It is helpful to regard banking as a form of special calling, a licence to print money, you might say. So be careful who you license.

Another strategic risk arises when British Columbia credit unions adopt an interprovincial strategy and venture over the mountains into Alberta and beyond. As they do so, they begin to more and more resemble chartered banks, which operate in all provinces without restriction. Under the BNA Act, banking is a federal responsibility.

At what point would B.C. credit unions spreading their wings en route to the Big Apple find a federal regulator knocking at the door? Good question. If a credit union habituated to the friendlier, more intimate and certainly less complex world of provincial regulation becomes tangled up in Canadian banking regulation, the outcome could be an unhappy surprise.

In an ironic parallel, Canadian chartered banks themselves find themselves encumbered by what can only be described as humungous American rules and regulation, triggered by their active involvement in the American marketplace. Therefore, they may not shed a tear if pesky provincial credit unions run afoul themselves in a parallel fashion of federal Canadian regulation. As I have said to credit union officials from time to time, be careful what you wish for.

From a British Columbia public policy prospective, as government, if I were in government, I would not be pleased if main-line, B.C.-bred financial institutions, such as credit unions, suddenly find themselves beholden to somebody who takes their orders from Ottawa. I wouldn’t like that.

[2:50 p.m.]

When does a credit union become a bank, you may ask? Well, one answer is if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and looks like a duck, it’s probably a duck. But that’s pretty superficial. Credit unions are, in fact, subject to unique governance and capital roles, which are very non-bank in nature.

One other key point. It seems that the biggest problem of financial institution regulation in B.C. in the past has not been the inadequacy of our laws and regulations. It has been the inadequacy of the staff doing the regulating. A case can be made that too often, our regulatory staff has been outgunned in numbers, in budgets, in capabilities and in compensation. The strongest law and legislation and regulation in the world will not be capable if the staff administering it is not capable.

As I said, the issue was previously identified at FICOM by the Auditor General. Whether the new FSA is successful in addressing the issue, it’s probably too early to say.

I will close with a side glance at the macro picture and cautions regarding the future health and solvency of banking operations in our province. Recently McKinsey — you know them, a consulting company which prospers by predicting problems — has suggested that the world is in the late economic cycle stage. I must agree with that. This is worrisome. Half of the world’s banks are ill-prepared for a downturn, according to McKinsey. They say many of the world banks are ill-prepared because their returns on equity — their profitability, in other words — haven’t been keeping pace with costs. McKinsey urges financial organizations to bulk up through mergers to try and deal with this situation.

McKinsey makes a second important point. Upstarts and new competitors are spending more than conventional banks and other institutions of the past on innovation and are targeting lucrative bank markets. This is clearly true. The decade since the last financial bump in 2008 has seen a wave of innovation in financial services. New competitors ranging from tiny fintech start-ups to technology giants like Apple, Google, Amazon and Ping An in China are setting out to steal traditional financial services customers around the world.

From a resources point of view, McKinsey has estimated that banks typically allocate only 35 percent of their IT, information technology, budgets to innovation, while fintechs spend more than 70 percent. As an aside, BlueShore, which I mentioned previously, inform me that they spend about 75 percent of their infrastructure investment in IT, so they’re certainly working to try to keep up.

Unquestionably, the payments ecosystem is changing fast. We witnessed what one observer called “the slow death of cash and the fast rise of digital payments transforming how consumers, businesses, governments, and even criminals move money.”

One forecast has annual global non-cash transactions passing the trillion-dollar mark in a few short years, propelled by increased use of digital wallets, more small vendors accepting credit cards and the explosive growth of mobile commerce facilitated by our addiction to hand-held electronic devices. Throw in regulatory factors lowering barriers to entry, and one can make the case that the environment itself is facilitating the newer firms setting out to steal market share from the older firms, including credit unions. But there are surely counterbalances, and I would suggest that millennials probably struggle to develop a close, personal banking relationship with their iPhones.

[2:55 p.m.]

These are all regulatory issues for the future. We must trust that measures embodied in Bill 37 will provide adequate regulatory and backup levers if and when needed.

Perhaps the most basic question of all is this: does government really understand the sector? Around the world, the financial sector has no alternative but to work together with government, and it’s a two-way street, frankly. Therefore, government must be their friend and not their enemy, a cadre meriting trust, not suspicion.

In this regard, I must register my strong regret over this government’s abrupt, without notice, pulling the rug out from under international banking in Vancouver and other communities in B.C., cancelling years of effort to cultivate the international banking sector, particularly from Asia.

If British Columbia is serious about its intention to cultivate deeper ties to that vast Asian marketplace — and a marketplace, which yesterday, as a matter of fact, one very sophisticated observer suggested could even surpass New York as a financial hub, the largest financial hub in the world, and it’s a possibility that we could all imagine in Shanghai — then surely, being positioned on the Pacific Rim as we are, and given our many ties to Asia in all respects, this is surely British Columbia’s unique opportunity. Then financial institutions, including financial institutions from abroad, must be welcomed here and play a key role in facilitating that international mechanism.

Returning to McKinsey’s fussing about the possibility of a serious downturn, it seems to me that if we do get one, FSA must be prepared to support B.C.’s credit unions, especially the smaller ones. Prudence suggests FSA should have contingency plans in place which can assure that the full fabric of British Columbia financial institutions, from the largest to the smallest, provincial as well as federal, credit union and non–credit union alike, will survive and prosper. With strong administration, Bill 37, as proposed by this government — with some amendments, which will be discussed in further detail — should help a great deal.

With those cheerful caveats, I will announce that I plan to support this important bill.

M. Lee: I am also pleased to rise today to continue the discussion of Bill 37, the Financial Institutions Amendment Act, 2019. This bill builds upon the previous legislation this government introduced in the spring, which established the Financial Services Authority, FSA, as the successor regulatory organization to the Financial Institutions Commission, FICOM.

Because the proposed legislation seeks to significantly expand and modernize the powers of the now Financial Services Authority, it is important that we make sure that the interests and the privacy of British Columbians are looked after. I shall say that privacy is an issue that I’ll come back to in a moment.

Of particular note in this bill are the provisions which provide the financial regulator with the authority to issue enforceable rules and to have enhanced investigation powers. We certainly will have questions about how these powers will look in practice when we get to the committee stage.

While we are supportive of making sure that our financial regulator is keeping pace with other jurisdictions on these matters, we must ensure that in every change that is made and every power that is expanded for this new authority, we are looking out for the best interests of British Columbians. After all, a primary focus must be to protect the consumer financial services in British Columbia in each of our communities.

[3:00 p.m.]

Of course, with the rising advancement of technology, fintech and other instruments and applications, as a prov­ince, we need to support a nimble, forward-thinking financial regulator. We appreciate that this bill continues to make adjustments to the regulatory framework to support that. In making these changes, we need to make sure that the regulator balances the interests of the sector it oversees and maintains the goal of preserving the integrity of the financial institutions in the interest of consumer protection.

At the committee stage on this bill, we will review some of these proposed changes in greater detail, but I’d like to highlight a few of these areas at this second reading stage. One of those areas will be questions around the accountability of the FSA when it comes to decision-making, particularly because of the considerable expansion of its powers through this bill. As we have seen with the superintendent of real estate, there are limited options for appeals of rules and decisions.

As a legislature, we need to find the right balance between the powers of our new FSA and those regulations. The im­por­tance of regulations of credit unions…. They’re important because they provide, as a province here, 100 percent deposit insurance coverage to credit unions, as the member for West Vancouver–Capilano just referred to. In so doing, it’s about protecting the taxpayers as well, because the consequences for not properly regulating credit unions are significant for both the industry and for the consumer.

We’ll be looking at, specifically, the kinds of controls over credit unions which require consent of the authority for certain prescribed types of transactions under section 25 of the bill. We’ll want to review under what circumstances and what review the superintendent will do on financial affairs. What will the superintendent do with the report for market conduct, risk management practices and corporate governance to be filed by extraprovincial corporations, for example? Will those reports be evaluated in accordance with B.C. standards? Particularly, in terms of the implications of not meeting those requirements, will they not be able to operate in B.C.? What’s the intention of that new power?

Of course, in terms of the resources that are necessary for the FSA to perform its additional oversight functions and enforcement roles, we’ll want to ensure that this government has put the dedicated resources necessary to ensure that that is the case. As the member for West Vancouver–Capilano indicated earlier, it’s one thing to have the strongest laws and regulations in the land, in this country, but it would be wholly inadequate if there are not sufficient staff with expertise to provide the right level of oversight for their functions and expanded enforcement roles.

Certainly, in terms of looking at the level of consultation, there has been, as the Minister of Finance had alluded to in her second reading speech, a certain amount of consultation to date. But in the spring of 2018, there was a further consultation paper that was issued by this government. We would like to know the details of the comments that have been received to that paper. We need to ensure, in terms of hearing the opinions and feedback of professionals in the industry, that that is certainly a vital part of crafting this legislation and includes the numerous stakeholders — credit unions, the insurance sector, banking organizations and others.

It’s also important that we ensure that this information, the feedback that’s been received, be released to the public and be made available to all those taking part in this legislative process. As we head to committee stage on this bill, we would like to see this government fully disclose that feedback from these stakeholders so that we can have greater clarity around the purposes of the key provisions of this legislation, the intention of this government and what, if any, impact assessments have been conducted for these provisions.

I understand that there’s contemplation of further consultation to take place between the passing of this bill and the regulations that are set out in the bill itself. We’d like to understand what the process for that will be and what questions and further consultation there will be and the scope of that consultation.

[3:05 p.m.]

I mentioned privacy at the outset of my comments, and I’d like to come back to that. As we heard from the Minister of Finance in her second reading speech, there has been tabled in this House an amendment to section 51 of this bill. This bill, which was presented in this House only a week or two ago, had a significant override of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, a significant override that the commissioner for information and privacy of this province had concerns about, as we learned. We haven’t seen the actual text of his concerns, but what the Minister of Finance provided to this House is an amendment, which is on the order paper, which strikes the override.

When we’re talking about the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, we have seen at another juncture…. When we looked at Bill 35, the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, the members for Kelowna-Mission and Kelowna West brought forward to this House amendments to that bill, because in a similar way, the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner provided feedback by letter, in writing — simple, straightforward, clear amendments — setting out his concerns about legislation that was ultimately passed in this House.

The government failed to consider his amendments that we were tabling in this House. Yet this government is now at least adhering at this juncture for this bill — pulling back what was an overstep.

It raises the question as to how this government is working with that office. It’s an independent office. The views and the role of that office are very important to consider by all members of this House. I would say that in light of the way that this government is working, it’s picking and choosing between what advice it is taking from that office, and that’s highly troublesome.

I’m very concerned to see the behaviour of this government, when it ignores the advice under Bill 35 in terms of something as critical as the temporary storage of personal information offshore. In this case, it hears the commissioner; in that case, it did not. I think that that’s something British Columbians ought to be very concerned about in terms of how this government is conducting its legislative process. Certainly, we will still go back in committee to ask the Minister of Finance why in that case it did not hear the advice, but in this case it has.

I will say that there are other requirements under this act which set out the requirement for codes of market conduct under section 14 of the bill. We will want to have discussion at committee stage in terms of the standards that will be imposed by the authority on credit unions for these types of codes and why the authority does not have a similar power to insist on a similar code for insurance companies. What will be the requirements for disclosure of any departures from those codes?

Similarly, in terms of the section 22 of the bill, there are new mandate requirements for risk management committees, which are important, certainly, to ensure the better governance and concerns around risk for credit unions. We’ll be wanting to hear from this government what standards are expected for setting out those mandates, what composition of those committees would be required, and particularly in terms of the kinds of expertise of individuals who would serve on that committee.

We understand and recognize the importance of providing a regulatory environment that works for B.C.-based credit unions. It’s so important. They serve a role in terms of local communities across our province. In doing so, we need to have rules that work for credit unions.

[3:10 p.m.]

There are continued competitive pressures from banks — the technological advancements that credit unions are needing to compete with and, certainly, that they are doing internally to meet those challenges. It’s a dynamic financial environment in which credit unions operate.

We’ll want to see, of course, that in the course of ensuring consistency with other jurisdictions…. I know that the members from Surrey South will have some certain amendments regarding liquidity requirements. As we look at the requirements that are different under this act being imposed on credit unions — different from other jurisdictions — certainly, liquidity is important. But we need to ensure that the new requirements continue to provide a workable regulatory environment for B.C.-based credit unions.

I would say that in terms of looking at the insurance sector itself, there are some requirements here that provide for the authorization, for example, of restricted insurance agent licences. It’s a new section to be added under section 31 of the bill. We’ll want to have a discussion about whether that is a similar requirement to those in Alberta, Manitoba and Saskatchewan, and what the scope of the licence is that will be issued and what the potential impact of these requirements will be on new entrants into the insurance market in B.C. in areas of house or even automobile insurance.

If we look at the requirements of the credit unions, as I mentioned…. Of course, with small local credit unions, regulations can’t necessarily be seen only with the lens of one-size-fits-all. We need to ensure that there is a scope for recognizing that credit unions have different footings in their communities, and how they would operate under this new regulatory environment needs to be carefully considered.

With that, I look forward to the further discussion of this bill and understanding the importance of the regulatory framework that we are putting in place for this new Financial Services Authority.

S. Cadieux: I’m pleased to take my place and continue the discussion on Bill 37.

For context, the objectives, I believe, of the legislation and the amendments are to maintain stability and confidence in B.C.’s financial systems by reducing the risk of failures and providing consumer protections. The how is by reducing unnecessary red tape and regulation, by fostering good governance, by providing early detection and intervention if issues should arise and, also, by reflecting a mix of international standards and the size, scope and complexity of the institutions that we see here in British Columbia’s financial system.

The bill builds upon previous legislation introduced in the spring which established the Financial Services Authority, FSA, as a successor, a regulatory organization, to the Financial Institutions Commission, FICOM.

Now, while we are supportive of updating our financial regulator…. I understand that the credit union sector is certainly largely supportive of the changes and that many of the changes address the issues they’ve been advocating about for some time. It is important, of course, that we keep pace with other jurisdictions on these matters. We must ensure that with every change that is made and every power expanded, we’re looking out for the best interests of British Columbians.

Our primary focus must be to protect the consumer of financial services in British Columbia. When we know that 40 percent, approximately, of British Columbians belong to a credit union, that’s a big proportion of the population. It’s a lot of money invested — a lot of money to the individuals who have saved hard to invest that money with their financial institutions but also a lot of money that, while in the hands of cooperative credit unions, is used to the benefit of local communities.

We support, of course, a nimble and forward-thinking financial regulator and appreciate that this bill sets out to assure that this is a reality in British Columbia. However, in any changes that are made, we need to make sure that the regulator balances the interests of the sector it oversees and maintains the goal of preserving the integrity of financial institutions in the interest of consumer protection.

I’m looking forward to committee stage, of course, where we will dig into these aspects in much greater detail.

[3:15 p.m.]

Additionally, as we head into committee, we’ll still have questions about the accountability of the Financial Services Authority when it comes to decision-making — in particular, because of the significant expansion of powers through the act. We’ve seen, with the superintendent of real estate, that there are limited options for the appeals of rules and decisions. We had much discussion through the spring on the concerns around oversight and authority and the opportunity for appeal and are still seeking clarity in that regard.

Part of looking out for British Columbians is making sure that their voices are clearly heard. We know that the process of crafting this legislation was thorough, and government did carry out consultations with numerous stakeholders, including the credit union sector, the insurance sector, banking organizations and individuals. Government has said that during those consultations, the changes made in these bills received relatively favourable feedback. However, we have not seen the information gathered in the consultations.

We are concerned about why the information isn’t being made available, as it was in the previous consultation in 2015. This presents a concern — or, rather, an example of why there is concern — about transparency and how the Financial Services Authority will handle consultation and feedback going forward. Government is setting the wrong tone by not releasing that consultation, by not reporting out on it, like was done after the 2015 consultation. Clearly, we would expect that the government would want to set that example for the regulator that they are providing additional powers to.

Hearing the opinions and feedback of professionals in the industry is a vital part of crafting legislation. The information should be released to the public and made available to all of those taking part in the legislative process, which, of course, includes those of us asked to critique and look for those issues that might still be cause for concern in this process.

Heading into committee stage, we certainly are hopeful that the government will fully disclose the feedback that it received in regard to stakeholder consultation in advance of this legislation. I know that the minister did receive correspondence from the credit unions relating to section 9 of this bill or section 67 of the Financial Institutions Act. I understand that there have been additional discussions around those concerns.

The original concern, of course, is the one that I have as well, and that is with the “at all times” wording in that section. My argument would be that it’s somewhat superfluous to the section and bad drafting. The reason I say that is that “at all times” doesn’t work in an urgent liquidity situation.

