British Columbia Hansard — 20141030am Hansard v16n9

20141030am-Hansard-v16n9

British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)

Th ird Session, 40th Parliament OFFICIAL REPORT OF DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY (HANSARD) THE HONOURABLE LINDA REID, SPEAKER ISSN 0709- 1281 (Print) ISSN 1499-2175 (Online) Th ursday, October 30, 2014 Morning Sitting Volume 16, Number 9

PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Entered Confederation July 20, 1871) LIEUTENANT-GOVERNOR Her Honour the Honourable Judith Guichon, OBC Third Session, 40th Parliament SPEAKER OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Honourable Linda Reid EXECUTIVE COUNCIL Premier and President of the Executive Council .............................................................................................................. Hon. Christy Clark Deputy Premier and Minister of Natural Gas Development and Minister Responsible for Housing ......................Hon.

Rich Coleman Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation ......................................................................................................... Hon. John Rustad Minister of Advanced Education ............................................................................................................................................ Hon. Amrik Virk Minister of Agriculture ........................................................................................................................................................ Hon.

Norm Letnick Minister of Children and Family Development ....................................................................................................... Hon. Stephanie Cadieux Minister of Community, Sport and Cultural Development ........................................................................................... Hon. Coralee Oakes Minister of Education ..................................................................................................................................................... Hon.

Peter Fassbender Minister of Energy and Mines and Minister Responsible for Core Review .....................................................................Hon. Bill Bennett Minister of Environment ..........................................................................................................................................................Hon. Mary Polak Minister of Finance .................................................................................................................................................. Hon.

Michael de Jong, QC Minister of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations......................................................................................Hon. Steve Th omson Minister of Health ............................................................................................................................................................... Hon. Dr. Terry Lake Minister of International Trade and Minister Responsible for Asia Pacifi c Strategy and Multiculturalism ..................Hon.

Teresa Wat Minister of Jobs, Tourism and Skills Training and Minister Responsible for Labour ...................................................Hon. Shirley Bond Minister of State for Tourism and Small Business ....................................................................................................Hon. Naomi Y amamoto Minister of Justice ...............................................................................................................................................................Hon.

Suzanne Anton Minister of Social Development and Social Innovation......................................................................................................Hon. Don McRae Minister of Technology, Innovation and Citizens' Services ................................................................................... Hon. Andrew Wilkinson Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure ......................................................................................................................Hon.

Todd Stone LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Leader of the Offi cial Opposition ...................................................................................................................................................John Horgan Deputy Speaker .............................................................................................................................................................................Douglas Horne Assistant Deputy Speaker ...............................................................................................................................................................

Raj Chouhan Deputy Chair, Committee of the Whole ....................................................................................................................................... Marc Dalton Clerk of the Legislative Assembly ................................................................................................................................................... Craig James Deputy Clerk and Clerk of Committees .................................................................................................................................

Kate Ryan-Lloyd Sessional Law Clerk ...................................................................................................................................................Roderick MacArthur, QC Sergeant-at-Arms ................................................................................................................................................................................. Gary Lenz

ALPHABETICAL LIST OF MEMBERS Anton, Hon. Suzanne (BC Liberal) .............................. Vancouver-Fraserview Ashton, Dan (BC Liberal).....................................................................Penticton Austin, Robin (NDP) ................................................................................ Skeena Bains, Harry (NDP) ....................................................................Surrey-Newton Barnett, Donna (BC Liberal) ............................................... Cariboo-Chilcotin Bennett, Hon.

Bill (BC Liberal) ...................................................Kootenay East Bernier, Mike (BC Liberal) ................................................... Peace River South Bing, Dr. Doug (BC Liberal) ................................ Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows Bond, Hon. Shirley (BC Liberal) ........................... Prince George–Valemount Cadieux, Hon. Stephanie (BC Liberal) ................................Surrey-Cloverdale Chandra Herbert, Spencer (NDP) .................................Vancouver–West End Chouhan, Raj (NDP) ...........................................................

Burnaby-Edmonds Clark, Hon. Christy (BC Liberal) ........................................ Westside-Kelowna Coleman, Hon. Rich (BC Liberal) ...........................Fort Langley–Aldergrove Conroy, Katrine (NDP) .............................................................. Kootenay West Corrigan, Kathy (NDP) ..................................................... Burnaby–Deer Lake Dalton, Marc (BC Liberal) ............................................. Maple Ridge–Mission Darcy, Judy (NDP) ..................................................................New Westminster de Jong, Hon.

Michael, QC (BC Liberal) .............................. Abbotsford West Dix, Adrian (NDP)............................................................Vancouver-Kingsway Donaldson, Doug (NDP) ......................................................................... Stikine Eby, David (NDP) ..........................................................Vancouver–Point Grey Elmore, Mable (NDP) ................................................... Vancouver-Kensington Farnworth, Mike (NDP) ............................................................ Port Coquitlam Fassbender, Hon.

Peter (BC Liberal) ................................... Surrey-Fleetwood Fleming, Rob (NDP) .......................................................... Victoria–Swan Lake Foster, Eric (BC Liberal) .......................................................Vernon-Monashee Fraser, Scott (NDP) ............................................................Alberni–Pacifi c Rim Gibson, Simon (BC Liberal) ............................................. Abbotsford-Mission Hamilton, Wm.