Credit unions, in a situation where there’s an urgent need for liquidity, would likely have to draw on that mandatory liquidity pool at Central 1. That’s the intent of the pool held at Central 1. But with the wording “at all times” in the legislation, doing so could put credit unions in contravention of the act and of other requirements with other debt covenants that they hold.

There are a number of other options that could have been borrowed from other provinces. In fact, Alberta, Manitoba, New Brunswick, Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, Ontario, Prince Edward Island, Quebec and Saskatchewan all have examples of wording around liquidity for credit unions which could have been used. Not one of those includes the term “at all times.” So we have signalled our intent to move a motion to amend this section to address this issue, and we will deal with that in committee.

Two other real issues that aren’t covered in this legislation are (1) the limiting of corporate deposits to fund the balance sheet and (2) the need for Central 1 to have a lender-of-last-resort credit backstop with the Bank of Canada.

Corporate deposits are large and lumpy and the first to be withdrawn in the event of any issue that’s facing the institution. It is possible that some credit unions may have overfunded their balance sheet — or may in the future — meaning their loans, through corporate deposits, which tend to be short term and mobile. But given that the institutions are typically lending long through mortgages and long-term relationships with small businesses, this is a bit of a risk.

[3:20 p.m.]

This is generally why banks or financial institutions go belly up, because an event creates uncertainty, which creates a deposit run on the bank. Capital is wiped out, and the credit union becomes insolvent, which triggers the deposit insurance. Some type of move to restrict the percentage of corporate deposits on a credit union may be necessary, and this legislation is silent on that risk.

An additional note certainly regarding disclosure that I want to touch on, as my colleague from Vancouver-Langara just did, is the concern around section 51 changes in this bill regarding the protection of confidential information. We understand that there were concerns by the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner that have led to a proposed amendment on the order paper from the minister. Certainly, we think it’s important that we discuss the detail of that in some detail in committee.

I’m pleased that the minister has taken pause and is removing this section. But of course, the change itself also raises some questions that we will inquire about.

Finally, just a rough review of the legislation, overall. The bill does not address, I don’t believe, a number of concerns expressed after Bill 26 was introduced last spring. Specifically, how is the financial authority restricted from applying a one-size-fits-all mentality to regulation?

The reality is that the credit union sector is made up of a large number of institutions. They vary greatly in size and complexity. With that come significant risk differentials for those different-sized credit unions and different profiles. Applying the rules, as has typically been done, to the credit union system without some allowance for the differentials is, potentially, a concern.

Section 9 is a very broad section relating to capital, with no definitive guidelines. Again, through that, I will want to ask the minister how this section would be applied to, say, a Vancity credit union versus a Kootenay credit union.

Overregulation, as we know, costs money, ultimately, to that end-consumer or end-user of a product. It results, then, in poorer customer service or customer experience, and it can make smaller credit unions much more uncompetitive with the larger credit unions or banks that have the resources required to manage higher compliance and regulatory burdens much more effectively.

There’s nothing here about the governance of the financial authority. In Bill 26, there was very little clarity about governance, as discussed in the discussions in the spring. Those concerns were raised, however, with very little clarity on what that governance was going to look like.

The reality is that the credit unions, especially the larger credit unions, are highly complicated businesses. Not just anyone can or should be a director of a financial authority that regulates those organizations. Certainly, there are real differences between credit unions and banks and their operations. Certainly, each industry regulated, whether that be insurance, mortgages, real estate, banks or credit unions, needs to have capable, knowledgeable subject-matter experts representing each sector at the governance level. We’re concerned that may not be the case, as it is not clear how that expertise or expectation will be ensured.

Where is the dispute mechanism or avenue for resolution when the financial authority makes a ruling about a credit union? If the credit union is in disagreement, is there a mechanism for them to appeal, or does that financial authority have absolute power in these cases?

Section 43 gives very broad but vague rule-making authority to the financial authority. Our question, certainly, is going to be: what is the dispute resolution process for the credit unions or insurance or trust companies if they don’t agree with what they’re doing or how those rules are being applied to their business? It does appear, at first blush, that the only mechanism is that the rules have to get public consent and be agreed to by the ministry.

[3:25 p.m.]

While that is something of a check and balance, there is the reality that there are going to be situations that arise where there are rulings around individual credit unions or issues with those credit unions. How are those rules going to be applied to their business, and what does happen if there’s a dispute on a case-specific circumstance?

As my learned colleague from West Van noted earlier, credit unions are uniquely important, in British Columbia especially. They come in all sizes. Vancity, our largest, has $23 billion in assets; Vancouver Firefighters, the smallest, around $17 million in assets. Collectively, we are talking about a sector with an asset size of about $85 billion, and certainly, having the right protections and systems in place to oversee that system is important for the consumer and for our broader financial well-being as a province. So I echo my colleague’s comments that prudence matters.

The Financial Services Authority does need to have contingency plans in place that fit all of the financial institutions it oversees, and one size definitely will not fit all. All the more reason that we should be focused on ensuring that the right mix of skill sets are present in that governance at the FSA. With strong financial administrators, Bill 37 should, and hopefully will, be a good tool.

We will look forward to delving into more detail with the minister at committee, but in general, we are supportive of Bill 37.

S. Bond: We appreciate the opportunity to make a few last comments on behalf of the members of the opposition. I appreciate the comments of my co-critic who has laid out pretty much our road map for how we will pursue getting answers to some of these questions during committee stage.

It is also a great opportunity for us to send good wishes to our colleague the member for Surrey–White Rock. I can assure you that because of her experience and the fantastic work that she has done in this sector, in particular, I’m assuming she’s probably glued to the television at some point. Probably not. But we know that she’ll be providing us with feedback if we don’t entertain a rigorous series of questions about what is a very important sector. We certainly want to send special greetings from the co-critic and I, who happen to be Scorpio sisters along with her. We’re wishing her a great day today.

Also, as the member for Surrey South pointed out, we’re very lucky to be working with our colleagues from Vancouver-Langara and West Vancouver–Capilano who spoke today, who have spent a great deal of time analyzing the legislation. It is not a simple piece of legislation. It’s complex, and we always appreciate the input and the insight that they bring to these debates.

I think one of the key messages that we need to send today is that this bill is actually a culmination of a lot of hard work. It didn’t start yesterday. In fact, it started as far back as 2014-2015, where there were significant discussions and ongoing engagement with the credit union sector. B.C.’s credit unions provided representatives from a wide variety of credit unions across British Columbia to provide feedback and to be engaged in that process. So as you can imagine, it is very much on their radar screen. They want to be sure that they continue to have a sense of engagement, involvement and participation in this process.

It’s taken lots of time and effort on their parts, and I think that, certainly, my co-critic and I want to recognize their involvement and engagement, not only with the government but with the opposition members of the Legislature. It’s important that all of us understand, listen to their issues and bring them here to the Legislature.

Just to cast our minds back for a moment or two, phase 1 of the consultation actually started in September of 2015. I know that there was a great deal of feedback provided to the government of the day. In fact, as has been noted by several of my colleagues, there was a comprehensive set of responses provided to the government. In fact, during that consultation process, the results and the input were actually released publicly.

[3:30 p.m.]

It was actually an opportunity for other people to take a look at what the feedback was so that we could understand how an eventual piece of legislation might arrive in this House and so that we could see it matched the sense of priority that had been placed on a variety of issues.

That consultation took place. In 2017, consultation continued, and we’re grateful that it did. There was a lot of preliminary work done, a lot of time and effort spent, and a second phase of consultation was undertaken.

I should say that in all of the information that my co-critic and I have reviewed…. There was a great deal of effort by credit unions to participate both in phase 1 and in phase 2. They reinvigorated that process, once again saying: “Let’s come back to the table and make sure that when that legislation arises in the House, when it arrives there, it meets the test of those things that have been important to our sector.”

We certainly want to say thank you to the credit union sector. I think they’ve provided a great deal of value and an important perspective on legislation that’s in front of this House today. We need to keep listening and be prepared to respond to that.

[J. Isaacs in the chair.]

I think it’s important to also note that…. This is an area where, perhaps, the phrase “nemine contradicente” comes into play. No one here would disagree with the important role that credit unions play in British Columbia and in the British Columbia economy. In fact, the credit union sector has pointed out that in the work that the governments, both past and current, have done, they have placed value on the role of the credit union.

I think the minister should see that as a compliment as well. Certainly, the credit union sector has said they recognize that in this legislation and in the work that’s been done leading up to it, there has been an inherent sense of agreement about the value and importance of credit unions. I know that my colleagues have referenced it as well.

There is good reason for us to stop and reflect on the benefit that credit unions provide in British Columbia. They’re certainly not one-size-fits-all. They’re very different. There are almost 50 different credit unions operating in British Columbia. If you stop to think about it, these organizations serve a total of almost two million members. In fact, they contribute $1.9 billion to the provincial GDP.

One thing we want to be sure about is…. That’s one of the reasons why we’re going to go through a series of questions during committee stage. We want to get this right. We don’t want to place barriers or inadvertently impact the good work that’s done by credit unions across the province.

When you talk about jobs, for example — let’s take a look for a moment — credit unions directly and indirectly employ more than 16,000 British Columbians. Not only do we see a significant financial benefit. We also see people who get to work in their communities in meaningful ways in credit unions.

The largest credit union, as has been noted, is Vancity. It has more than $22 billion in consolidated assets and — listen to this number — more than 500,000 members. Then we can see the difference, as my colleague referenced, with, for example, the smallest, which is the Vancouver Firefighters Credit Union. It has 1,500 members.

In 2017, credit unions in British Columbia distributed $27.6 million back to their communities through donations, sponsorships, scholarships and more.

I wanted to take a moment to, certainly, reflect on my own personal experience in our community. I can’t begin to tell you the difference that credit unions have made in the community and region that I live in. I’m sure that every single member that has a credit union in their community will say exactly the same thing. They are difference-makers. They have deep roots in our communities, and they make a significant difference.

When we’re thinking about the value proposition…. Of course we want to talk about how the legislation impacts British Columbia’s credit unions’ ability to conduct their business. I think it’s also important to pause and reflect on how they give back in communities like mine and of other members that are sitting in this House today.

As noted earlier, I think it’s important to recognize that…. It’s fair to say that the sector is generally pleased with this legislation. It’s important for us to recognize that. There are important bills that come into the House where there is genuine agreement about the need for the legislation and the vast majority of what’s contained in it.

[3:35 p.m.]

You’ve heard from my colleagues who have spoken before me that there are several areas of concern. Our job as the opposition is to bring those areas to the Legislature to have a discussion with the minister and with the government in the hopes that the best piece of legislation that we can craft together is what the ultimate outcome is.

We’ve had conversations with the credit unions. I know the minister has received input as recently as just a couple of weeks ago from the sector, bringing forward what we think are reasonable and thoughtful suggestions for amendments, for changes. It’s not about scrapping the bill and starting over again. It’s not about the opposition simply saying: “Well, we’re not in favour of the bill.” In fact, nothing could be further from the truth. I think there is a legitimate place in this Legislature for the minister and the government to hear those concerns on a real-time basis and to be willing to step up and make those changes.

You’ve heard two of the areas of specific concern. Let me start with liquidity, to begin with.

The minister is an experienced legislator. In fact, I can remember being on the other side of the House and being taken to task many times by this minister, making sure we got the legislation right and bringing gaps or perceived deficiencies to our attention. Now the roles are reversed. I know the minister is aware that there are several areas of perceived gaps from the credit union perspective — again, in the context of them being, from an overall perspective, very pleased with what has happened to date.

One of the significant pieces when we talk about liquidity is — two words; well, three, I guess: “at all times.” When we look at one of the concerns that has been expressed to us…. Certainly, when we look at the chart, British Columbia is choosing to use language that is different than other jurisdictions in the country. It doesn’t take a lot of homework. You just need to put together a chart and look at language from across the country. It stands out that British Columbia is choosing to use the words “at all times.”

There are potential consequences to the use of that language. It is especially concerning — and it will not work, from our perspective — at times when there is an urgent liquidity event. You’ve heard it described by my much more learned colleague from West Van–Capilano. There’s suddenly going to be a run on the bank, a run on resources. We need to take a moment and think about whether or not it is acceptable to expect that credit unions will have to draw on the mandatory liquidity pool to shore up, basically.

I don’t think that’s a significant adjustment to this piece of legislation. It will be interesting to hear from the minister why it is not timely at this point to actually fix that challenge.

When we think about the 2018 submission…. The system itself, the credit union system, advocated on this subject, as the use of funds would precipitate (a) a breach of legislation — no one in the credit union sector wants to be breaking the law, I can assure you, so they were concerned about that — secondly, resulting in the cancellation of lending covenants and, thirdly, uncertain regulatory consequences. The sector argued that these reasons render the practical intent of the mandatory liquidity pool to be void.

I think it’s important…. As we understand it, the minister isn’t necessarily opposed to making those changes but, apparently, just not making them now. Well, I can assure you…. If we’re in the Legislature of British Columbia, our job is to put together the best, most effective practical legislation we can. I would urge the minister to actually consider….

If that amendment is being considered, even in the short term or longer term, we should be having that discussion now. To wait and assume that we have to come back to the Legislature to fix a piece of legislation doesn’t make sense. In fact, when you think about it, this is an issue that the sector, I think, is speaking very eloquently about.

[3:40 p.m.]

To put it simply…. I know that my colleague has tabled an amendment, but let’s look at it in a nutshell. Let me quote: “Credit unions strongly recommend the removal of ‘at all times’ from section 67, on liquidity.” The continued inclusion of this language is inconsistent with other jurisdictions, and having reviewed a chart looking at all the jurisdictions across the country, that is correct.

We’re going to stand out once again, and, from my perspective, not for a necessarily good reason. It is deeply problematic in a liquidity event, because, as we’ve said — every member who stood to speak about this has said — it forces credit unions to break the law to access their liquidity, which is currently held at Central 1. It may also result in the credit union’s credit facilities being rescinded if they access their statutory deposits first, and it strongly disincents credit unions to continue to hold liquidity collectively — a system that has worked well for more than 30 years.

I know that we will be very interested in trying to understand why the minister is insisting that “at all times” be included in the legislation. In fact, there’s still time to actually deal with that with an amendment that we will table. Perhaps the minister would like to consider tabling one herself. Not to put too fine a point on it, but let’s be clear. Should credit unions — and it’s important to repeat this — be required to access funds, liquidity funds? In the event of an emergency, it would result in breaking the law. I think we need to fix the legislation. I can’t think of many good reasons that we can’t do it as we work through it.

There are a number of other issues that have been raised with the minister. In fact, a letter was sent, which, of course, the opposition was copied on. There are concerns about regulatory uncertainty, making sure that there is ongoing discussion and consultation. So it’s very important to recognize that this is an issue that is fixable. It is advisable, from our perspective, and it, frankly, should take place.

The issue related to the liquidity piece was actually raised previously in the system’s response to the consultation paper that was issued by the Ministry of Finance, and that was in April of 2018. In fact, on page 16, it is specifically noted there.

From our perspective, the minister has an opportunity to listen again. I’m certainly not implying that she hasn’t been listening. In fact, as I said, the sector finds the legislation generally acceptable and feels quite encouraged by it, but there are some tweaks that could be made. Without those tweaks, there is the potential for consequences, either unintended or intended, that would have a significant impact for credit unions in British Columbia.

The other item that was raised by my colleague was the issue of privacy and the Privacy Commissioner. This isn’t the first time that there seems to be a willingness to ask, or perhaps a reminder that an ask needs to be made of the Privacy Commissioner, when we’re talking about the collection of data and personal information. But when the information comes back, there seems to be a reluctance to adopt it.

Once again, not that we want to look back in history, but I can assure you that time after time after time, members on the government side, when they were on this side of the benches, talked about the importance of the protection of privacy and the importance of collecting that information.

We are concerned. We will look forward to…. We understand that a potential resolution or some sort of suggestion to deal with a difference of opinion or approach, on behalf of the Privacy Commissioner, will be discussed. We’re not aware of what that is, but it is our job to raise concerns about that. That’s exactly what my colleagues and I have done.

[3:45 p.m.]

We look at some of the other questions that certainly will be important for the minister and her team to respond to — once again, the issue of rule-making authority. The legislation enhances significantly the regulator’s ability to make and enforce rules. When you think about that, if there isn’t clarity around how that’s interpreted, there can be a significant challenge.

From an industry perspective, what assurance does the industry have that these rules will be enforced fairly? Will there be feedback, and will it be meaningfully considered and implemented? If appropriate, is there a willingness to change those guidelines and look at how they work? And most critically, from many people’s perspective, is: is there an appeal mechanism? We need answers to those questions. If the industry is dissatisfied with how the superintendent has interpreted a rule, is there a place for appeal, a place to take that discussion?