Scott (BC Liberal) .................................................Delta North Hammell, Sue (NDP) .................................................... Surrey–Green Timbers Heyman, George (NDP) .................................................... Vancouver-Fairview Hogg, Gordon (BC Liberal) ............................................... Surrey–White Rock Holman, Gary (NDP) .......................................Saanich North and the Islands Horgan, John (NDP) .......................................................................

Juan de Fuca Horne, Douglas (BC Liberal) ..............................Coquitlam–Burke Mountain Hunt, Marvin (BC Liberal) ....................................................Surrey-Panorama Huntington, Vicki (Ind.) ..................................................................Delta South James, Carole (NDP) .........................................................Victoria–Beacon Hill Karagianis, Maurine (NDP) ........................................Esquimalt–Royal Roads Krog, Leonard Eugene (NDP) .............................................................

Nanaimo Kwan, Jenny Wai Ching (NDP) ........................... Vancouver–Mount Pleasant Kyllo, Greg (BC Liberal) ........................................................................ Shuswap Lake, Hon. Dr. Terry (BC Liberal) ....................Kamloops–North Th ompson Larson, Linda (BC Liberal) .........................................Boundary-Similkameen Lee, Richard T. (BC Liberal) ......................................................Burnaby North Letnick, Hon.

Norm (BC Liberal) ..............................Kelowna–Lake Country Macdonald, Norm (NDP) ....................................Columbia River–Revelstoke McRae, Hon. Don (BC Liberal) .................................................. Comox Valley Martin, John (BC Liberal) ..................................................................Chilliwack Morris, Mike (BC Liberal) ..................................... Prince George–Mackenzie Mungall, Michelle (NDP) ..........................................................Nelson-Creston Oakes, Hon.

Coralee (BC Liberal) .............................................Cariboo North Pimm, Pat (BC Liberal) .........................................................Peace River North Plecas, Dr. Darryl (BC Liberal) .............................................Abbotsford South Polak, Hon. Mary (BC Liberal) .............................................................. Langley Popham, Lana (NDP) ...................................................................Saanich South Ralston, Bruce (NDP) ................................................................ Surrey-Whalley Reid, Hon.

Linda (BC Liberal) ..................................................Richmond East Reimer, Linda (BC Liberal) ........................................ Port Moody–Coquitlam Rice, Jennifer (NDP) ........................................................................North Coast Robinson, Selina (NDP) .............................................Coquitlam-Maillardville Routley, Bill (NDP) .................................................................. Cowichan Valley Routley, Doug (NDP) ............................................Nanaimo–North Cowichan Rustad, Hon.

John (BC Liberal) ................................................ Nechako Lakes Shin, Jane Jae Kyung (NDP) ...............................................Burnaby-Lougheed Simons, Nicholas (NDP) ................................... Powell River–Sunshine Coast Simpson, Shane (NDP) ..................................................... Vancouver-Hastings Stilwell, Michelle (BC Liberal) ........................................ Parksville-Qualicum Stilwell, Dr. Moira (BC Liberal) ........................................ Vancouver-Langara Stone, Hon. Todd (BC Liberal) .........................

Kamloops–South Th ompson Sturdy, Jordan (BC Liberal) ..................................West Vancouver–Sea to Sky Sullivan, Sam (BC Liberal) ...........................................Vancouver–False Creek Sultan, Ralph (BC Liberal) ..................................... West Vancouver–Capilano Tegart, Jackie (BC Liberal) ............................................................Fraser-Nicola Th omson, Hon. Steve (BC Liberal) .......................................Kelowna-Mission Th ornthwaite, Jane (BC Liberal) ..........................

North Vancouver–Seymour Th roness, Laurie (BC Liberal).................................................Chilliwack-Hope Trevena, Claire (NDP) .................................................................... North Island Virk, Hon. Amrik (BC Liberal) ............................................. Surrey-Tynehead Wat, Hon. Teresa (BC Liberal) .............................................. Richmond Centre Weaver, Dr. Andrew (Ind.) .......................................... Oak Bay–Gordon Head Wilkinson, Hon. Andrew (BC Liberal) ........................ Vancouver-Quilchena Y amamoto, Hon.

Naomi (BC Liberal) ................ North Vancouver–Lonsdale Y ap, John (BC Liberal) ......................................................Richmond-Steveston LIST OF MEMBERS BY RIDING Abbotsford-Mission ......................................................................Simon Gibson Abbotsford South ..................................................................... Dr. Darryl Plecas Abbotsford West ...................................................... Hon. Michael de Jong, QC Alberni–Pacifi c Rim ..........................................................................

Scott Fraser Boundary-Similkameen ................................................................ Linda Larson Burnaby–Deer Lake ................................................................... Kathy Corrigan Burnaby-Edmonds ..........................................................................Raj Chouhan Burnaby-Lougheed .............................................................Jane Jae Kyung Shin Burnaby North .............................................................................. Richard T.

Lee Cariboo-Chilcotin ........................................................................Donna Barnett Cariboo North .................................................................... Hon. Coralee Oakes Chilliwack ......................................................................................... John Martin Chilliwack-Hope ....................................................................... Laurie Th roness Columbia River–Revelstoke .................................................. Norm Macdonald Comox Valley...........................................................................Hon.

Don McRae Coquitlam–Burke Mountain .....................................................Douglas Horne Coquitlam-Maillardville........................................................... Selina Robinson Cowichan Valley ................................................................................ Bill Routley Delta North .........................................................................Wm.

Scott Hamilton Delta South...............................................................................Vicki Huntington Esquimalt–Royal Roads .....................................................Maurine Karagianis Fort Langley–Aldergrove ...................................................Hon. Rich Coleman Fraser-Nicola.................................................................................... Jackie Tegart Juan de Fuca .....................................................................................John Horgan Kamloops–North Th ompson ............................................ Hon. Dr.

Terry Lake Kamloops–South Th ompson ..................................................Hon. Todd Stone Kelowna–Lake Country ..................................................... Hon. Norm Letnick Kelowna-Mission .............................................................. Hon. Steve Th omson Kootenay East .......................................................................... Hon. Bill Bennett Kootenay West ............................................................................ Katrine Conroy Langley.......................................................................................Hon.

Mary Polak Maple Ridge–Mission ..................................................................... Marc Dalton Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows ........................................................ Dr. Doug Bing Nanaimo ........................................................................... Leonard Eugene Krog Nanaimo–North Cowichan ......................................................... Doug Routley Nechako Lakes ........................................................................ Hon.

John Rustad Nelson-Creston ........................................................................Michelle Mungall New Westminster ............................................................................... Judy Darcy North Coast......................................................................................Jennifer Rice North Island .................................................................................. Claire Trevena North Vancouver–Lonsdale ........................................Hon.

Naomi Y amamoto North Vancouver–Seymour ..................................................Jane Th ornthwaite Oak Bay–Gordon Head ...................................................... Dr. Andrew Weaver Parksville-Qualicum .................................................................Michelle Stilwell Peace River North ................................................................................

Pat Pimm Peace River South ............................................................................Mike Bernier Penticton............................................................................................ Dan Ashton Port Coquitlam ..........................................................................Mike Farnworth Port Moody–Coquitlam ................................................................Linda Reimer Powell River–Sunshine Coast ................................................. Nicholas Simons Prince George–Mackenzie .............................................................

Mike Morris Prince George–Valemount ................................................... Hon. Shirley Bond Richmond Centre ......................................................................Hon. Teresa Wat Richmond East ..........................................................................Hon. Linda Reid Richmond-Steveston ..............................................................................John Y ap Saanich North and the Islands .................................................... Gary Holman Saanich South ................................................................................

Lana Popham Shuswap ................................................................................................Greg Kyllo Skeena .............................................................................................. Robin Austin Stikine ....................................................................................... Doug Donaldson Surrey-Cloverdale ....................................................... Hon. Stephanie Cadieux Surrey-Fleetwood ........................................................... Hon.

Peter Fassbender Surrey–Green Timbers .................................................................. Sue Hammell Surrey-Newton ................................................................................. Harry Bains Surrey-Panorama ........................................................................... Marvin Hunt Surrey-Tynehead ......................................................................Hon. Amrik Virk Surrey-Whalley..............................................................................

Bruce Ralston Surrey–White Rock ....................................................................... Gordon Hogg Vancouver-Fairview ..................................................................George Heyman Vancouver–False Creek ................................................................... Sam Sullivan Vancouver-Fraserview ......................................................Hon.

Suzanne Anton Vancouver-Hastings ....................................................................Shane Simpson Vancouver-Kensington .................................................................Mable Elmore Vancouver-Kingsway..........................................................................Adrian Dix Vancouver-Langara .................................................................Dr. Moira Stilwell Vancouver–Mount Pleasant .........................................

Jenny Wai Ching Kwan Vancouver–Point Grey .........................................................................David Eby Vancouver-Quilchena ................................................ Hon. Andrew Wilkinson Vancouver–West End ...............................................

Spencer Chandra Herbert Vernon-Monashee ...............................................................................Eric Foster Victoria–Beacon Hill .......................................................................Carole James Victoria–Swan Lake.........................................................................Rob Fleming West Vancouver–Capilano ............................................................. Ralph Sultan West Vancouver–Sea to Sky ..........................................................Jordan Sturdy Westside-Kelowna ................................................................

Hon. Christy Clark Party Standings: BC Liberal 49; New Democratic 34; Independent 2

CONTENTS Th ursday, October 30, 2014 Morning Sitting Page Routine Business Introductions by Members ..................................................................................................................................................... 5063 Tributes ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 5063 Mary Anne Cooper L.

Reimer Introductions by Members ..................................................................................................................................................... 5063 Introduction and First Reading of Bills ................................................................................................................................ 5064 Bill 7 — Nisga’a Final Agreement Amendment Act, 2014 Hon. J. Rustad Bill 8 — Protected Areas of British Columbia Amendment Act (No. 2), 2014 Hon. M. Polak Bill M204 — Poverty Reduction and Economic Inclusion Act, 2014 M.

Mungall Standing Order 81.1 ................................................................................................................................................................ 5065

Schedule for debate on bills Hon. M. de Jong Statements (Standing Order 25B) ......................................................................................................................................... 5065 Graham Hill M. Karagianis Contributions of seniors R. Lee International conference on Columbia River treaty K. Conroy University of the Fraser Valley J. Martin Intergenerational learning project at UBC Farm D. Eby 140th anniversary of Maple Ridge D.