Candidly, we’ve had this discussion before in this chamber and in committee, when it came to the superintendent of real estate in British Columbia. There was a series of regulations and rules in place. It’s the interpretation that causes challenges. I know we spent a lot of time during the estimates process talking to the minister about how the superintendent looked at those regulations and implemented them and how the interpretation took place.

There was a great deal of concern in the real estate sector. We don’t want to see that repeated in the credit union sector. We want to be sure that we have a good sense of what the rule-making authority is. What is the role of the sector as it gets to respond?

Deposit insurance. The credit union system recommended splitting the boards of the deposit insurer and the regulator. It’s recommended international best practice, in this case, in most other jurisdictions, including federally. So we’re going to want to have some conversation about those kinds of things.

Again, significant to the sector is certainly the issue of capital and liquidity. B.C. credit unions are the only financial institutions in the country that are constrained by a capital penalty on commercial business lending that is greater than 30 percent of their overall loan portfolio. When you think about that, this means they can’t lend to small businesses that desperately need access to capital. I can tell you that probably every member in this Legislature has had visits from people who are looking to access capital and having no luck whatsoever in getting it.

It also means that credit unions cannot…. Nor can they lend to developers who are working to increase housing stock. Well, let me tell you. We’ve heard a lot about the government’s housing plan, their 30-point plan. Well, here is a barrier. These organizations cannot lend to developers who are working to increase housing stock in the middle of what is considered a housing crisis.

Again, that is the kind of thoughtful, important input that’s been provided to the minister and to my colleagues.

One of the things I very much appreciate about my colleague from West Van–Capilano…. He provided us with a summary of what Bill 37 does for credit unions. It’s a very long list. As he pointed out, it’s a really…. This is “quite a long do list,” both for the credit union and its regulator. If you look at the substantive inclusion of changes and work…. He calls it “this 11-point checklist.” I won’t go on to say how he described it because only he can do it justice.

The fact of the matter is that there is a significant to-do list here, an 11-point checklist that we’re certainly going to be looking at and holding the government accountable for. How do we help the credit unions facilitate the 11-point checklist that the member has provided?

In the briefing that we received…. Once again, we always appreciate the briefings that the minister and her staff pro­vide for us. It’s an important part of the work that we do on the opposition. We absolutely understand that after a decade you probably need to take a look at the legislation. We also understand that changes are likely necessary when you look at keeping up in the modern world that we live in.

Our job and that of the minister is to make sure that the regulator balances the interests of the sector that it oversees but maintains the goal of preserving the integrity of financial institutions in the interest of consumer protection. We’ll certainly look forward to committee stage on this bill, where we can look at those aspects in greater detail.

[3:50 p.m.]

Again, is it important? Absolutely, it is, because credit unions, as I pointed out earlier, are significant contributors to our province, when you think about $1.9 billion to the provincial GDP, 16,000 direct and indirect jobs. We don’t want to overburden credit unions with regulation and compliance, especially for smaller credit unions. These are not necessarily massive organizations in British Columbia. Every time we give them an 11-point checklist, you can assure yourself that there are going to be challenges.

The Vancouver Firefighters Credit Union, as we pointed out, has 1,500 members, quite in contrast to a credit union that has 500,000 members. So we need to make sure that the minister and the government consider proportionality in light of the proposed changes. That’s essential as we look at the legislation, going forward.

I think you can tell from our comments that, generally speaking, both the sector and the opposition see a great deal of merit in the bill, based on work and consultation that’s taken place literally over a significant number of years. We think that the credit union sector itself has been a significant contributor to the creation of the legislation, and what they’re asking for now is an opportunity to make sure that we get it right — not somewhere down the road by bringing the bill back to the House for amendments. Let’s get it right now.

Let’s make sure that we take into consideration those thoughtful recommendations that have been made. We’re certainly going to be looking for clarity around the issue of the protection of privacy. The discussions that have been ongoing with the Privacy Commissioner…. Probably our most significant concern is related to liquidity and that little, tiny phrase that can make a huge difference at all times.

With that, I want to thank the minister for the opportunity to speak, for the opportunity to be briefed by her staff. I look forward to having a constructive discussion during committee stage and, hopefully, the chance to see government in action, working across the aisle, to actually fix what we think could be fixed at this session of parliament to make the bill more reflective of where the credit union sector would like to be.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak today.

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

Hon. C. James: Thank you to all the speakers on Bill 37. I appreciate, as always, the discussion that occurs at both second reading and committee stage and the opportunity to be able to have a good discussion on something that truly has actually crossed over governments. This was a discussion, as I mentioned in second reading, as other members have mentioned. This was a process that began previously, under the previous government, and continued on with the current government.

For those who believe there are rare opportunities for us to continue to have information and action cross over…. Just because one government did it doesn’t necessarily mean it was a bad thing. Just because the other guys took it on doesn’t mean it was a bad thing. I think this is a perfect example. I know it will be shocking to some members in the House, but I think this is a perfect example where there was good consultation done, good discussion, and a document and a piece of legislation has come forward from that.

I think there are a couple of pieces where there certainly is unanimity across the Legislature. One, of course, would be our support for the credit union sector. I think it’s very clear that there is great support for the credit union sector in this Legislature and great support for the incredible work they do in communities — often the only financial institution in a community, often the organization that is there providing support to Little League, to the community organizations, to volunteer days. Often many credit unions and communities will do volunteer days where all of their members go out and do volunteer work in the communities. The personal touch that people have seen….

Credit unions were always the financial institution of my family’s choice. So as we grew up, we, of course, became credit union members as well. My kids became credit union members — and my grandkids now. My granddaughter now has her first debit card from a credit union.

[3:55 p.m.]

I think it really shows the kind of support and loyalty there is to the credit union sector, certainly a strong sector in British Columbia. If you take a look at our province compared to other provinces, the co-op sector, the credit union sector as well, is a very strong part of the culture of our province. I certainly see that as a commonality across the aisles.

I think the other piece that I heard strong support for was a regulatory framework that works, recognizing that there’s an importance of having a regulatory framework that will meet the modern challenges. Things have changed. Things can’t stay static when you look at the pace of change, particularly in the financial sector. So having a strong regulatory framework that works, I think, is important.

Certainly, two issues that the member raised…. I know there’ll be other questions as we go through this, but I know we’ll have a good discussion around the liquidity. There are differences of opinion on that issue, and that’s certainly what has to be, as the member would know well, taken into account when you take a look at a consultation and bringing forward legislation. I’m sure we’ll have a good discussion on that issue.

The privacy issue that the member raised. In fact, before the Legislature rose, I did table an amendment. It is on the order paper, so it is available for all members. It’s been there for a couple of weeks, just so people are aware that that’s there. That was, again, after good discussion and good direction around why we were moving in this direction. Then, as the legislation was coming in, again, another comment from the Privacy Commissioner. I think, again, we’ll have a good opportunity.

I look forward to committee stage. With that, I move second reading of Bill 37.

Motion approved.

Hon. C. James: I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 37, Financial Institutions Amendment Act, 2019, 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. C. James: With that, I’ll call second reading of Bill 38, Climate Change Accountability Amendment Act.

BILL 38 — CLIMATE CHANGE
ACCOUNTABILITY
AMENDMENT ACT, 2019

Hon. G. Heyman: I move that this bill be read a second time now.

In the past months, in particular, we’ve seen unprecedented numbers of people drawing attention to the climate emergency that faces the globe. We’ve seen millions of people marching. We’ve seen young people demanding that their concerns for their future be heard.

Anyone who turns on their television these days has seen wildfires raging through California, raging through Australia just as we’ve seen them, in the past, rage through British Columbia. There is no doubt that people are concerned that we are at a tipping point. We’re also at a tipping point of public opinion. The recent federal election showed very clearly that Canadians wanted a significant concern to be addressed in the election debates to be the concerns about climate change, and Canadians voted, in the vast majority, for parties that promised action on climate change.

The amendments that have been introduced to the Climate Change Accountability Act will legislate a comprehensive climate action accountability framework. These will include annual reporting requirements and an independent advisory committee, as well as new regulatory authorities to help achieve the public sector emission reduction and climate change preparedness and resilience goals outlined in our CleanBC climate and economic plan.

Accountability on greenhouse gas emissions will be streng­thened by requiring the Minister of Environment and Climate Change Strategy to set, through an order by December 31, 2020, an interim target for a year before 2030, and to set sectoral targets for 2030 by March 31, 2021. The interim target will serve as an important benchmark to help keep government on track to reach our 2030 legislated greenhouse gas emission reduction target. The sectoral targets will provide guidance and an important reference point to government; to the independent advisory council; and, of course, to British Columbians. These will provide a check on how we’re doing in our efforts.

[4:00 p.m.]

They will allow us to maximize carbon reduction efforts that prove particularly effective, and they will allow us to ensure that all sectors contribute to our provincewide effort to reduce carbon pollution and greenhouse gas emissions, to address the threat of climate change that faces us.

As I mentioned, the legislation also establishes an advisory committee made up of representatives from a range of important groups in our province, including Indigenous people, local governments, environmental organizations, business groups, academics and labour unions, and in­clud­ing people living in rural and remote communities, not just in urban centres. The representatives will draw on their own unique expertise and knowledge when they, as a group, advise government on clean economic growth and climate action.

This committee, in addition to providing advice to government, will support the holding of government to account through reviews of our progress towards our CleanBC commitments and plans, including matters related to climate preparedness and adaptation. The council will also be asked to help identify economic opportunities and issues related to affordability for British Columbians and maintaining competitiveness of B.C. industries.

In summary, the advisory committee will provide advice to the minister related to plans and actions to reduce emissions and manage climate change risks, opportunities for sustainable economic development and job creation, house­hold and community affordability, business competitiveness as it relates to transitioning to a low-carbon economy and other matters related to climate change or as specified by the minister.

Just to be clear, we expect this independent advisory committee to play an important role, a role related to transparency of the actions of government, and to be a channel for British Columbians from all sectors of our community and society to address the issue of climate change, to provide ideas and to make suggestions about everything ranging from our targets to our actions to our preparedness.

The legislative requirement to establish this advisory committee delivers on a CleanBC commitment to establish an advisory council that reports publicly on government’s progress, that undertakes independent reviews of proposed climate actions, that reviews ongoing policies and programs and that advises government on actions to keep us on track to meet our greenhouse gas emission reduction targets and our actions to manage climate change risks.

This committee continues the work of an advisory committee that we established in 2017 to provide strategic advice to our government on climate action and clean economic growth, advice that helped shape our CleanBC climate and economic plan. But these proposed amendments go a step further by legislating the creation of a permanent advisory committee so that future governments will benefit from the advice of representatives from a diversity of sectors, geographical locations within our province and expertise across British Columbia.

British Columbians will also benefit from regular and independent assessment and review of government’s actions to meet our climate commitments, as well as the adequacy and strength of government’s plans to address the climate emergency. This will be made transparently available through inclusion of the advisory committee’s annual advice to the minister in the minister’s annual report to the Legislature.

As I’ve said, the bill will further enhance the transparency and accountability of reporting under the Climate Change Accountability Act by increasing the frequency and specificity of the information required to be reported to the Legislature and to British Columbians.

First, reports will be required annually and will be tabled in the Legislature. The contents of the annual report will include provincial greenhouse gas emissions and climate change risks from past-year estimates as well as from the latest verified year, planned actions by government to reduce emissions and to manage climate change risks, and the committed expenditures to do so for a three-year period going forward, in the same way that the government tables a fiscal plan.

[4:05 p.m.]

We will also report on the anticipated outcomes of our actions and expenditures in terms of greenhouse gas emission reduction. As mentioned, we’ll report the advice received from the advisory committee. It will, in fact, be included in the report itself. We will address new plans that we may make to continue reducing greenhouse gas emissions and to manage climate risks, as well as the most recent information that we have that changes and needs to be updated on a regular basis with respect to climate risks to British Columbia.

Along these lines, we recently released, in July, the Preliminary Strategic Climate Risk Assessment, which assessed provincially significant climate risks using a scenario-based approach. The assessment found that climate change increases the likelihood of these high-risk events. The report identified B.C.’s greatest risks as severe wildfire seasons, seasonal water shortage, heatwave, ocean acidification, glacier mass loss and long-term water shortage and the risks with the highest consequences as severe riverine flooding and severe coastal storm surge, though relatively low likelihood reduces their overall risk.

Nearly all risk events would have at least major consequences in at least one category. The majority of risk events would have severe — severe — economic consequences. Under the new reporting proposed in this act, this risk assessment will be updated every five years.

This bill will also improve government’s ability to model GHG reduction measures through the creation of new regulatory authorities. This will allow the ministry to work across the public sector to identify and propose regulatory requirements and targets for public sector buildings and vehicle fleets that will reduce our greenhouse gas emissions in the public sector, that will increase energy efficiency, that will reduce adverse environmental effects from the operation of public sector buildings and that will help prepare public sector buildings for a changing climate.

Canada’s climate has warmed and will warm further in the future, driven by human influence and actions. We know that. We also know that now is the time to take measures to change this trend, to change this curve, to avoid avoidable disastrous impacts on our homes, on our communities, on our livelihoods and on our economy. It’s reported that since 1948, Canada’s annual average temperature over land has warmed 1.7 degrees centigrade, with higher rates seen in the north, including northern British Columbia, and also in the prairies. We can’t afford to let these increases go further in British Columbia, in Canada or globally.

While B.C. will have warmer temperatures in all regions, each region will face different climate impacts. As an example, while winter rainfall is anticipated to increase throughout the province, some places, such as southern Vancouver Island, will likely experience considerably less rain in the summer, while other regions, such as the northeast of B.C., will see more precipitation across all seasons.

Generally, climate change in B.C. is likely to include more intense and frequent heavy rain events, changes in growing seasons for crops and gardens, increased drought and water shortages, larger and more frequent wildfires, changes in stream flow patterns and lake levels, rising sea levels, changes in plant and animal distributions and smaller snowpack and loss of glaciers. That list should be enough to raise concerns amongst all of us. It should be enough to point to the fact that the status quo is not good enough. It should be enough that we need not just words and plans. We need actions and accountability for the future.

[4:10 p.m.]

The future of our ability to feed ourselves, the future of our ecosystems, the future of our communities and the future of our economy will look bleaker and bleaker. But we have an opportunity, not just in British Columbia but around the world, to take meaningful action that can make life better for everyone.

Shortly after being appointed as minister, I had the opportunity to attend the UN conference known as the Conference of the Parties, in Bonn, to discuss both agreements internationally to address climate change, as well as actions that are happening in jurisdictions around the world, particularly in subnational jurisdictions like British Columbia. A couple of things really struck me, because I was invited to speak on a number of panels. What struck me immediately was the impact on Indigenous populations that remain deeply attached culturally through language and through livelihood to the territories and lands on which they have lived for millennia.

It’s not just in Canada and British Columbia. It’s around the world. These populations are already feeling the impacts of climate change in their ability to feed themselves, in the traditional harvests that sustain their people, as well as what the future looks like, whether it is from water, whether it is from plants and animals, whether it is from fish or whether it is from flooding on low-lying island communities on which many of them, as I’ve said, have made their home for millennia.

It struck me that we need to do better. It struck me that climate change wasn’t something that we would experience in the future. It’s something that we’re experiencing now.

When I’ve met recently and over the past two years with representatives of Indigenous nations — whether it’s at the First Nations leadership gathering, whether it’s at government-to-government discussions or whether it’s in delegations — people increasingly, from Indigenous communities, tell me that one of their top priorities is to address climate change, to have a climate change plan, to work with the governments of British Columbia and Canada to have integrated climate change plans and to ensure that their traditional Indigenous knowledge and experience help inform the actions that we take to safeguard the future.

It’s not just youth demanding action and accountability. We hear from groups and individuals across the province, including the Catalyst Business Coalition, including the members of the Climate Solutions and Clean Growth Advisory committee, including municipal governments, including Indigenous populations and nations. That strong transparency and accountability are important aspects of the fight against climate change and making progress and policies to manage climate risks that are becoming ever more present, ever more obvious and ever more threatening.

We also see that climate change has come to the fore as a key aspect, as I mentioned, in the debates around the federal election because Canadians across the country are worried about the future. They’re demanding that governments take action.

These amendments to the Climate Change Accountability Act are our next step, the next step that we are taking as a government and that I think we can collectively take here in British Columbia.

In B.C., 28 municipalities, four regional districts and a school district have now declared climate emergencies. But they don’t have to declare a climate emergency for us to know one exists. We know one exists. We’re trying to take action as a government to address the emergency through our CleanBC climate action and economic plan. We heard about this topic repeatedly at this year’s Union of B.C. Municipalities conference in September.

[4:15 p.m.]

Our government recognizes the dedicated climate action that has already been taken at the municipal level, and these amendments will support that action through enhanced reporting and accountability, an increased focus on managing climate risks, a joint task force with local governments through the Union of B.C. Municipalities and on a range of other leadership actions that we must take and will take in the provincial public service.

Young people, young leaders, students in British Columbia, across Canada and around the world are demanding that world leaders take meaningful action to protect their future. They’ve been joined by their parents, by worried adults, by others, but young people are saying to us: “We have our lives ahead of us. Help us to have hope and assurance that that life will be meaningful, that we can enjoy the livelihoods, the nature, the security of food and water, the climate that doesn’t threaten human life, animal life and plant life through uncontrollable heatwaves or droughts.”

We’ve seen student strikes begun by a young student activist in Sweden. We’ve seen them grow. We’ve seen millions march in the streets of Canada and around the world demanding that governments take action, that governments take our responsibility seriously. People often say that when 3½ percent of the world’s population is willing to show up and be counted to demand change, that is an impetus to drive government to make change. I believe we’re at that point. I believe more and more, around the world, governments will be forced to take action.

British Columbia has been blessed by having begun some serious climate actions 11 years ago, and we’re honoured to have the opportunity to build and advance those as the climate emergency becomes more pronounced.

I was in the United Nations General Assembly this past September at the UN climate change summit. I had the opportunity to hear a number of young people, including Greta Thunberg, speak to delegates from around the world about the urgent need for action and their not just hope but their demand that we take action. Our young leaders, our young people are looking for more than targets. They’re looking for and demanding accountability from us, from today’s governments, to keep our promises and to take real and measurable actions to safeguard their future, to safeguard our collective future and to safeguard our planet’s future.

Rapid, far-reaching and unprecedented changes are required to respond to the threat of climate change and to reduce the impacts on ecosystems, on human health, on human well-being, on our communities, on global well-being as well as on our livelihoods and economies. We can’t afford to miss the opportunity to protect our communities and to build the clean economy for British Columbia that we’ve envisioned in CleanBC. That’s why we call it a climate and economic plan.

This is our future. It’s our kids’ future. It’s our grandkids’ future. They demand accountability. Accountability to them is our responsibility. This bill is our commitment to young people and to all British Columbians concerned about our collective future. This bill is our commitment to answer their demands and to be measured against our promises.

A year ago I was proud to introduce a well-thought-out, detailed plan called CleanBC to achieve our legislated greenhouse gas reduction targets for 2030 and to transition to a cleaner, low-carbon economy, working with Indigenous people, working with communities, working with local governments, working with the business community. Today I’m proud to introduce one other commitment in CleanBC: the commitment of accountability and transparency. Today I’m proud to speak to this bill, as I was proud to introduce it in this House.

[4:20 p.m.]

R. Coleman: I appreciate the opportunity this afternoon to rise and speak to Bill 38 today. Just to the minister and his remarks, I would remind him it’s…. Frankly, it’s not young people. I think it’s every person. I think it’s my generation, the generation that have gone before me and the generations that are coming behind me, including my children and grandchildren, that have an interest in this particular issue relative to climate change and the future of our world.

It’s a pleasure to speak to Bill 38. I believe it’s important to point out, though, from the beginning, that CleanBC was created after a long and successfully implemented climate strategy from the previous government. People shouldn’t forget about the work that was done in 2007, even by the leader of the Green Party, who was an adviser on a process that took place in 2006, 2007, 2008.

I was on that group. I sat through 168 half-hour-to-an-hour meetings from every piece of the economy and every piece from anybody from David Suzuki through to the new car dealers, through to mining interests and public interest, young and old, with regards to the climate and what we could do for the climate in British Columbia.

It has, in fact, been — this particular bill — developed on much of the same targets that the previous plan had, which I think, frankly, is just a compliment to the work that was done before. I’ve never felt that climate should be a political thing or this should be something with regard to climate change. It’s simply that today we’re updating what was basically a B.C. Liberal climate plan and addressing reporting mechanisms. Basically, the government is trying to portray the bill as new progress on the fight to tackle climate change when, in fact, it is nothing new compared to the previous government.

I think we should recognize, though, how tough it was back in 2007 and 2008 — the work and the input and the discussions. I know the member opposite will remember, because back in those days, coming into what we didn’t know was going to be a financial crisis, we put a $30-a-tonne carbon tax in British Columbia, a revenue-neutral carbon tax to be reinvested in clean technology and other aspects of the economy to improve and change behaviour with regards to the climate.

Now, we did that to huge opposition, including a campaign in 2009 when the government of today ran a campaign on axing the tax — axe the tax, get rid of the carbon tax, don’t have it at all — and tried to actually fight climate change back in that day. Obviously, things change, and people grow and learn, which I did in ’06, ’07 and ’08 as I sat through those meetings and did that consultation and had to understand climate and understand the importance of a carbon tax that might actually change behaviour and bring things to the fore.

You know, there are a few new elements in the legislation that we have before us today. One is the establishment of a statutory advisory committee, which is to be made up of 50 percent women, according to the information I’ve read from the minister. I have no problem with that at all. I think, frankly, we should have fair representation on these advisory committees. Increased frequency reporting on GHG emissions. I think that’s important. Finally, in the bill, you set emission targets for public sector organizations.

Let me step back to the emissions on the increased frequency of reporting. I think we have a weakness today with regard to GHGs and reporting. I will give you an example that I dealt with just on Saturday, sitting down with a group of citizens who are being not only polluted by an onslaught of sound and light — in excess of one million square feet of cannabis growing under glass — and onslaughted by the smell of that particular facility, which the federal government needs to step up and enforce the law on….

Because of the sheer amount of power that’s required for this particular facility, it is using diesel-powered generation versus the grid to power this operation. So the noise comes from the generation, but so do the emissions. The emissions of diesel I don’t think, in a farming practice or any practice, is a practical clean energy solution to how you will grow a crop, particularly when you’re doing it in an area where there are homes and other farms and communities.

What’s not new or accounted for in this legislation is any further plan to reduce the emissions in order to reach targeted numbers. Now, currently there’s only a plan laid out by the government to hit 75 percent of set targets. The CleanBC plan fails to address 25 percent of emissions and offers no plan on how it will address the missing 25 percent of target emissions. That’s pretty significant, because that 25 percent will likely be the hardest and most difficult 25 percent to find.

[4:25 p.m.]

As we go through that…. I know the member, the leader of the Green Party, who was, I think…. I don’t know if he remembers the first time we met back in the climate days. But learning about all of this was interesting. I think a lot of us sat around those tables and listened to people like Dr. David Suzuki and others about how there was a global issue here and that emissions travel through the atmosphere and the fact of the matter that emissions are being given out in China or the United States or other countries — and how those things that affect global climate change are going to be very important.

B.C. is a very small percentage of this. But B.C. has actually become, because of our carbon tax — which, by the way, was internationally awarded an award for the climate change action and for the carbon tax — a leader. Other countries need to step up and follow.

I got into a conversation when I was down in California recently with some folks about emissions and green energy in California. It was interesting because I said to them: “Do you know where your electricity comes from?” They said: “No. It comes from hydroelectric and wind and solar.” I said: “Well, actually, if you go on line, you can find out the mix of power in California, and you’ll find that over 30 percent of your power in California still comes from coal. Another 30-plus percent comes from natural gas. Then there’s a mix at the back end of the rest of it.”

I said: “Did you know that the air coming in the air filter of a modern car on your freeways is dirtier than the air that comes out of a tailpipe today because of how cars actually treat air in a modern car?”

We had quite a discussion. I said that someday we have to come to grips as to what is the clean part of this equation. The electric car is absolutely one of the solutions to emissions. But what fuels that electric car is electricity. If the electricity comes into jurisdictions like ours, where 98 percent of our energy is clean energy, it’s a big deal. But if it’s coming from burning dirty solutions to electricity, it’s not as much of a solution.

Then we get into the discussion back in the day about where else this power is being used and where coal is being burned, as one of the biggest pollutants. Of course, we all know how fast and how quickly coal-powered plants are being built in China on a regular basis. To reduce emissions, you can imagine if we changed all of China’s coal to natural gas, what impact it would have on the global side of climate change. I think it’s significant to always remember that there is a global side to climate change, not just a regional one.

That’s why I always believe that LNG was a good thing to get into those countries and replace coal. You will see a huge difference as the infrastructure goes into India, and they start to replace what they’re powering their country with, with a cleaner type of energy. All of that can be transitioned. Eventually we’ll get to other forms of power that are even cleaner. As we get to those, we’ll be able to change the world together and, obviously, change our own future in British Columbia.

The CleanBC plan fails at that 25 percent. I’m sure that during committee stage, our critic will be asking questions about that. But there are further clarifications needed as well. For instance, in section 2, the minister is already permitted to set interim and discretionary emission charges. Therefore, the section is redundant if you can play with those targets by just having the minister’s discretion take over. I’m not saying that it would, but I’m saying it’s there and needs to be clarified as we discuss the bill.

The accountability framework has been changed under section 5. It’s important that we would seek clarity on why the minister believes it’s better to change the climate risk reporting requirements from a biannual process to once every five years, as this is effectively diluting the reporting process.

Moving to the advisory committee, which I mentioned earlier. Basically, the mix, I have no problem with. But obviously, there will be some concern and discussions about other groups — like given that UNDRIP is before the Legislature, what will be the mix with First Nations on that advisory committee — with regards to future discussions. There will be clarity as to how much the costs will be as it comes through all of this, in addition to other things we may want to do as to how the ministry will be able to collect more data and currently do in order to make a new reporting requirement.

[4:30 p.m.]

At the end of the day, this act does not change anything for British Columbia. It’s simply rebranding of a previous policy. I get that. I’m good with that, because I think it’s a compliment to the work that started way back in ’06 and ’07 and even going through a whole election period, where the government of the day is now wanting clean energy, CleanBC. It wants standards. It wants to measure and all of that versus saying: “Axe the tax.” Well, that’s a good thing.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

I should, though, inject at this point in time that $30 a tonne, at the time, was reinjected into reducing other taxes and incenting the marketplace. Today it’s $50 a tonne, or it will soon be $50 a tonne. It goes to general revenue and no longer to incent the change that this, CleanBC, actually hopes to achieve. It loses its purpose when you don’t have the incentive and the investment of those moneys in other clean energy opportunities.

It’s also unclear to me how this legislation will fit with LNG and CleanBC. It’s wonderful to see the government embrace LNG — the election was over — and move towards the LNG project and others that are coming. Now we need to know how it’s going to fit in, what form of energy is needed for that, where the energy will come from and how we will deal with those emissions relative to our long-term plans.

We’re all actually working to reduce emissions. I don’t think there’s anybody that has a particular soapbox they can stand on, on this issue. I know from talking to people, both young and old, that this is a concern. People see different forms of climate things that take place that are more severe and more dramatic, things like the pine beetle and forest fires and floods and some of the more severe storms we see. But they want the world to work on this, not just in isolation in one jurisdiction.

We need to think of that as we go forward, particularly when we have conversations about a clean energy solution, a cleaner energy solution, that there would be for China and India with regard to how they create their power versus coal. All of those things go into the emissions of the world, move around our atmosphere and actually affect us all.

Obviously, as we do this, and we want to reduce emissions, what we need to remember is we can’t download this so it affects the economy. We have to have a fiscal plan with regard to it so that when we collect the tax, we’re collecting it on emissions and, therefore, not just penalizing those below in the food chain.

Ironically, when our government had a $30 carbon tax, we collected carbon tax on 41.6 megatonnes of emissions. Yet under CleanBC, at a $50 carbon tax, the government is budgeting for emissions to rise to 44 megatonnes. So whatever you’re doing, and whatever you did with the $50 carbon tax, is not having an effect on emissions. They’re going up, and they’re going up at a pace that would not be sustainable in the future for CleanBC or anything, as you measure this.

In a three-year period, the first three fiscal years under CleanBC, you’re actually seeing emissions rise under the plan, as I said. The government should make sure the public understands the financial impact of it and how record high gas prices are right now. This would be a pretty good discussion in committee stage. I think it’s very important that we all understand that we are expected to try and come up with solutions, not just committees and not just measurements but solutions.

The whole notion of all that work that was done prior to the introduction of a carbon tax and putting emission standards in place back in 2009, which an election was fought over, was that somebody had to step up to begin this somewhere. This jurisdiction was first. We’re actually the first with a carbon tax, and we’re still probably the only jurisdiction with a functioning carbon tax.

As we see other types of taxes and whatever put into place, I don’t see them working. I do have the concern, though, that the $50-a-tonne tax is not being reinvested in clean energy, not being reinvested in incentives and taxation to actually encourage the economy to get cleaner but, rather, is going into general revenue.

[4:35 p.m.]

Having been on executive council and having been on Treasury Board, I know the tendency is for those moneys, now they’re in there, to have a whole bunch of other priorities attached to them that will not include necessarily the whole idea that those moneys would be reinvested to reduce emissions and have a better outcome on the economy and on climate change.

We’ve gone from a conversation where people used to call it global warming to climate change. We’ve gone from a discussion where people didn’t understand the long-term impacts of those in just a little over a decade. Actually, it’s a decade since there was a carbon tax.

We’ve seen people change their understanding and ac­cep­tance of a carbon tax, including the existing government, who, like I say, fought the carbon tax and campaigned against it with the Axe the Tax campaign back when it was first put into place. So that means you’ve grown in your understanding of the importance of climate change, as we all have and as we all need to.

As the minister said, the young people are expecting something from us. I think everybody is expecting something from us. I think what it is…. They want to see us do this in such a way that we are accountable, that we’re not wasteful, that we make sure we put in solutions that will actually encourage a change in behaviour.

The opportunity for us to lead in the world will continue because of the work that was done and will continue to be done in this House by its members and by the communities across our great province.

A. Weaver: It’s a great honour for me to be able to stand here to speak in support, at second reading, of Bill 38, the Climate Change Accountability Amendment Act.

Let me start by saying…. I thank the Minister of Environment for bringing this in. This was a lot of work, I know, bringing it in. There were many, many hours of discussions about the importance of various targets, the sectoral targets and interim targets. One of the highlights of my time in this Legislature has been the pleasure of working with the Minister of Environment in developing both this climate accountability legislation as well as CleanBC before that. I mean that in all sincerity. I raise my hands and thank the minister for his work in this effort.

You know, incorporating a rigorous accountability framework into the climate policies we have jointly developed with government was not only a key priority for me. It was a clear condition of our continued collaboration with this government. I’m very pleased that it has continued to this day and will continue in the foreseeable future.

As a climate scientist, I know that transparent, accurate, timely and publicly accessible data is absolutely crucial to achieving our climate commitments and, actually, to ensuring that the public trusts that government will deliver into it, for words like “trust us” are simply not good public policy.

Now, throughout my scientific career, I’ve advised and criticized numerous governments on their climate policies. The member from Langley just discussed some of the earlier issues with respect to his government under the leadership of Gordon Campbell, where indeed very fine climate policy, quite internationally leading at the time, was brought into the province of British Columbia.

Unfortunately, many other jurisdictions, as well as in B.C., bring these policies forth and then fail to live up to the commitments that they brought them forward to actually address. That is true not only of the previous government, where in 2010 the commitment to this issue essentially fell by the wayside as the leaders changed. Ultimately, that’s what prompted me to run for politics.

What prompted me to run for politics was being part of the previous administration’s Climate Action Team, meeting with the Premier at the time, numerous times, on an ongoing basis, meeting with the cabinet to have presentations on climate science, really fruitful discussions with stakeholders. To me, that was a government that understood the direction that this needed to go and recognized, as all governments should, that every single environmental challenge really is nothing more than an opportunity for innovation and prosperity in addressing that challenge.

I ran, as you know, in 2013 because I felt that we’d lost our way in B.C. I’m very pleased to say that I think now we’re seeing the way actually moving forward in a direction that will address this problem, perhaps not to the extent that I’d like, perhaps not to the extent that some others would like, but certainly as a leader in North America in terms of pathways to emissions reductions.

[4:40 p.m.]

Let me consider a couple of major reports that have been published this last year to put some context of why we need to deal with this and why the accountability act is so important to ensure that transparency, moving forward, is there for not only government but also for the people of British Columbia.

As you will note, in 2018, the IPCC released a special report, in which the world’s leading climate scientists warned that we don’t have a lot of time if we want to keep warming to below 2 degrees. To be perfectly blunt, we know that the world has already warmed by over a degree. We know that we have a committed warming of about 0.6 degrees to existing levels of greenhouse gases.

Now, my friend opposite from Langley mentioned the importance of reducing coal emissions from China, and I concur. Coal is a significant source of greenhouse gases. But what is not often said is that coal is also a significant source of particulate matter and black carbon. Now, particulate matter, these so-called aerosols in the atmosphere, actually cool the planet.

One of the ironies of actually replacing coal with natural gas is that particulate matter decreases. When the particulate matter decreases, its effect on not only cloud formation but also on the direct scattering of radiation back to the sun is that we get an amplification of the warming. So in fact, it’s not quite as simple as saying: “Replace coal by natural gas. We get less warming.” Because, in fact, replace coal with natural gas, and there’s a warming jump as the particulate matter associated with the coal is scrubbed out of the atmosphere.