Bing Oral Questions ......................................................................................................................................................................... 5067 Impact of ferry service reductions on economy and tourism industry C. Trevena Hon. T. Stone G. Heyman Court case with private clinic and support for public health system J. Darcy Hon. T. Lake Status of Pine Free Clinic and health services for youth D. Eby Hon. T. Lake Site C power project costs and B.C. credit rating A. Weaver Hon. M. de Jong B.C. Hydro mandate and development of alternative energy sources A. Weaver Hon.

B. Bennett Message from small business minister in economic development newsletter S. Robinson Hon. N. Y amamoto M. Mungall

Tabling Documents ................................................................................................................................................................. 5072 Offi ce of the Auditor General, Th e 2014

Summary Financial Statements and the Auditor General’s Findings, October 2014 Offi ce of the Registrar of Lobbyists for B.C., Investigation Report 14-11, lobbyist: Benjamin Chin, September 18, 2014 Offi ce of the Registrar of Lobbyists for B.C., Investigation Report 14-13, lobbyist: Brenda Swick, September 19, 2014 Orders of the Day Committee of the Whole House ............................................................................................................................................ 5072 Bill 2 — Greenhouse Gas Industrial Reporting and Control Act Hon. M. Polak S. Chandra Herbert V . Huntington L. Popham A. Weaver

THURSDAY , OCTOBER 30, 2014 Th e House met at 10:02 a.m. [Madame Speaker in the chair.] Routine Business Prayers. Introductions by Members S. Hamilton: It’s my pleasure to rise in the House to- day to introduce a number of people, and I’ll try to be brief. First of all, from Property Development Group in Vancouver, we have Mr. David Coon, Mr. Ken Grassi and Mr. Kenny Kyan. With them, from Land Strategies in Calgary, we have Mr. Mel Woolley. Th ese individuals have worked tirelessly throughout the province with First Nations communities to try to help them realize their economic development opportunities.

We only need to take a ferry ride from this great place to see how their eff orts have paid off in the form of the Tsawwassen First Nation’s economic development plan that is underway now. Now they’re working with mem- bers of the Tsawout First Nations here on Vancouver Island. With Tsawout First Nations, it’s my pleasure to introduce former Chief Allan Claxton, elder Irvine Jimmy and Mr. Vance Rosling, the economic development offi cer. I’ d ask the House to please make them welcome. [1005] [Interruption.] Madame Speaker: Please proceed, hon. Member. H.

Bains: It is my honour to introduce to this House my good friend, one of the best trade union activists. He thought he would retire from his active union duties. He thought he would retire but ended up being president of the retiree council of the Laborers International, Local 1611 — Bruce Ferguson. Along with him is his colleague and my good friend Merrick Walsh. Please help me wel- come them both to this House. Tributes MARY ANNE COOPER L. Reimer: It is with great pleasure that I rise in the House this morning to wish Dr. Mary Anne Cooper, my constituent, a very happy 100th birthday.

Mary Anne has been a steadfast community supporter in Port Moody and was the driving force behind our cherished Ioco Ghost Town Days. She was a member of the Port Moody Heritage Commission for seven years and has served on the board of the heritage society. She’s an active mem- ber of the United Church, and in 2011 Mary Anne was awarded the Freedom of the City for Port Moody. Would the members of this House please join me in wishing Dr. Mary Anne Cooper a very wonderful 100th birthday. Introductions by Members M.

Farnworth: In the gallery today is a group of stu- dents, grades 7 and 8 from Citadel Middle School in my riding, visiting the precinct. I hope the House makes them most welcome. M. Mungall: Well, it gives me great pleasure to intro- duce the House once again to Peggy Wilmot, who’s an active member in her community and active as a mem- ber of Faith in Action. She’s here today to watch the pro- ceedings of the House. R. Fleming: With us in the gallery today — and I just had a chance to have a quick word with them before coming in here — are students from Ecole Reynolds Secondary School in Saanich.

Th ere are 29 grade 11 stu- dents here with their teacher, Mr. Scott Campbell. I know they’ve been in very good hands with our parliamentary tour offi ce, and I hope the members here won’t disappoint them in question period. L. Reimer: It is also a great pleasure that I rise in the House today to wish my wonderful mother, Norma, a very happy birthday. I feel fortunate that we were able to cele- brate her birthday this past weekend at my home and that she will be celebrating with other family members today whilst I’m here in Victoria.

Would the members of this House please join me in wishing her a very happy birthday. S. Robinson: I’ d like to join with my colleague from Port Coquitlam in welcoming the Citadel Middle, and a particu- lar girlfriend’s daughter Paige Ackerman. I hope she does get a chance to watch, because I’m going to ask her a whole bunch of questions about what she learned. Paige, if you’re here, wherever you’re sitting, please pay close attention. G. Holman: I’ d also like to greet and welcome constitu- ents of mine from the Tsawout First Nation, Mr. Claxton, Mr. Jimmy and Mr. Rosling.