As I said, we’ve already warmed by one degree. We have 0.6 degrees committed warming to existing levels of greenhouse gases, and not a single climate model in the world has actually accounted for the permafrost carbon feedback, which we know will add another 0.2 to 0.3 degrees. So even this notion that somehow we’re going to keep warming to below 1½ degrees is really not on.

You can see that in the IPCC reports. The IPCC report, this special edition one, quite clearly indicates that negative emissions are required in order for us to meet the 1½ degree target. That doesn’t mean we can’t meet the 2 degree target — but negative emissions.

Some might take this as something to be distraught about. But rather, again, we should be viewing this as an incredible economic opportunity. Negative emissions means economic opportunity, means taking carbon out of the atmosphere and means companies like Carbon Engineering in Squamish are potentially game-changers in our broader society. That’s the kind of technology and knowledge — initially started by a friend of mine, David Keith, who’s now at Harvard — that can actually game-change the world. And it’s here in B.C. I’ll come back to that in a bit.

A few months after that IPCC report Canada’s Changing Climate Report was published by the federal government. It noted what the scientific community has known for a very long time — that northern Canada is warming at twice the global rate. That’s no surprise to anybody who has been in this field.

It also talked about B.C. as being particularly vulnerable to drought. We’ve seen that in recent years. Glacier loss. Well, I can tell you, from the work done by a fellow friend of mine named Shawn Marshall at the University of Calgary, that all southern glaciers in British Columbia will be gone this century. That’s really something we can’t stop. There are very profound effects with that that will occur as a direct consequence of that.

There are also issues with respect to sea level rise. It’s quite complex because of the way that sea level rise is not a global rise. There are regional differences. I suspect there’ll be issues moving forward in the delta, in terms of salination of existing farmland.

Now, shortly after that report, the UN Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services put out a report and stated, in stark terms, that we’re in the midst of an extinction crisis, with a million species likely disappearing within the next few decades. Again, if you’ve been working in this field since the 1980s like I have, there’s nothing new in that report. The report is essentially pointing out that the sixth-greatest extinction event in Earth’s history is occurring as we speak, in the Anthropocene — a profound consequence of global warming.

[4:45 p.m.]

The consequences are not only on land but in the oceans, in particular, as a direct response to ocean acidification. The single biggest sink for the carbon in the atmosphere is the ocean. When the ocean takes up that carbon, it becomes less…. Well, it acidifies. What that does is it makes it very difficult for calcium carbonated shell–bearing species to make their shells. In some cases, they dissolve, which is one of the reasons that most of the world’s reefs will go extinct in the next couple of decades. There’s very little we can do about that.

Again, when we look in historic times, the last time we had the kind of acidity levels change like this as a direct consequence of volcanism — that’s volcanos for many tens and hundreds of millions of years — we saw 80 percent to 90 percent of marine species going extinct. Because what happens is when you kill the corals, and they’re going in a century, you kill the life around the corals and the biodiversity food chain starts to collapse. This is yet another consequence that was warned by the UN Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services.

Again, a very significant challenge. Also could be viewed as a very significant opportunity for innovation for those jurisdictions that recognize this for what it is: a challenge that is also an economic opportunity.

Then we get, of course, the UN special rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights. Professor Alston said that the world is on course for climate apartheid — quite strong words. What Professor Alston is saying is that the rich will be able to buy their way out of the worst effects of global warming, and the poor will suffer the most. “Even under the best-case scenario,” he wrote, “hundreds of millions will face food insecurity, forced migration, disease and death.”

Again, another stark warning, and again, for those in the field, it’s no surprise that this came out, because there’s nothing new in that as well. If you simply plot GDP as a function of latitude, ignoring a few outliers like Singapore, you find that those jurisdictions that are economically prosperous tend to be further away from the equator.

Then if you ask the question, “Where will climate change, global warming, manifest itself the worst?” of course it will be in the sub-Saharan areas, the subtropical areas, which will get drier. It will be with the desertification of southern Europe — very profound problems there — the potential changes to the Indian monsoon and sub-Saharan Africa, places like that. So there are some very serious conse­quences.

These jurisdictions, you can imagine, have not been part of the problem, because the climate system does not actually care about emissions in any given year. It cares about the cumulative emissions. It’s a stock-and-flow problem, in the language of economics. We know how much more we can build, put into the atmosphere, to keep warming in a probabilistic sense before some level. We know how much is coming in, and we know how much we can take out.

The question then comes: do we, as a collective society, believe that we should be dealing with this problem, yes or no? I’m pleased that this government is suggesting the answer to that should be yes and is hoping to do its part in that regard.

Moving through the reports. This past summer, we had the province quietly releasing a strategic climate risk assessment for British Columbia, a really interesting report. I would quibble with one of the potential conclusions of it, the low risk to Lyme disease, when, in fact, we’ve known within the scientific community for quite some time that vector-borne diseases are moving northwards simply because the carriers of such diseases, whether it be mosquitoes or ticks, are moving northwards as well, as a direct consequence of warming and warmer winters.

We then can move to last week — the Climate Transparency analysis of the G20 nations. They found that Canada is in the top three countries furthest off track from meeting their emissions-reduction targets. The Canadian target really hasn’t changed since Mr. Harper was our Prime Minister.

It’s ironic that we went through this last federal election, with parties climbing over themselves trying to argue they have the most progressive policies towards greenhouse gas reduction when, in fact, the targets that we’re aiming for were put in place by the Conservative government, have been unchanged and very little has actually been done to reduce emissions nationally in Canada, although some good work has been done in terms of movement towards phasing out coal-fired electricity plants.

The replacing of coal-fired with natural gas, particularly when that natural gas comes from horizontal drilling and fracking, highly subsidized…. It’s not clear to me that, in fact, you’re actually getting ahead in the greenhouse gas game because of the fugitive emissions associated with horizontal drilling.

Our per-capita emissions are 18.9 tonnes. The average per-capita emission in the G20 is 7½ tonnes.

[4:50 p.m.]

You know, we talk a really good game in Canada, and in B.C., we are very environmentally conscious. But the data often tell a different story from the game we talk, particularly at the national level. Although the country is looking to the leadership of Quebec and British Columbia, Quebec has actually continued to be the leader in per-capita emissions in this country.

British Columbia was on track to recognizing the economic opportunity associated with decarbonization until about 2010. Then we started this quest for the impossible. Even to this day, there are still people believing that our economic prosperity lies somehow in staying stuck and chained to the economy of the last century through natural gas extraction, as the rest of the world has a glut in said product.

In 2016, in the most recent global data available from the International Energy Agency, the United Kingdom’s per-capita emissions were 5.65 tonnes per capita of CO₂ equivalent. New Zealand was 6.45 tonnes CO₂ equivalent. Norway, 6.78.

Now, Norway is actually a very northern nation and a strong oil and gas producer. They followed the lead of people like Peter Lougheed in Alberta, recognizing that the prosperity they gained from the extraction of this resource, which they knew was a sunset resource, should be put aside for tomorrow so that their society could benefit from the ways of the former governments and people who didn’t have alternatives before them. They are a very prosperous nation now, poised very well to take advantage of the opportunities moving forward with greenhouse gas emission reduction.

Denmark is 5.84. Sweden, 3.83 — Sweden, another northern nation. This puts the average British Columbia carbon footprint at 2.32, 1.9, 2.2 and 3.4 times larger than that of the average person living in the U.K., Norway, New Zealand, Denmark and Sweden respectively. If we go to a country in Africa — say, Chad, for example — the multiples are hundreds, not two to three, which brings me back to my opening sentiment.

Climate policy rhetoric is nothing without transparent, accurate, timely and publicly accessible data, and political promises are worthless without legislative accountability. It is for exactly that reason that this bill, in my view, is so important.

It gives the public the transparency, as I’ll outline in a second, the information on which they can hold government to account. Frankly, it can give opposition parties the transparency and information that can hold government to account. It signals out the direction that government wishes to take to see sectoral reductions, recognizing that such reductions will not be legislated but are guiding principles. This sort of transparency is important for holding government to account and, frankly, for government to actually think this through in a greater sense to ensure that they’re following the path to which they’ve committed.

It’s my sincere hope that the transparency and accountability mechanisms in the bill, if passed, will last well beyond the current government and set an evidence-based foundation from which future climate policy can be built with whatever government happens to be in place at that time.

We have an awfully long way to go, but the amendments included in this bill add some real credibility to the CleanBC plan. Again, I come back to these last two years. I go back to 2018, when I’m sitting on holiday and I read the newspaper and I hear that the Premier is off to Asia to stump for LNG. I would describe those times as the challenging times for the relationship between the B.C. Green caucus and the present government.

What has happened in the two years since then is really quite remarkable. I’ve seen a government actually recognize that challenge is an opportunity. We’ve seen CleanBC come through. I recognize that there’s an LNG plant embedded with that, and I’m very cynical about the ability to deliver our targets with that. That’s for me to take with me when I move on, as I’m not running again.

However, government has actually had to balance the competing interests and has done a good job in B.C. It’s been an honour working with the Premier and the Minister of Environment in helping develop that plan — and, particularly, the civil service, as well, and the staff in my office.

But that wasn’t enough. I mean, that happened after legislating some targets. What’s really important is this bill here, because CleanBC gives some guidance as to what government is going to do. But it is the reporting measures and the transparency and the accountability component of that which will allow others to judge whether government is or is not successful. Again, it was a great pleasure working with government on this bill.

[4:55 p.m.]

I will say that one of the highlights — in fact, the highlight of my time in this office…. Unfortunately, I wasn’t able to attend. It was quite ironic, actually. It was receiving, as a co-recipient, a clean capitalism award. I love the fact that the Minister of Environment also was a co-recipient of a clean capitalism award, for a government not often known for capitalism, from the Delta group in Clean16, an award we received on October 7 of this year.

That showed that others recognize that when people work together on issues that transcend traditional partisan boundaries, you can get a lot done. And actually, the whole is certainly much greater than the sum of the parts.

If we had been government, I don’t think we would have done what was being done. And I don’t think the NDP, frankly, would have done what they’ve done if we weren’t in this situation, being forced to work together. That has led, actually, to what I believe is some good public policy in this regard.

Again, I come back to how pleased I have been to work with the minister. I think I’ve said that enough now; I think that’s on record.

Interjection.

A. Weaver: And with the member for Vancouver–West End. It’s always a pleasure working with the member for Vancouver–West End as well.

We’ve got a long way to go, of course, but the amendments included in this bill actually do, as I say, add real credibility to the CleanBC plan. The main components of Bill 38, which we’re debating at second reading here, is as follows. There’s a requirement for government to set an interim emissions target on the path to a legislated 2030 target, which is 40 percent greenhouse gas reductions below 2007 levels.

Now, why this is important is that this parallels exactly what happened back with the previous Liberal government under Gordon Campbell, when the Climate Action Team was put together. They were tasked with coming up with said interim targets, which were legislated. We’re not requiring the government to legislate but, rather, to come up with targets.

The reason why these are important is because you can actually assess the trajectory to where you want to go in a time frame that’s relevant to electoral cycles. Obviously, a ten-year target is several electoral cycles from now. When you start to have interim and sectoral targets, you’re starting to be held more accountable. In fact, under the leadership of Gordon Campbell at the time, the 2012 target was actually met, and we were on track to meet the 2016 target — until this folly of pursuing the impossible and the complete abandonment of climate policy occurred, just after 2010.

The bill also includes a requirement for governments to set separate 2030 sectoral targets following engagement with stakeholders, Indigenous peoples and communities throughout the province. Now, this, again, is also important. This isn’t about legislating a sectoral target. It’s about providing the transparency to ensure that the public and the sectors have a sense of what government is thinking. This is a signal to broader society that this is the direction and we’re going ahead.

Now, I recognize there’ll be some industries out there absolutely beside themselves, thinking that somehow they’re going to be targeted. This is not about legislation. This is about guidance and about sending a signal to which government will be held to account. As well, industry will be able to see the direction and the signal that government is sending.

It’s going to ensure that the responsibility to reduce carbon pollution is effectively distributed across B.C.’s economy and between ministries. The Minister of Environment alone, of course, cannot tackle the entire challenge, as much as some of us would like him to have this multiministerial portfolio embedded in others as well.

There’s also a requirement for government to table an annual report on actions taken to reduce carbon emissions, along with their cost and how they will achieve government’s legislated emission reduction targets. This annual report, or these reports every year, will outline the latest emissions data and projections as well as actions planned for future years and the effect they are expected to have.

Imagine that it’s sort of like the budget process, whereby we put out a three-year fiscal review in the budget. Here government will put out a multi-year kind of assessment as to where emissions will go on an annual basis. The report will also include a determination of climate risks our province is facing. That’s not going to have to be changed every year. I mean, the first one is going be written, and then they’ll be increased incrementally as time goes on. It’ll include a discussion of risk reduction policies that are to be taken, and any mitigation or adaptation plans.

[5:00 p.m.]

To be perfectly blunt, I think we need all hands on deck on the adaptation side. I’ve been watching this file since the 1980s, and I’ve watched, year after year, emissions target after emissions target being ignored. I’m hoping British Columbia will continue down that path, but we cannot ignore the fact that adaptation is going to be critical.

Embedded in the report is also a requirement for government to establish an independent advisory committee that will be modelled on the Climate Solutions and Clean Growth Advisory Council now that the council has fulfilled its mandate. Again, this is an important external agency that’s not just a validation group but rather is a group that would be engaged with a variety of stakeholders to ensure that stakeholders are engaged in government’s thinking as they move forward in terms of reporting and accountability, and that any issues, which often are not the sole purview of one minister but actually are brought to the government by stakeholders, can have a conduit to get there in a timely fashion.

The committee will hopefully be made up of members from diverse areas of expertise and regions from across the province. They’ll be providing the minister advice on things like policies that can lead to further reductions. Some of that…. I mean, I recognize that many people who sit on these committees are not actually policy experts — they have good ideas — and that we must rely upon the civil service to develop the said policies. However, a lot of good ideas can be brought forward from these stakeholders from which the government can actually develop the necessary policies.

This group will also examine progress towards targets and raise opportunities for sustainable economic development, opportunities for climate change mitigation and adaptation among other matters that are related to this act. Lastly, this bill gives government the ability to set more detailed targets and other environmental standards for publicly owned buildings and vehicular fleets to help reduce emissions, improve environmental performance, save money and support innovations.

Again, coming back to what the member from Langley pointed out, many of these amendments build on policies that were actually first introduced under Premier Campbell’s Liberal government. That’s not to say that, you know, one government is better than the other. What I’m trying to point out here is that it’s very positive when we can recognize that issues like this transcend political boundaries. We have good work done by the Liberals in 2007-08-09. We have good work being done by the B.C. NDP in 2018, 2019 and, soon to be, 2020. That is a testament to the desire within British Columbia for climate policy to be central to our decision-making. I’ll come to that later.

As I mentioned, I was a member of Gordon Campbell’s advisory council in 2007-2008 when he first introduced the first comprehensive price on carbon to set greenhouse gas reduction targets as well and also developing interim targets — the first proper, revenue-neutral, celebrated carbon tax. I remember the cynicism at the time. I was quite upset when many people that I knew who were with the now government were riding this Axe the Tax kind of rhetoric. It was particularly upsetting.

Frankly, I knew it was going to flop. That campaign started in the summer, right in the peak driving season, and everyone knows gas prices are going to drop in the fall. So the campaign was initiated just as the gas prices went up, and when the fall came, the campaign fell through the floor because the gas prices had gone down. Frankly, I think the now government learnt from that and have been quite progressive in terms of pushing for this ever since.

There’s no doubt that what Campbell did in 2007 and ’08 was groundbreaking. But now, honestly, it’s due for an upgrade. That is what the present government is doing — taking that to a whole new level. One of the first signs of that in our confidence and supply agreement was the actual continuation of the carbon tax from $30 to $50 to show Canadian leadership, to meet the $50 target that Trudeau is going to bring forward — a year before the rest of Canada — but, at the same time, to recognize the importance of giving price certainty to the business sector. That is done through incremental $5-a-year changes. The government deserves a lot of credit for following through with that.

Frankly, I have not heard complaints from the general public, because the general public actually believes in that. What they do have some reluctance in believing in is corporate subsidies that allow other certain polluters to not pay the carbon tax whereas individual citizens must continue to pay it. I’ll come back to that too.

I’m the designated speaker, and I’m getting really into this speech. So a little bit more.

[5:05 p.m.]

British Columbia has already legislated greenhouse gas reduction targets as well as a requirement to collect data for tracking emissions, but they’ll try to say we can do better. Our targets are set ten years apart, and data is published on a two-year delay. Combine that with a four-year government mandate and you create a situation where political parties, as we all know, blame each other, and spend the first two years blaming their predecessors for bad results and the next two years saying that they’re just getting started while making promises that they can only fulfil if you vote them back in. Then before you know it, a ten-year target is within sight and, by that time, it’s too late to substantially change the emissions trajectory and we don’t meet it.