I know that the Tsawout have been working for years on this development. I know how important it is to your community. So I wish you all the best in your deliberations with government. Government prides itself on being good negotiators and being good dealmakers, so please keep me apprised of how your dis- cussions go with them. J. Kwan: Th ere’s quite a buzz in the community today for my good friend and colleague here in the Legislature, the 5063

British Columbia Debates5064 Thursday, October 30, 2014 member for Saanich South, who is celebrating her birth- day. Th ere’s no question. She is the queen bee of agriculture. [1010] D. Donaldson: Th ere’s a practice that’s become some- what of a tradition and that I was a little bit skeptical about, but now that I’ve gone through the experience, I think it’s a great tradition. So I want to announce the birth of my fi rst grandchild, Ailsa Tegwyn Frisk Yunkws. I’ll get to Hansard with the spelling of that aft er this. Th at refl ects her Gitxsan, Scottish-Gaelic and Danish herit- age.

Father Darrach and mother Cyra are doing great, and Nana Ts’its Anne is ecstatic. I would like to ask the Legislature to welcome Ailsa to B.C. Hon. T. Lake: Since we are talking about birthdays and people who share birthdays today, it’s just come to my attention that the Minister of Environment has a birth- day today. I wanted to say happy birthday to the Minister of Environment. A. Weaver: I, too, would like wish the Minister of Environment a happy birthday today, and, in advance, I apologize for the many, many, many, many questions that I will be raising during the third reading of Bill 2.

Introduction and First Reading of Bills BILL 7 — NISGA ’ A FINAL AGREEMENT AMENDMENT ACT, 2014 Hon. J. Rustad presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Nisga’a Final Agreement Amendment Act, 2014. Hon. J. Rustad: I move that Bill 7 be introduced and read now for a fi rst time. Motion approved. Hon. J. Rustad: I am very pleased to introduce Bill 7, the Nisga’a Final Agreement Amendment Act, 2014, for fi rst reading.

Th is bill enables the implementation of a collaborative government-to-government agreement that provides the Nisga’a Nation with the authority to tax property on non-Nisga’a citizens and businesses residing on Nisga’a Nation lands. The authority to levy property tax comprehensively across its territory is crucial for the Nisga’a Nation as the LNG opportunity in B.C. becomes a reality. Th is legisla- tion amends the Nisga’a Final Agreement Act to provide for the implementation of a real property tax coordination agreement between the Nisga’a Nation and the province.

Th e bill also provides for consequential amendments to a number of statutes, including amendments to al- low the Nisga’a Nation to become a full member of the northwest regional hospital district and for an enhanced relationship with the regional district of Kitimat-Stikine. B.C. has entered into similar taxation agreements with our other treaty partners, the Tsawwassen First Nation and the Maa-nulth First Nations. I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House aft er today.

Bill 7, Nisga’a Final Agreement Amendment Act, 2014, introduced, read a fi rst time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House aft er today. BILL 8 — PROTECTED AREAS OF BRITISH COLUMBIA AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 2014 Hon. M. Polak presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Protected Areas of British Columbia Amendment Act (No. 2), 2014. Hon. M. Polak: I move that the bill be introduced and read a fi rst time now. Motion approved. Hon. M. Polak: Th is bill contains amendments to the Protected Areas of British Columbia Act.

Amendments to the Protected Areas of British Columbia Act are pro- posed to remove approximately 63.5 hectares of land from Nisga’a Memorial Lava Bed Park to enable con- struction of the proposed Prince Rupert gas transmis- sion pipeline, which is proposed to transport natural gas from near Hudson’s Hope, B.C., to the proposed Pacifi c NorthWest liquefi ed natural gas export facility on Lelu Island in the district of Port Edward. I move that this bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House aft er today.

Bill 8, Protected Areas of British Columbia Amendment Act (No. 2), 2014, introduced, read a fi rst time and or- dered to be placed on orders of the day for second read- ing at the next sitting of the House aft er today. BILL M204 — POVERTY REDUCTION AND ECONOMIC INCLUSION ACT, 2014 M. Mungall presented a bill intituled Poverty Reduction and Economic Inclusion Act, 2014. M. Mungall: I move that the bill intituled Poverty Reduction and Economic Inclusion Act, 2014, of which notice has been given in my name on the order paper, be introduced and read a fi rst time now. Motion approved.

British Columbia DebatesThursday, October 30, 2014 5065 M. Mungall: Poverty is a complex economic situation that isn’t merely remedied with a job. Rather, for every person living in poverty, there is a story. For some, pov- erty has resulted because of a physical disability or mental illness. For others, it is a result of few opportunities dur- ing the early years of life.

For many, they live in poverty because of low wages. [1015] Because there are so many factors that contribute to poverty, and because it costs our communities more to ignore it than to do something about it, we need a com- prehensive plan with targets and timelines if we are to re- duce its prevalence. Many communities in Canada have started plans and found success. Nine out of ten prov- inces have also committed to plans because plans work.

Although B.C. has had the highest rate of overall pov- erty in Canada for 13 years and the highest child poverty rate for ten years — 33 percent above the national aver- age for that decade — government has yet to take action with a direct legislative approach. We remain the only province in Canada without a legislated plan. Today this Poverty Reduction and Economic Inclusion Act seeks to take the needed action to look at the ways government can reduce poverty rather than contribute to it.

For example, government could begin reducing child poverty by allowing children of single parents receiving income supports to keep their child support payments. When such policies are identifi ed and changed, we re- duce the poverty of real people and of our province as a whole and provide for greater economic inclusion for all people calling B.C. home. An advisory committee composed of people from all walks of life — like First Nations representatives, business, academia, labour, non-profi ts and those experiencing pov- erty themselves — will work with government on making B.C. ’s economy more inclusive.