Bill 38 is important in that regard as it aims to cut through those excuses and get right to the heart of the matter, shortening the time scale and increasing transparency on an annual basis. For example, with the interim targets, again, we’ll be able to, through them, evaluate progress before 2030. They’ll show whether or not we’re on track. If we are, great. That adds credibility to the government plans so that they can continue their course. If not, they’re going to have to explain to the general public why they’re not on track and what they’re going to do to get on track, or what has changed since they initially said they would be on track.

By reporting emissions annually, the public will get a better sense where emissions originate; what policies are being worked on; what are not being worked on, equally as important; how they all align amongst themselves; and how they align in terms of the next fiscal forecast.

The existing Climate Change Accountability Act also already has a provision that allowed the minister to establish sectoral targets. But it’s written as an option. That’s in section 1.4, I think it is. It says, “The minister may, by order, establish greenhouse gas emissions targets for individual sectors,” instead of a requirement. That hasn’t been used to date, so this act is actually requiring it and is actually important in terms of ensuring that.

That’s particularly relevant as we know that a commitment to set sectoral targets was included in the minister’s mandate letter and in the 2017 B.C. NDP election platform. So it should be no surprise that it’s included in Bill 38, although, admittedly, there was some to-and-fro trying to ensure that this actually happened over the last few months.

The idea of sectoral targets is not new. It’s being used in places like New Zealand, Australia, Germany and the U.K., for example, to help to guide government, guide policy-makers and give transparency so that people know the direction government is heading in. In New Zealand and Australia — Victoria, the state of Victoria — they have some very good proxy policies that compare well and directly with the policies here, particularly to what’s being done in this bill but also in terms of the size of the population of the jurisdictions there.

I understand that government has extensive consultation plans to ensure the targets are set at a correct level, these sectoral and these interim targets, and that these balance the realities of our current emissions rates and the reduction rates necessary to meet our legislative targets. But ultimately this bill is about good governance in the face of what can only be described as the single greatest challenge this planet has ever seen. I spin that and say that it’s also the greatest opportunity for innovation humans have ever seen and, frankly, our province has ever faced.

We’re so fortunate to live in a province like British Columbia, which is, quite literally, the most beautiful place in the world to live. Now, I’ve lived in a number of….

Interjection.

A. Weaver: I agree.

I’ve lived in many countries in the world, whether it be in Germany, England, Scotland, Australia or the United States, even other parts of Canada. I’ve travelled extensively around the world, from Asia through all of the world. I can say unequivocally, in my view, this is the best place to live. This is a beautiful jurisdiction.

That is one of our strategic advantages. We literally can attract and retain the best and brightest in the world to British Columbia because of the quality of life and the stable democracy that we can offer. This is a strategic choice that I’m hoping this government will continue to build on as we start to deal with the climate issue and through the transparency associated with this bill.

We also have a highly skilled and educated workforce. As we all know from the international PISA assessment exams, British Columbia ranks at the very top, above the much-touted Finland, in reading, writing and mathematics. Remarkable that we have some of this quality education here.

[5:10 p.m.]

We also have outstanding post-secondary institutions, so we know that companies not only can attract and retain the best and brightest, but they have access to a highly skilled and educated workforce. We also have boundless renewable energy, fibre and water — like no other jurisdiction in the world. What an incredible opportunity for innovation using these strategic strengths, and I pivot back to exactly that.

When I met today with the Canadian manufacturing association…. For so long, I’ve been trying to get both this and the previous government to recognize the opportunities for manufacturing in this province. Imagine this. We’re fixated on delivering corporate welfare to LNG Canada, where we actually give them steel tariff exemptions — try the manufacturers getting steel tariff exemptions — exemptions from carbon tax, below-market electricity. I could go on and on and on.

What we’re not doing is sending the signal that, look, there is clean manufacturing that happens in the world. We should be doing it in B.C. We should be doing it in rural B.C. We have a railway line that connects Prince Rupert’s deep port, closest port to Asia on the coast, and Chicago — the same line goes between the two — in the eastern U.S., which is the gateway to eastern America. What a strategic opportunity for manufacturing and clean manufacturing, because we have access to renewable energy like no one else does.

That requires a vision. That requires a signal to be sent to industry that we’re not just hewers of wood and drawers of water, that we actually believe in value-added and innovation. We actually believe in recognizing that environmental challenges are really nothing more than economic opportunities.

We have the wherewithal, the skill, the innovation, the creativity, the people and the smarts to deal with these challenges here in B.C. if, and only if, government sends the right signals. It doesn’t send the right signals when it continues to provide subsidies for sunset industries that benefit a few multinational shareholders and maybe, in the short term, give a small economic stimulus to a region that will then suffer shortly thereafter because of the traditional economic booms and busts of commodity cycles.

You know, transitioning to a carbon-free world, a carbon-neutral world, doesn’t mean we have to go back to the Dark Ages. It means transforming and transitioning to a cleaner, sustainable society where economic, social and environmental concerns are central to all of our decision-making.

There should be a time when we don’t actually need a Ministry of Environment, where we actually think about the Ministry of Finance as thinking about general progress indicators that span beyond the single silo that is GDP and move beyond to recognize that we judge success as a society not so much by the GDP-per-debt ratio but more so by general progress indicators that talk about things like the quality of the education, the quality of the environment, whether people can live and work in the same community, the child welfare rates. This is what successful societies will be defined on. But that requires, again, a change in the thinking of many of our decision-makers today.

What I’m describing here is not impossible. It’s grounded in current economic trends, scientific evidence and, frankly, best practice in jurisdictions. We have so much to gain. It’s not just possible that the transition to a clean economy could create jobs. It’s, frankly, inevitable — jobs that are inspired, important, sustainable and valuable.

You just have to go to a place like Portable Electric in Vancouver and see the smiles on the faces of the people who work there, the young millennials who come to work every day and feel like they’re making the world a better place, building replacements for diesel generators based on lithium-ion storage technology that’s B.C.-based. Sadly, if we don’t actually start to nurture these B.C.-based companies, they’ll fall into the valley of death and not get out of it. So let’s start to think about the opportunities we have here.

It’s an incredible company that is a B.C. success story that we must nurture instead of having it, as so many of our companies do, get bought up and moved to other jurisdictions. B.C.-based innovation. B.C.-based families got together. B.C. engineers, B.C. people, working there. High-paid jobs. Excited to go to work. They even have a Hawaiian shirt day that I was able to participate in. It’s a great place to work, I’m sure.

[5:15 p.m.]

This is what Bill 38 is about, frankly. It’s to assist a process that allows us to focus on transitioning our economy, which works for all of us, in a manner that is transparent. And governments will be held accountable, as through the measures outlined in Bill 38. These are policies that must be based on principles and evidence, not political calculation and opportunism. As government leaders, we must collectively do everything we can to develop policies that promote rather than hinder innovation in our economy.

Governments often talk a lot about competitiveness, saying: “If we ask too much of companies, they’ll leave.” But I’ve never understood why we want to be competing with other jurisdictions who are willing to sacrifice their clean air, their land and their water or willing to commit human rights abuses all in order to see if you can extract their resource cheaper and faster. Our resource sector, as we’re setting the sectoral targets embedded within Bill 38, should view this not as something to shy away from but as an incredible opportunity yet again.

Teck, one of our staple industries in B.C., can start to think about ways that it can do what it’s doing in more efficient and cleaner ways, knowing that if they can dig dirt out of the ground in a more efficient and cleaner way, they’re saving money and they’re developing technology that others will want to use as well. This is what innovation…. This is where signals like this send to innovation. It’s not about telling mining companies: “Be gone.” It’s about saying to companies: “Innovate. We’re there to support you in that, and we’re there to ensure that you’re successful in doing so.”

Again, I come back to Teck. When you go into the communities whose livelihoods depend on the mining there, they are the strongest advocates for these companies because they understand that they have to live there. We have good corporate citizens, like Teck, for example, in the Elk Valley. The people of the Elk Valley will have some complaints about this and that, but by and large, they like the fact that their company is concerned about the environment in which they live, and they’re some of their strongest advocates.

With that said, I’m confronted and deeply challenged by the knowledge that as we stand here debating what I believe is a truly valuable piece of legislation, work is beginning on LNG Canada, the single biggest point source of greenhouse gas emissions in provincial history.

The irony is not lost on me, and frankly, I don’t think it’s going to be lost on others. The disconnection between politicians’ words and actions on climate is something I hope will be addressed by this bill so that people can point to this later and say: “You said this, and look at this. You did not follow through. You claimed you could get us a 40 percent reduction by 2030, and you claimed you could also add the single biggest point source of greenhouse gas emissions in B.C.’s history. Look what you’ve done.” History will judge those leaders accordingly.

I’m tired, frankly, of hearing touching speeches from members in this room and elsewhere when communities are threatened by forest fires or when species are threatened to extinction, only to see every single member in this House, whether they be on government’s side or the opposition side, stand to advance the corporate subsidy that embodies the past for the future as well — the corporate welfare associated with things like LNG Canada.

Now, I spoke to a clean energy conference last week, and I asked them: “How many of you wind energy companies have ever had a steel tariff exemption on your windmills?” Zero. Yet we think what we need to do here is to give a major…. These are small companies. They’re not the big Shell Internationals. But we think it’s okay to give billions of dollars of subsidies to multinationals whose interests are not ours. Those interests are clearly the shareholders of the multinationals, and many of those shares reside in other jurisdictions.

I just give my head a shake. I know history will judge, very harshly, legislators in this place for the decisions that they didn’t make — not so much for the decisions that they did make but for the decisions that they didn’t make. That will be one that I think will come back to haunt people in the years ahead.

As I was writing this speech with my staff, I received a copy of a Globe and Mail article, and this is what the heading said: “Alberta, B.C. to Advocate for Canadian Natural Gas in Asia.” The subheading was this: “Two provinces which are in ‘absolute alignment’ over the matter will send officials to Tokyo to make the case for accessing the Asian market.” Really?

[5:20 p.m.]

We have a government that has committed to 40 percent greenhouse gas reductions by 2030 bringing in important legislation to ensure accountability, and we have Canadian, British Columbian people going out there, touting enhanced expansion of LNG. There needs to be some internal soul-searching, because I’m not sure that the left hand of this government actually knows what the right hand is doing or whether the right hand knows what the left hand is doing. Clearly, you can’t have it both ways.

It was also published in…. That same day, actually, there was an article in Reuters about Sweden. Think about this. This is the signal we’re sending. The article in Reuters said this. “Sweden’s central bank sells off bonds from Canadian province over climate concerns,” further stating: “Sweden’s central bank said on Wednesday it had sold off bonds from the oil-rich Canadian province of Alberta and parts of Australia because it felt that greenhouse gas emissions in both countries were too high.” This is the actual economic dilemma that we are facing as we continue to think that somehow we’re going to build an economy on the resources that others are weaning themselves off.

Riksbank deputy governor Martin Flodén said the bank would no longer invest in assets from issuers with a larger carbon footprint, even if the yields were high. You’re seeing the divest movements across North America. You’re seeing other jurisdictions move in this regard.

The article continues. It said this. “Australia and Canada are countries that are not known for good climate work.” Imagine that. We are known internationally as brokers of peace — or historically, we were — and now we’re known not as jurisdictions with good climate policy. The article says this. “‘Greenhouse gas emissions per capita are among the highest in the world,’ he said in the speech to Örebro University in Sweden.”

I think, frankly, as a society, and particularly as government, we need to grow up a little bit and recognize that what was once good for us is not good for us anymore. I’m sad to say that for fossil fuels, we’re at that point. The writing has been on the wall. Again, I’ve been in this field since the 1980s. It’s not like I’ve seen anything that we haven’t been saying for — what? — almost 35 years. Politicians have a moral responsibility to think further into the future and govern not just for their term but also for their children and grandchildren, for those who are not here to be part of the decision-making process today.

We make decisions that they have to live the consequences of, yet we don’t have to live those consequences. For me, what matters is how history judges us. I will say, sadly, in Canada, in this building, that history will look very sorely on a number of people who have not made this a priority and continue to push the fossil fuel agenda.

Bill 38, the Climate Change Accountability Amendment Act before us today, does demonstrate that minority governments, despite glaring differences, can move beyond political rhetoric and collaborate on ambitious climate legislation. I truly believe that the minister has the very best intentions with this legislation and that government has come to recognize now that in fact, economic prosperity is not going to be found in the continuing corporate welfare that is the natural gas sector in our province.

We can’t leave those jurisdictions high and dry. That is why I’ve continued to try to articulate the importance of issues like forestry, value-added, mining, innovation in those sectors and the manufacturing sectors and our use of and access to clean energy like no other jurisdiction. But the barriers for innovation in there lie squarely within B.C. Hydro and the fact that the standing offer program has been shut down and that jurisdictions and Indigenous communities from north to south and east to west have projects stalled where they wanted to get themselves off diesel, where they wanted to bring prosperity into their communities.

That will be my next challenge over the coming months — to try to ensure that we get on track with B.C. Hydro, to ensure that we actually start to allow for the innovation in that sector, because the days of big dams are gone. Big dams are good for storage, sure, but so are old rock quarries that you can fill with water and have pumped hydro. There are lots of brownfield sites in this province that could be used for water storage, as well, some of which are right near the ocean.

[5:25 p.m.]

Our federal leaders have been similarly called upon, just recently now, to unite in a minority government to address the issue of climate change, as we have done here in this province with CleanBC. Hopefully, it too will try to stimulate innovation in industry to compensate for jobs being shed in the sunset oil and gas sector: direct clean tech advancements in transportation, housing, to conserve energy in our daily lives and harnessing the advancements in clean tech to cut emissions and reduce pollution.

You know, I reluctantly began this journey from a climate scientist to a politician. In 2012 I first announced. But when I did, I told myself that I would speak truth to power on this file. I would call the government out if they weren’t following through with that. That’s something that I think I’ve done over the last six years.

You don’t need me to do that anymore. There are millions of students in the streets now calling out governments around the world, led by Greta Thunberg. In my view, the single most rewarding thing that I’ve had, as a climate scientist, was to be able to stand in the back on that legislative lawn a few weeks back, with my cane — I had double vision, and I was dizzy as anything — watching what must have been 20,000 students and others on the lawn calling upon government for climate action.

The children have spoken. The people have spoken. The voters have spoken. Chantal Hébert summarizes it best. She said this on election night federally: “This should be the last election that any party in this country believes it can win without having a serious plan for climate change.”

Now, I would say that that’s true in the province of British Columbia as well. I look forward, as we watch as the next provincial election comes, and I’m on the sidelines — being a member of no party, I’ll go back into a non-partisan role — to watching the B.C. Liberals, the B.C. NDP and the B.C. Greens fight each other as to who has got the best climate plans. Rest assured. I’ll provide a very frank, non-partisan assessment of all three.

I hope that each one strives to be better than the other, and the arguments then end up being: who has got the best plan? “Ours is better than yours because,” not “axe the tax.” Not “yours is terrible,” but “ours is better.” Given the tripartisan creation of this amended bill over many, many years with respect to the legacy that was shown by the B.C. Liberals in 2007 and 2008, I trust that it will be passing with all-party support.

Again, I conclude by thanking the minister and the Premier for taking this issue seriously and putting together the transparency, the accountability and the substance in this bill to ensure that not only this, but future governments are held accountable for their promises and words on this very important file.

S. Malcolmson: Climate impacts are being felt on Vancouver Island right now. We’ve seen hotter waters harming salmon in the areas that I represent but specifically in Mill Creek and Nanaimo rivers. Salmon are also harmed by drier rivers resulting from reduced snowpack. On Vancouver Island, this is a discouragingly continuing trend. We’ve also had two decades of pine beetle infestation, which has led to tens of thousands of job losses.

[J. Isaacs in the chair.]

Ocean acidity has increased by 30 percent and is expected to increase by up to 150 percent by the end of the century. Worldwide since 1975, oceans absorbed 90 percent of the extra heat caused by global warming. Oceans are buffering us, but that’s not sustainable, and it won’t last. Drought, disease and pests threaten food supply on Vancouver Island, which already imports 95 percent of its food.

These climate impacts are tougher on the most vulnerable people in our country. The poorer you are, the most living on the edge, the more likely you are to be the one that takes the brunt of climate disaster, catastrophe when it happens.

That’s true in Canada. I heard, in downtown Toronto, women describing that when there’s flooding, it’s their basement apartments that are most affected. The climate mitigation measures that are available tend to be for homeowners in downtown Toronto, which tend to be better-off men. This pattern is even more exacerbated in the Caribbean.

[5:30 p.m.]