By working together, we can reduce poverty and eventually make it history. I move that this bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House aft er today. Bill M204, Poverty Reduction and Economic Inclusion Act, 2014, introduced, read a fi rst time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House aft er today. Standing Order 81.1

SCHEDULE FOR DEBATE ON BILLS Hon. M. de Jong: Pursuant to Standing Order 81.1, I can advise the House that the bills introduced today by the Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation and the Minister of Environment represent the final pieces of legislation that the government intends to intro- duce and seek passage of in this fall session. In the days ahead the hon. Opposition House Leader and I will en- deavour to arrange a mutually agreeable schedule, but I wanted the House to be aware that that represents the legislative agenda for this session. Statements (Standing Order 25B) GRAHAM HILL M.

Karagianis: Aft er 12 years and four terms as mayor of the township of View Royal, Graham Hill has decided to take a most deserved retirement. Th is marks the cul- mination of a long and remarkable career that began in Staff ordshire, England, his birthplace. Graham trained as a metallurgist and came to Canada to work at his profession in the laboratories of Cominco. An industrial accident led to a career change, and for the next 35 years Graham was a computing expert in the pri- vate sector and for the provincial and federal governments.

He was a systems consultant and a manager with the RCMP , with Revenue Canada and Public Works Canada. In the B.C. government he was a director of the informa- tion systems for the Ministry of Forests, the Ministry of Small Business, Tourism and Culture, and the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries. Graham was a member of the steering committee of the fi rst View Royal offi cial community plan and was sub- sequently elected mayor of the town of View Royal on December 2, 2002. Th rough it all, his mission has been to make a lasting diff erence, and he has certainly done that.

In his time as mayor Graham oversaw improvements to Helmcken Road, the Old Island Highway, construction of the new Craigfl ower Bridge and the town’s new public safety building, which is now nearing completion. Graham leaves behind a remarkable legacy of com- munity service. I hope all members of the House will join me in thanking Graham for his exceptional public contributions and wish him well in the next

chapter of his long and glorious journey. CONTRIBUTIONS OF SENIORS R. Lee: I’m very glad to rise in the House today and talk about one of the fastest-growing demographics in British Columbia: seniors. It’s easy to think that seniors are the ones who need support, assistance and care. Many seniors do reside in seniors homes and care facilities. In Burnaby North we have excellent facilities like the Seton Villa, Rideau Manor, Dania Home, Carlton Gardens, Finnish Manor and Fellburn Care Centre.

Y et many seniors, who may or may not live in seniors homes, are volunteering in our community centres, fund- raising for charities, serving on boards of directors of community organizations and providing care for spouses or grandchildren. Some of them take up important con-

British Columbia Debates5066 Thursday, October 30, 2014 sulting or even leadership roles in our society, utilizing their expertise and networks accumulated throughout the years. [1020] Recently I attended the Seniors of Distinction Awards ceremony in Burnaby, where four seniors — Rodger Konkle, Harminder Sanghera, Russell Moore and Mary Barry — were recognized for their contributions to our society in areas of leadership, volunteerism, arts and community services, respectively. I am pleased to see the fi rst seniors advocate in our province and in Canada has been appointed.

Making our community more accessible and providing supports to stay in their homes for as long as possible are certainly welcomed by our seniors. We value our unique seniors population, and I would like all members of the House to join me in recognizing the contributions of the seniors in our communities and in our lives. INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON COLUMBIA RIVER TREATY K. Conroy: Last week I attended the 2014 transbound- ary conference on the Columbia River treaty, held in Spokane, Washington.

Th e theme, “Th e Columbia River Basin: learning from our past to shape our future, ” in- spired delegates to share memories of what happened when this treaty was developed and enacted over 50 years ago and what needs to be done now to ensure a positive future for the people of the basin and the river itself. Th e conference, co-sponsored by the Columbia Basin Trust and the Northwest Power and Conservation Council, brought together 300 delegates, including pas- sionate voices from both First Nations and the U.S. tribes.

Th e conversation over the three days included many of the issues that were never part of the discussion when the treaty was enacted. In 1964 the only purpose was fl ood control and power generation. Th ere was no consideration for the substan- tial loss of people’s homes, the destruction of the eco- system and an environment that was forever altered, the agricultural land lost and the many opportunities that were taken away from the people of the basin.

Th ere was some good — the permanent fl ood control, as there has never been another fl ood in the basin, and the down- stream benefi ts returned to the B.C. government. But for some folks the entire process will never be seen as a positive one. Th ere were a number of themes throughout the three days: we must learn from the mistakes of our past govern- ments, the eff ects of climate change, and energy conserv- ation — or just turn out the lights, as one native elder said. Th e overwhelming message, though, was the support of the return of the salmon to the Upper Columbia.

Th e salmon were not kept from the river by the treaty but due to the building of the Grand Coulee dam back in the ’30s. However, all agreed, even my colleague from Kootenay East, that everything should be done to return the salmon. Th ere wasn’t anyone in the room that wasn’t touched as we watched Gord DeRosa from Trail playing guitar with his seven-year-old granddaughter, Neveah DeRosa Whyte, as she sang a song about the Columbia River.

Nevah’s message to all of us was, “Me and my nono made this video in honour of keeping the river clean and re- turning the salmon to the Columbia River, ” a sentiment that we can all share. UNIVERSITY OF THE FRASER V ALLEY J. Martin: Th is year marks the 40th anniversary of the University of the Fraser Valley. Th e university — which now has campuses in Chilliwack, Abbotsford, Hope, Mission and Chandigarh, India — was fi rst established as Fraser Valley College in 1974. Ceremonies and cele- brations marking UFV40 have been taking place in our various communities for the last several months.

UFV has become a jewel within the Fraser Valley and a leader within Canada in so many areas. Th e institution owes its successes to outsta nding community connec- tions and support, which make this institution a world- class learning facility. What started as a grassroots community initiative to provide post-secondary education opportunities for stu- dents of all ages and throughout all regions of the Fraser Valley has now become the centre of programs spanning masters and bachelors degrees, diplomas, certifi cates, apprenticeship world-class trades training, and continu- ing studies.

Research activity has faculty and students working in partnerships, including those with NASA, the Surrey fi re service, Natural Resources Canada and many more. With more than 15,000 students, including 900 inter- national students from 45 countries, 30,000 alumni and 1,500 employees, the University of the Fraser Valley is a driving force behind economic activity in Chilliwack, Abbotsford and elsewhere. I’m proud to congratulate my friends and my former colleagues for many, many years at the University of the Fraser Valley.

I encourage all members of the House to visit the new agricultural cen tre of excellence anytime they’re in the vicinity. [1025] INTERGENERATIONAL LEARNING PROJECT AT UBC FARM D. Eby: I’m thrilled to announce to this House that we have a program at UBC Farm that has just won a national science award from Canada’s Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council, NSERC, for their

British Columbia DebatesThursday, October 30, 2014 5067 work promoting science in the Lower Mainland and in the Okanagan. Th e intergenerational landed learning project at the centre for the study of sustainable food systems at UBC Farm has connected more than 2,000 school kids, ages eight to 17, with farmers and community gardeners for hands-on lessons in the science of farming, pest control and climate. Supported by UBC, the University Neighbourhoods Association and a number of local sponsors, the project began in 2002.

For the fi rst two years it operated with just one teacher, a class of 18 grade 7 students and seven com- munity elders with farming and gardening backgrounds. Although thousands have participated since then, the original vision remains. Participating students visit the farm, where they cultivate the soil and grow food. Th ere they engage in structured conversations with their teach- ers and elders about environmental and scientifi c issues, farming practices and the elders’ history working the land.

Th e project has expanded to the Okanagan Science Centre and has added an internship program under which high school students help build and maintain com- munity gardens at four Vancouver secondary schools. Th e students participating in the program even take the produce from these community garden projects and sell it at local farmers markets. Not surprisingly, the intergenerational landed learning project has won a number of awards, with this NSERC prize being just the latest.

As a result of receiving this prestigious national award, the project will receive $25,000 to help fund their work, and their model will be promoted across the country. Th ank you to co-founder Jolie Mayer-Smith, as well as program developer Linda Peterat, program manager Stacy Friedman and the current staff — Kailee Hirsche, Carla Turner and Megan Severide — for all of their work in connecting kids and elders, teaching about science and promoting food security through a project that is not just a source of local pride but also national recogni- tion. Congratulations. 140th ANNIVERSARY OF MAPLE RIDGE D.

Bing: Hon. Speaker, 140 years ago a Scottish Canadian by the name of John McIver invited 50 neigh- bouring families to his farm. McIver called his farm Maple Ridge because of a prominent row of maple trees on a ridge overlooking the Fraser River. He invited them to his farm because he wanted to per- suade them to ask the province for permission to form a municipality. Th ey heartily agreed, and those present at this historic meeting decide d to name the new munici- pality aft er John McIver’s farm. Th e provincial government gave permission to the area to form the province’s sixth municipality.

On September 12, 1874, the corporation of the district of Maple Ridge was formed. If we fast-forward to September 10 of this year, the Premier and the entire government caucus met in Maple Ridge for its fall caucus meeting. Th e Premier used the opportunity to announce the birthday present — name- ly, that the community had been given permission, ef- fective September 12, its actual birthdate, to change its designation from the district of Maple Ridge to the city of Maple Ridge.

From those humble beginnings 140 years ago, Maple Ridge is now the province’s 50th city and a thriving, vi- brant community of 80,000 people. I ask the House to join me in wishing a happy birthday to Maple Ridge. Oral Questions IMPACT OF FERRY SERVICE REDUCTIONS ON ECONOMY AND TOURISM INDUSTRY C. Trevena: When the government announced its cuts to ferry services last year, community leaders in the Cariboo knew it was a bad idea. So a working group made up of the tourism industry, business owners and local politicians came down to Victoria to meet with three ministers and tell them why.

But as Jason Ryll, past president of the Williams Lake and District Chamber of Commerce, tells it: “We were met with disdain. ” To the Minister of Transportation: the government didn’t consult, and then it didn’t listen to people across the province who warned it would be the disaster it’s proven to be. I’ d like the minister to tell this House whether he’s done any study at all on the economic im- pact of ending route 40. Hon. T.