I worked, within the Inter-Parliamentary Union, with Carib­bean women who talked about successive years of typhoons flattening their communities. The people that lived in the lowest lying areas or the steepest slopes, again, were the most likely to lose their homes and the most likely to be subject to violence against women in the refugee camps that resulted. These impacts are happening right now.

The only good news in this is that there is action being taken on climate change and that that action can boost both employment and our local economy. It can incent smart investments. It can strengthen local economies and promote Canadian entrepreneurship in the trillion-dollar clean energy industry. With the right leadership, we can improve both our economic and our environmental outcomes for the long term. It could be a win-win for us, if we get to work right now innovating, cutting greenhouse gas emissions and adding good-paying jobs.

I’ve seen an example of this right at home in Nanaimo. There’s a new affordable housing complex I’ve spoken about in this House before. Nuutsumuut Lelum, a joint project from the Nanaimo Aboriginal Centre and B.C. Housing, is culturally designed. It uses 90 percent less energy than a conventional home, using a passive house design. It’s home to 25 Indigenous families. They have better air quality. They have lower living and operating costs.

In this case, the innovation that led to this really top-notch kind of construction technique is now being lauded around British Columbia. It’s led to more affordability for the people that live there. This was an award-winning design. The Canadian Home Builders Association of Vancouver Island awarded it for high performance at the VIBE gala in Nanaimo this spring.

This kind of work is at the heart of our government’s CleanBC program. This is our new climate action plan, adding to the green building industry, which already employs 32,000 people in B.C. in jobs like architecture, manufacturing and installation. We are already well set.

I want to talk about some of the specific actions. There’s a lot of bad news out there about climate change, but I want people at home to know the diversity of ways that, collectively, we are working to tackle these challenges. Together, our joint commitment, built by both the Green Party and the NDP, is cutting emissions from 2007 levels by 40 percent by 2030 and by 80 percent by 2050.

We are acting to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in a lot of ways. For example, reducing emissions from buildings by making every new building in B.C. net zero energy-ready by 2032 and retrofitting B.C.’s stock of 51,000 affordable housing units that are publicly owned or funded with a $400 million fund to make them more energy efficient. That will make life, again, more affordable for the occupants. In Nanaimo, the 350-plus new affordable housing units that are either already underway or that we have announced will all meet step 2 or 3 of the new B.C. building code. All of those actions together add up to two megatonnes less of carbon pollution by 2030.

We’re speeding up the move to a clean fuel standard at the gas pump, decreasing the carbon intensity of our fuels with low-carbon fuel standards and increasing the production of renewable fuels. That’s another four megatonnes of carbon pollution reduced by 2030.

We’ve released a new strategy for active transportation and walkability. That’s a commitment by our government to double the percentage of people walking, cycling and using alternate transport in just 11 years.

People renovating private homes can receive rebates: $3,000 for replacing their heating system with a heat pump; $5,500 for rebates for installing better insulation; $2,000 for replacing older, draftier windows and doors with better insured ones. If anybody is having difficulty accessing any of their programs, ask your MLA to help you navigate the process.

Electric vehicles. We’ve talked a lot about this in the House, and we have legislated this. In our budget, you can get up to $16,000 in rebates by a bundle of different programs. I use those myself, my husband and I, for our electric car. That could bring the price of electric cars down. They’re still costly, but the savings in gas and maintenance and operation, let alone the benefits for local air quality, are immense. We, as a government, have invested in a greatly expanded recharging station network on all kinds of areas of Vancouver Island. Just over 20 years from now, every new car sold in B.C. will have to be an electric vehicle.

[5:35 p.m.]

We’re switching training so that we’ve got graduates of our colleges and universities that are ready to do this hands-on kind of work. At Vancouver Island University in Nanaimo…. I’m particularly inspired that the university, in partnership with our government, has installed geothermal energy into the old coal-mining shafts that run underneath the university campus. It’s such a nice metaphor for moving from an old, dirty energy system into a truly renewable one. Again, that reduces energy heating costs. The first beneficiaries of that, I think, are the health and science centre and the Indigenous gathering place.

Okay. More on the list. We’ve legislated a 45 percent reduction in methane emissions from upstream oil and gas by 2025. We want to see 75 percent of all landfill methane diverted and captured by 2030 and 95 percent of organic waste diverted from landfills and turned into renewable resources. Our carbon tax is going up. It’ll be the highest rate in North America — $40 per tonne right now and increasing to $50 per tonne by 2021.

We’re supporting First Nations clean energy projects in their communities through the First Nations clean energy business fund. That will also help communities move away from reliance on diesel fuel. We’re helping industry lower emissions and reduce pollution. That’s another 8.5 megatonnes of carbon emission reductions.

B.C. Ferries has got actions that it is taking to build its next wave of ferries to be hybrid, electric and electric-ready. That is going to benefit my own community. Nanaimo-Gabriola will be one of the routes that gets one of those electric ferries. We’ve put $1.2 billion of funding into B.C. Transit. That’s having an impact in every community that has B.C. Transit. That’s a huge way of getting people out of their vehicles.

All of these actions are real. They are myriad. They have the ability to touch everybody’s lives — reduce emissions but also make life more affordable. They are distributed. There’s no one silver bullet on this. There are a lot of actions that we’re taking to restore B.C.’s reputation as a climate leader and step up to the deep challenge of this climate emergency.

With all of that, Bill 38 is the anchor. This is what puts new rules into law that will make our government report every year on how much we have reduced emissions and how far we have gone to meeting our CleanBC commitments. It’ll incorporate, build in, the independent advice of experts from all backgrounds.

The fine print is that every year the government…. The legislation to the Climate Change Accountability Act will fulfil our commitment to introducing a new climate accountability framework. The fine print is that the interim emission targets will be established by ministerial order no later than the end of 2020. Sectoral targets will be established by no later than March 2021.

Every fifth year the climate change accountability report will include an updated provincial climate risk assessment. That will build on our preliminary strategic risk assessment. There will also be established in legislation a new independent committee that will consist of no less than 20 members. That will be gender balanced, as it should be.

We’ve got some great validators that have encouraged this course of action. Aaron Sumexheltza, the former member of the Climate Solutions and Clean Growth Advisory Council, said: “Indigenous people are working across B.C. to respond to climate change by introducing new opportunities under CleanBC. Strengthening the province’s ability to track progress and report publicly will improve our ability to build a cleaner future for everyone.”

Ian Bruce, who’s the director of science and policy for the Suzuki Foundation, said: “We welcome B.C.’s climate accountability law as one of the strongest in North America. These new measures to strengthen transparency and respon­sibility from every sector of our society will help make sure everyone is part of the solution to the climate crisis.”

I’ll just echo some of the previous speakers who have said that we have lost decades hearing aspirational targets be lauded by politicians, particularly federally, who then continue to campaign on the same targets without any accountability for missing them. We cannot afford to miss them.

[5:40 p.m.]

In the words of our Environment and Climate Change Minister: “We are committed to meeting our climate change targets and making sure our CleanBC plan gets us to where we need to go. That means being honest and transparent about our progress to make sure people can determine we are on the right track…. We are mandating that the steps we are taking are reported to the public every year, by law.”

The anchor of Bill 38 is the necessary step, the responsible step, to lock into future governments the actions that are already well underway, the actions that we are taking and that we must continue to take for the sake of the environment, economy and our children’s future.

Deputy Speaker: Recognizing Abbotsford-Mission. [Applause.]

S. Gibson: Thank you for that ringing welcome from my side of the House. I find it very encouraging.

Interjections.

S. Gibson: Oh, that side too. Thank you.

I also attended the clean energy conference that was referred to by the Leader of the Third Party some moments ago. I appreciate very much the reality of climate change, and I want to say it’s laudable that the government is taking it seriously. I think we all in this House do indeed realize that the prospect of climate change without some serious consideration is highly problematic.

I was interested, in particular, in the discussion around electrification, and some of the folks that were there were advancing it enthusiastically. However, the caveat was that it’s very, very expensive, and it’s going to require considerable public sector investment.

The CEO of B.C. Transit commented that it would be over half a billion dollars to electrify his 1,500 buses. The CEO of B.C. Ferries commented on the fact that the larger ferries are going to be highly challenging to electrify. I found perhaps most intriguing the representative from the B.C. Trucking Association who had a real interest — I think, an abiding interest — in electrification. However, he commented on the number of trucks, mostly small operators, and the manner in which…. It would be extremely costly and probably impossible to electrify the trucking fleet in British Columbia, at least in the near future.

The conference was also split, I would say, with regard to LNG. One morning that we were there, there was significant support for LNG, which I suppose is encouraging, given our side of the House is enthusiastic about the future of LNG. But in the afternoon, the views were somewhat differing, you might say. There was a contrast. So I was left with the view that the conference did not have an overall general perspective on LNG and its future in a carbon-free or at least a carbon-reduced economy.

I think Bill 38 is certainly laudable. I suppose I would like to have seen some acknowledgment on the fact that our side of the House was really moving in the same direction, frankly. Even though there’s progress being made, really, it’s kind of a recapitulation of our B.C. Liberal climate plan. I think it would have been nice to acknowledge that. We were definitely moving in a trajectory that is very reminiscent of what is being spoken of here, on the other side of the House. This is not really a new revolutionary bill, in many ways. It’s really a way to acknowledge what we had already started some years ago on this side of the House when we were government.

There is an establishment of a statutory advisory committee. We’re not quite sure of all of the implications there. More reporting on emissions, which is probably good. The ability to set emission targets for public sector organizations. Now, the plan sets out targets for 75 percent, as we know. I think this has been noted. The 25 percent seems to be missing, so we’re not quite sure where those are going to come from. Indeed, the 25 percent, I would think, probably would be the most difficult to secure, so we’ll hear more about that.

[5:45 p.m.]

The discretionary emission targets have really been affirmed. We already knew about that, so those are probably redundant in some ways.

We need clarity on why the minister believes it’s better to change the climate risk reporting requirement from biennial to once every five years. Technically, it may not make a difference. I’m wondering why they want to dilute the reporting process.

The advisory committee. I’m not quite sure how to comment on that. What are the implications there? A committee like that’s going to be fairly costly. I understand it’s going to have 20 members and representatives from various backgrounds. The constitution, or who will form the committee, will be important, because the advisory committee to the minister, I’m sure, will have ideas and suggestions.

Some of them will be practical, and some may not. So I worry about…. Presumably, government is going to appoint the entire committee, so we’ll need to have some clarity on that. The focus on that will have to be clarified.

The emissions targets — need to focus on those. Again, I think they’re reminiscent of the targets they were developing.

How will LNG fit into the targets? We heard about that at the clean energy conference I was at last week. As I noted, LNG is an important part of our economic driver in this country, in this province. I’m hoping to see that this government will continue to see the benefit of LNG, both economically, for our young people, for the future — and so much more, as we develop the resource and turn it into an economic powerhouse for our province. But I’m a little concerned that the advisory committee, and maybe some others, will have some other trajectory in mind.

Really, this legislation is, I think, reminiscent of what we had already planned. I understand this government has a laudable goal, and I want to acknowledge that and do appreciate the minister. I think the minister is taking his file very seriously. I want to acknowledge that, and I’ve appreciated getting to know him over the past few years. I think his heart is certainly in the right place.

The execution, however, and the capacity to do this in a way that’s sensitive economically and in a way that honours people working in a variety of sectors…. As we move away from gas, as we move away from petroleum, we’re going to have to do it in a way that is strategic and honouring to those people in those sectors. But clearly, it’s an economically strong force in our province. Doing it in a way that is not sensitive or in a way that doesn’t understand or appreciate the significance of the petroleum sector as we move slowly, I hope, in that trajectory would, I think, be troubling for me, realizing that so many people in our province are dependent on that.

In general, thank you, Hon. Speaker, for this opportunity. I think we are going in a trajectory that is understandable, and I appreciate some of the points that were being made here today.

A. Olsen: I am grateful to stand for second reading of the Climate Change Accountability Amendment Act, 2019.

As my colleague has stated in his remarks previously, climate change rhetoric is nothing without transparent, accurate, timely and publicly accessible data. Political promises are worthless without legislated accountability. “Trust us” is not good climate policy.

I’m proud the B.C. Green caucus has been able to contribute to the development of this legislation in such a fundamental way. It is my sincere hope that the transparency and accountability mechanisms in this bill, if passed, will last well beyond this minority government and set an evidence-based foundation from which all future climate policy can be built.

The main components of Bill 38 are requirements for government to set interim targets, sectoral targets and to table an annual report to the Legislature to detail our emissions reduction progress.

[5:50 p.m.]

The annual reports will outline the latest emissions data and projections, as well as actions planned for future years and the effect that they are expected to have. It will also include a determination of the climate risks our province is facing, along with the risk reduction policies and any mitigation or adaptation plans.

It also legislates the establishment of an independent advisory committee. The committee will be made up of members from diverse areas of expertise and regions of the province and can provide advice to the minister on policies that can lead to further reductions, progress towards targets, opportunities for sustainable economic development, opportunities for climate mitigation and adaptation, among other matters related to the act.

Lastly, this bill gives government the ability to set more detailed targets and other environmental standards for publicly owned buildings and vehicle fleets to help reduce emissions, improve environmental performance, save money and support innovation.

The Climate Change Accountability Act, as currently written, already includes legislated greenhouse gas reduction targets as well as a requirement to collect data for tracking emissions. Our targets are set ten years apart, and data is published on a two-year delay.

Combine that with the four-year government mandate, and you create a situation where political parties spend the first two years blaming their predecessors for bad results and the next two years saying that they’re just getting started while making promises that they can only fulfil if you vote them back in. Then, before you know it, the ten-year target is within sight, but by that time, it’s too late to substantively change our emissions trajectory. Bill 38 claims to cut through those excuses by shortening the time scale and increasing transparency.

To situate Bill 38 in the broader climate context, I would like to bring to the chamber’s attention some of the reports that have been published in the last year. I appreciate that my colleague has done the same, but I think it warrants repeating.

To start, there was the 2018 IPCC special report, in which the world’s leading climate scientists warned that there are only a dozen years for global warming to be kept to a maximum of 1.5 degrees Celsius, beyond which even a half degree will significantly worsen the risks of drought, floods, extreme heat and poverty for hundreds of millions of people.

A few months later Canada’s Changing Climate was published by the federal government. The report noted that northern Canada is warming at twice the global rate and highlighted B.C. as being particularly vulnerable to drought, glacial loss, severe wildfires and sea level rise, which will salinate farmland.

Shortly after that, we had the report from the United Nations Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Bio­diversity and Ecosystem Services, which stated in stark terms that we are in the midst of an extinction crisis, with a million species likely disappearing within decades, the consequences of which would be devastating for ecosystem stability and food production.

Then we got the report from the United Nations special rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights. Professor Alston said the world is on course for “climate apartheid,” where the rich will buy their way out of the worst effects of global warming and the poor will suffer. “Even under the best-case scenario,” he wrote, “hundreds of millions will face food insecurity, forced migration, disease and death…. Staying the course will be disastrous for the global economy and pull vast numbers into poverty,” he wrote.

Then, this summer, the province quietly released their strategic climate risk analysis for British Columbia. In it, severe wildfires, seasonal water shortages and heatwaves were the three highest-ranked risks facing the province in terms of severity, magnitude and likelihood. Ocean acidification, glacier mass loss and long-term water shortages also were on the list.

Just last week the climate transparency analysis of G20 nations found that Canada is in the top three countries furthest off track from meeting their emissions reduction targets. Our per-capita emissions are 18.9 tonnes; the G20 average is 7.5 tonnes. Not an illustrious list to be on.

[5:55 p.m.]

We talk a lot about being environmentally conscious in British Columbia and Canada. The data tells a different story about who we are and how we are. We are managing to zero as we jump from crisis to crisis, so consumed by triaging that we fail to pause and consider what is causing these crises in the first place.

What is the state of governance in the fossil fuel era? It’s a political economy so intertwined with industry that the rules have evolved to favour those who stand to gain the most, where a government that should be protecting its people cringes in the corner when multinational corporations level empty threats.

It’s about good governance. It is the politics of accommodation. It pivots on threats of competitiveness, bends to meet the demands of fossil fuel interests and is willing to sacrifice all else for profit. It is a system that relies on narrowly defined cost-benefit analysis that discredits ecological value and dismisses cultural well-being. When you consider the true costs of expanding the fossil fuel sector in the face of a growing climate crisis, only those who stand to profit or those who have been made to feel there is no other option could possibly feel it is a worthwhile endeavour.

Consider for a moment a simple local example. According to the provincial and federal governments’ analysis of the most severe climate change risks facing British Columbia, the quality and quantity of fresh water is on trend to be the most pressing. We know fresh water is quite literally essential for human life, ecosystems and agriculture.

We know that mimicking natural filtration systems with staggeringly expensive water treatment facilities makes our population less resilient and more vulnerable, not to mention the other plants and animals it leaves with unhealthy water. Yet this government continues to approve unsustainable logging practices that put our watersheds and water supplies at further risk, beyond the challenges that climate change will bring.

Only if you are using an incomplete analysis can the value of fibre justify the costs to the local community and ecosystem. Peachland, with a population of 5,500, for example, must now spend $25 million on a water treatment plant. The Comox Valley is on the hook for a $125 million plant. Just because we don’t account for the other costs doesn’t mean we don’t have to pay for them.

Adding further insult to injury, this year every member of government and every member of the official opposition voted in favour of massively expanding the fossil fuel industry in British Columbia, offering them hundreds of millions, possibly billions, in subsidies to further tip the equation in their favour. While we superheat our environment, 82 members in this place offered a golden handshake in grotesque corporate welfare.

I wonder what our children and grandchildren will think when they look back on this year and realize that in the face of all the evidence to the contrary, this government decided: “Yeah. Now is the time to massively increase fracking in British Columbia. Let’s take more of that precious fresh water, mix it with chemicals and push it underground. What’s more, let’s target that fracking in some of the most fertile land in the province and flood a huge portion of it to power the whole operation. And don’t worry about the earthquakes. You know what the industry says about that? They say those were going to happen anyway.”

Who pays for those unaccounted costs? Well, of course, we do. The people do. First Nations, commercial fishermen, hunters are already paying for the missing salmon and wildlife. Communities will pay for it every time they have to rebuild after a fire or flood. The 2017- 2018 forest fire season cost us $1.2 billion. Most of all, it’s our youth who pay for it. Major flooding in the Fraser delta, as is expected with the increasing sea level rise, could cost us up to $30 billion. Are we planning for that? Have we thought about that?

[6:00 p.m.]

Despite what the entrenched incumbent players will have you believe, it does not have to be this way. Actually, I don’t think it can be this way. We can’t afford it.

Luckily, we are fortunate enough to live in one of the best locations on the planet from which to navigate the climate-related challenges ahead. We have access to boundless renewable energy, fibre and water, like no other jurisdiction in the world. We have incredible potential to create renewable energy and sustainable forestry sectors to support our economy and feed innovation.

Transitioning to a carbon-neutral world doesn’t mean going back to the Dark Ages. It means transitioning to a cleaner, sustainable society where economic, social and environmental concerns are central in our decision-making, that actually inform our decision-making, that actually are not scoffed at.

It is exciting to think about what a carbon-neutral society would look like day to day, as we went about our busy lives. To start, it would be quiet and clean. Cities would be designed for walking, cycling, electric public transit and electric cars. There would be less traffic, less smog. Our homes would be more comfortable, bright, warm and dry in the winter and cool in the summer. We’d have less plastic and garbage, and our communities would no longer be strewn with litter.

With more trees planted and natural spaces conserved to absorb carbon and filter water, we’d have fresh air and the songs of birds on our way to work. The salmon would come back, maybe the bees too. Sustainable agriculture would provide local, healthy food grown on farms that sequester carbon in the soil and use less pesticides. Sure, we might eat less meat, but by trading factory-farm beef for cattle raised locally using slower, sustainable practices that regenerate the land, it would taste better. And it wouldn’t be loaded with antibiotics.

With less air pollution and more active transportation, we’d feel healthier. There would be more interconnected communities and less fear over a climate catastrophe. We’d actually feel happier. We have so much to gain.

It’s not just possible that the transition to a clean economy would create jobs. It’s actually inevitable — jobs that are inspired, important and valuable. This shift can be the vehicle to deliver a more just, equitable and healthy society. What I’m describing is not an impossible utopia. Every example listed is grounded in current economic trends, scientific evidence and already-established best practice.

Through the Green caucus’s work with the government on CleanBC and the amendments included in this bill, we have created the conditions for this change. To fully realize these possibilities, we need to start planning beyond the next election cycle. We need to focus on building a new economy that works for us all, not just the privileged few. That’s what Bill 38 is about. It’s the foundation for what is next.

S. Chandra Herbert: I stand today in support of accountability and in support of action on climate change.

I’m not going to speak long. I think sometimes in politics — and I don’t want to throw any aspersions on colleagues — the longer you speak, the less you say. And sometimes the longer you’ve been in politics, the less you say as well, even though it takes way longer to get there. But I would say today that this legislation is about setting clear targets and sectoral targets so that we can start to see further action on the fight against climate change and be held accountable to it.

Now, when I was the environment spokesperson, Environment critic for the NDP in opposition, I once — maybe it was a joke, maybe not so much — suggested that politicians should get a salary cut if they fail to meet their targets, just as they do if they fail to meet their budget targets. We’ve got a problem where you pass a rule and then you’re not around later to see the impact of it.

That, unfortunately, is one of the biggest challenges we have with climate — but, really, much of government. If you don’t invest in education, you might not see the impact right away, but you certainly do down the road. If you don’t invest in health care…. On and on we can go. Climate change is much the same. However, the impacts can be way down the road.

[6:05 p.m.]

Unfortunately, we’ve kicked that ball way down the road and not acted, even though I clearly remember learning about this in elementary school — the greenhouse effect — and drawing little pictures in grade 4 about the greenhouse effect. Jeez, why didn’t people act then? I remember, at the time, protesting wars that were about oil, because, well, we needed to move off that oil that was creating the greenhouse effect that was creating so much warfare and bloodshed in the world as we fought over this non-renewable resource, a fossil fuel, something from the past.

Of course, it’s easy to say: “Just cut it off. Boom, it’s done.” The reality in our day-to-day life isn’t quite so easy. Some of the most committed environmental activists in my community in Vancouver–West End who want us to get off fracked gas heat their showers with fracked gas, because that’s the situation in the home they’re in. In fact, that’s the situation in much of the community that I represent. We’re looking for ways to shift off — we, too, understand that we need to get off fossil fuels because of that climate change accountability — but it’s not as easy as just saying: “Shut off the tap.” There’s work to be done.

I want to thank and credit my colleague the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head, the minister as well, my colleague from Vancouver-Fairview — and indeed everybody who’s put their work in on this legislation.

This will give us the tools to hold governments, in future, accountable. I’m hoping that because of that accountability, it leads to greater action. We’ve seen when people talk about action but don’t deliver for many years, as happened under the former Premier. We’re all losing because of that, and the future is losing because of that. We can’t delay. When I say, “Hold us accountable,” that means to hold all of us accountable. I certainly have, with my colleagues, called for and continue to push for stronger and further action on a whole bunch of realms, as my constituents expect me to do.

Anyways, beyond that, I think I’ve spoken longer than I’d meant to, aside from saying that this legislation will create accountability, which politicians desperately need, as does the public. It will create the targets so that we can create the plans. But you know that when I say that, that sounds like a whole lot of talking about talking.

One thing that’s very clear to me from constituents is that they want less of the talking, more of the doing and more action to fight climate change, like bringing in no-emission vehicles, zero-emission vehicles, changing the building codes, shifting the kinds of fuels we use, shifting how we generate wealth in this province to one that’s more sustainable, long term, and not as prone to the boom-and-bust as we’ve seen with major resource projects. They’ve been clear that they want a future plan, not one just of high talk and rhetoric of, “We’re the best thing in the world,” but one grounded in the reality that we’ve all got a lot of heavy lifting to do in front of us.

B.C. can’t do it alone, but by goodness, we have to do what we can within our realm if we’re going to be taken anywhere seriously trying to tell other people how they’ve got to act as well. Politicians are known for hypocrisy and known for often saying more than they actually do. I’m glad, in this case, in this legislation, that it does what it says. I’m hoping that it can be used to force even more of us to do what we say in fighting climate change into the future.

P. Milobar: It gives me pleasure to rise to Bill 38, the Climate Change Accountability Amendment Act, and say a few words leading into committee stage, where there will undoubtedly be several questions that arise around some of this bill. I’d like to point out, though, that this bill is really nothing new. As we’ve heard today — from speaker after speaker acknowledging that — most of this has been based on the groundwork that was laid from 2007 and moving forward.

History has an interesting way of shifting perspectives, as we’ve heard earlier. We heard about the Axe the Tax campaign. That’s not insignificant. That campaign was initiated by the then leader, who is now the Finance Minister. To the point of the speaker previous, from Vancouver–West End, about words and politicians, I find it very interesting that the former leader of the NDP, now the Finance Minister of this government, who led the campaign to “axe the tax,” is now the Finance Minister that actually needs emissions to rise over the first three years of CleanBC to be able to meet their budgetary target.

[6:10 p.m.]

We have gone from axe the tax to a non-revenue-neutral carbon tax that actually needs emissions to rise within the government’s own three-year financial plan. The first three years under CleanBC, they need to see emissions rise or their financial picture falls short.

We heard earlier the leader of the Green Party speaking of the left and the right hand not seeming to know what is going on within government. I would agree with that assessment, because in estimates, when I pointed out to the Environment Minister that this was indeed the case, that at $50 a tonne, they were slating and budgeting for 44 megatonnes of emissions to be collected on, and at $30 and $35, they were at 41.6 megatonnes….

In fact, what we see is a steady and ever-increasing budgeted benchmark by the Finance Ministry to make sure revenues are where they need them to be to stay out of deficit within their budget, but it doesn’t really line up with what the Environment Minister is trying to accomplish within CleanBC. So there is definitely a disconnect within government, as we see in this day, in terms of what is actually happening on the environmental file. There’s a lot of great marketing going on. There are not a lot of new actions being taken. I think that sums up best….

We are now a couple of hours into this debate now — two, two and a half hours into the debate, with more to come, it looks like — and we’ve probably had about eight minutes spent on Bill 38. The rest has actually been spent on everything but Bill 38. I think that’s telling about how little substance is actually in Bill 38 and how much marketing is going to go into this bill to paint it as something that will be revolutionary and game-changing as we move forward, for the simple fact of reporting.

I agree there needs to be reporting. I agree there should be transparency. The fact that for two and a half years we’ve had an NDP government that’s been propped up by a Green Party…. It takes a piece of legislation to require them to start to report annually. It does make one wonder why this was not just being done as this legislation was being developed and crafted.

I would also point out that, within this bill, the dates that the reporting will start…. We’ve heard a lot about accountability and holding politicians accountable and getting things out of election cycles. Just like many of the first tangible target dates within CleanBC, the first tangible target dates and reporting dates within this bill are actually right before or just after the next provincial election, especially in a minority government situation, not knowing exactly when the firm election date will be.

One could be a little cynical and suggest that perhaps CleanBC, without target dates ahead of the next general election, and now this bill without any of the accountability reports coming forward before the next general election are somewhat designed to shield the existing government away from that type of scrutiny that we’ve been hearing all the great virtues signalling around today without the actual action being demonstrated over the last couple of years.

Certainly, the law from 2007 said that the reports had to be made every two years. This bill would make those reports be made yearly. But my understanding of how government works is if the minister and if the cabinet wanted to have reports annually, despite the law, I don’t know who would object to that happening — that they would be actually reporting more than they were legally required to do.

As we’ve seen on a wide course of things, from FOI to other things, getting information out of the government is not necessarily the easiest task. Perhaps, given how hard it is to get any information on FOIs, a bill like Bill 38, which would actually legislate some transparent reporting, is a good thing.

Now, I will have questions as we move forward through this bill about how we’re going to possibly get tangible and real reports generated on a yearly basis when, right now, there’s a struggle to get them created on time every two years. That becomes very critical as we start to look at, again, those benchmarks and at the fact that most of the benchmarks under CleanBC and now under Bill 38 are not set to actually take effect until right before or after the next general election — again, convenient timing.

Deputy Speaker: Member.

Members, could I ask that the conversations on the side just quiet down a little bit. I really can’t hear the member speaking. Thank you.

P. Milobar: Here I thought they were hanging on my every word, Madam Speaker.

I point that out because under CleanBC, as much as it’s been celebrated…. And as the minister said, it’s been a year now since it’s been in.

[6:15 p.m.]

It’s been a year, and there’s no end in sight as to when we will see any of the 25 percent of the missing emissions within CleanBC. It’s a plan that’s at 75 percent. Only in British Columbia could the government, being propped up by a Green Party, run around and celebrate a plan that’s at 75 percent complete and say that this is a masterpiece, with a reporting document in front of us today in Bill 38 that will require reporting out on a bill that is only a 75 percent plan.

A 75 percent plan is not a complete plan. It does not give us a complete picture of where the targets are going to go in terms of the sectors. Frankly, the targets are the same targets that were laid out in 2007. I find it interesting, because the Leader of the Third Party did say that the IPCC report…. There’s really nothing new in the report. He’s been seeing that since the ’80s when he started in climate science.

I would suggest to you that there’s nothing really new in anything the government has done since the reports that we’ve been generating and the legislation we’ve generated since 2007 because the targets are the same. They’ve always been the same, because those are the actual real targets you need to get to. To try to rebrand and remarket this, I think, is slightly disingenuous towards the general public in terms of what actions are actually happening in real time in the real world that we’re living in.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

When you look at what’s going on…. Again, if you just look at the data, the numbers are very clear. This government has budgeted and, in fact, is banking on emissions rising over the first three years under CleanBC. If they hold them static at the same output that they were, at $30 a tonne — when carbon tax was $30 and revenue-neutral — they have about a $400 million budget problem on their hands. If CleanBC even comes close to starting to accomplish what they’re being celebrated for trying to accomplish, they have a $600-million-plus budget problem on their hands. We’re down to two budget years left out of that three-year-forward-looking document.

These are not my numbers. These have been canvassed heavily in estimates with all of the ministers involved, from the Minister of Finance to the Minister of Environ­ment, neither seeming to know what the other had budgeted or planned for. Again, left hand, right hand not really talking about what’s going on and getting things on the same page. I mean, one could take words always slightly out of context, if you want to snip the right sentence out on your Hansard debate.

I don’t think the leader of the Green Party was advocating that we should be burning more coal because it’ll actually cool the earth. Certainly, that was an interesting part of his comments, when he was talking about how the particulate matter from coal will actually help cool the earth a bit and counteract the effects of clean-burning LNG out there and how LNG might actually superheat the earth if we’re not burning enough coal. That was the rough context of it.

I know he was not suggesting and advocating that we should be creating all of our power generation by ramping up coal-burning, but that’s where this debate has been ranging with Bill 38 — not a whole lot to do with the reporting that’s planned in Bill 38 because, again, there’s not a whole lot new. There has been some updated plans, some updated timelines but not a whole lot of new.

Now, I recognize we’ll be noting the hour shortly, so I will be continuing on tomorrow. I’ll just point out and maybe highlight what’s not new and take a couple of minutes. This will just give, maybe, a brief snapshot as to what I’m talking about.

Sections 8 to 11 in the bill, within our existing reporting requirements: “(a) a description of the actions taken by the Provincial government in the relevant calendar year to minimize its PSO greenhouse gas emissions.” Now, that’s the existing legislation. Here is the new groundbreaking legislation: “a description of the actions taken by the Provincial government in the relevant calendar year to minimize its PSO greenhouse gas emissions.” Word for word the same.

Maybe it’s in (b) that there’s a difference. Current plan: “its plans to continue minimizing those emissions.” The new updated, “always going to hold everyone accountable” plan: “the Provincial government’s plans to continue minimizing those emissions.” It certainly is groundbreaking that we’ve inserted the words “Provincial government” into this bill, but I don’t quite know how that’s going to reduce emissions for anyone living in this province.

[6:20 p.m.]

“(c) a determination of its PSO greenhouse gas emissions for the relevant calendar year.” Again, that’s the existing. The new and improved: “a determination of the Provincial government’s PSO greenhouse gas emissions for the relevant calendar year.” Again, that new addition of “Provincial government” in wording really, really adds to the strength of this.

“A statement of the offset units retired on behalf of the Provincial government in relation to those emissions.” “(d) a statement of the offset units retired on behalf of the Provincial government in relation to those emissions.” It sounds pretty much word for word.

“(e) any other information required by regulation.” Well, they have an (f), and I’ll get to their new (e): “any other prescribed information.”

They’ve added one clause in three sections total that says, “a description of the actions taken by the Provincial government in the relevant calendar year to comply with the requirements and to achieve the targets prescribed for the purposes set out in section 6.1,” essentially saying they need to have a description describing what they were actually reporting on and what actions they were doing.

They were already having to do it. So the fact that we’re adding in, basically, a cover letter describing what should be fairly self-evident in what they were doing is not exactly going to accelerate and bring down emissions within British Columbia.

With that, I’m not sure if you want me to note the hour, adjourn for the day and hold my spot for further…. I know I butchered the wording, but I think we….

Mr. Speaker: Member, you’re moving adjournment of the debate?

P. Milobar: Reserving my place and adjourning debate for the day.

P. Milobar moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. M. Farnworth moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned till 10 a.m. tomorrow morning.

The House adjourned at 6:22 p.m.