Stone: I certainly always appreciate questions from the member for North Island, particularly as related to the ferry service in this province. [1030] As I have said on numerous occasions previously, there indeed have been tough decisions that we’ve had to make to ensure that the ferry service is sustainable and aff ord- able. Th is side of the House certainly understands that there is a direct correlation between the aff ordability factor and the number of passengers that use the service. Th at is why, in addition to a record level of investment from this government in B.C. Ferries — last fi scal $180 million….

Th at is why, in addition to supporting B.C. Ferries’ eff orts to achieve over $54 million in operation- al effi ciencies, we are also working with B.C. Ferries on a wide array of other initiatives, all focused on driving down the cost of ferry service in this province. It would be nice if, for once, we could hear from the member for North Island and her colleagues if there is one concept, one initiative — whether it’s the conversion

British Columbia Debates5068 Thursday, October 30, 2014 to LNG propulsion, whether it’s evaluating fi xed links, whether it’s looking at alternative technologies, wheth- er it’s looking to drive new revenue opportunities…. It would be nice if the member for North Island would stand up in this House and tell us what their ideas are to ensure a sustainable and aff ordable ferry service in this province. Madame Speaker: Th e member for North Island on a supplemental. C.

Trevena: I take that as a no, that they didn’t make any economic studies, and they made what the minister calls tough decisions based purely on supposition and no hard information. What a way to run an economy. Jason Ryll, who was with the chamber of commerce, the past president of a chamber of commerce, with his working group thought that the minister might want to know and have a few facts at his hand — a strange idea, obviously — and tried to explain to the minister about the number of vehicles that actually use the route, the number of people who are using the route.

But those facts that the working group brought to the minister were, Mr. Ryll said, met with disdain. Th e reac- tion from the government, instead of having a real con- versation about how to get this economy working in the central coast, was basically: “Th ank you for your infor- mation. Now out the door. ” Again to the Minister of Transportation, and maybe he’ll have the courtesy to respond to the question this time. If he’s not going to listen to the individuals or com- munities or politicians, will he listen to the econom- ic analysis of chambers of commerce and fi x the cuts?

Chambers of commerce who know what is happening to their local economies…. Interjections. Madame Speaker: Members will come to order please. Please continue. C. Trevena: Th ank you, Madame Speaker. Will he listen to the chambers of commerce who know the local economy and fi x the mistakes that he has made in cutting this service? Hon. T. Stone: Well, it’s refreshing to hear that per- haps there actually is a willingness on the other side of the fl oor to engage with chambers of commerce and lis- ten to their problems.

I will remind the members opposite that the route in question, route 40, was losing $7.35 million per year. Th e vehicles on that ship were being subsidized to the tune of $2,500 per vehicle, and this was to move between 500 and 600 vehicles on the direct shot from Port Hardy to Bella Coola. We don’t believe that that’s sustainable. Now, this past summer I decided to take my family on the Discovery coast circle tour. We went on the Nimpkish.

We enjoyed the voyage, and we talked to tourists from all over the world that were on the ship, who were enjoying the voyage. [1035] I would ask the member for North Island this. While I was out touring on the Nimpkish on the Discovery coast circle tour — out of my own pocket, by the way — why was the member for North Island choosing to use that time to tour around on Washington State Ferries and billing $1,900 of expenses to the taxpayers of British Columbia? G.

Heyman: Not only do we listen to chambers of commerce, unlike the minister, we listen to the chamber of commerce when they point out that his fi gures of the 500 vehicles using route 40 don’t correspond with B.C. Ferries’ own fi gures of 2,643 vehicles. When we listen to them, we don’t treat them with disdain. Interjections. Madame Speaker: Members. Just wait a moment, please. Please continue. G. Heyman: International tourism operators told this government that shutting route 40 just before the tour- ist season was a terrible idea. But again, the government didn’t listen.

Now, as Patrick Corbett of Hills Health Ranch and 108 Mile Ranch put it: “Th e international wholesalers who sell British Columbia are nothing short of being fl at out angry. ” Th ey’re angry that the route was cut at short notice and doubly angry that the government is trying to sell the trip aboard the Nimpkish as a viable alternative, a vessel where someone in a wheelchair can’t even access the washroom. To the minister. Initial fi gures show tourism is down 70 percent on some parts of this route because of the gov- ernment’s reckless actions.

Will the government acknow- ledge that this has a signifi cant impact on the province’s economy and reinstate a comprehensive circle route? Hon. T. Stone: Well, I think the fi rst thing that would be helpful here would be an acknowledgment from the opposition members that every single time they run down this service…. Th ey call out the Nimpkish, and they make outrageous claims about the quality of the service that’s actually provided. Every time they do that, they’re actually damaging the tourism brand in British Columbia. It might also be useful if they were actually to get out and experience this service.

If they were actually to go and do it, experience it fi rsthand, they would discover that the Nimpkish has been upgraded. Th e amenities are

British Columbia DebatesThursday, October 30, 2014 5069 much, much more comfortable. Th ere’s a nice selection of food available. Th e staff are friendly. When I was on board with my wife and my three daughters — again, as part of a family vacation — I ac- tually took a moment to take a look at the guestbook that was on board. In the guestbook there were entries from people all over the world since this service was changed. Here’s what Ms. Steiger from Switzerland had to say. Th ey expected the trip to be uneventful but were pleasantly sur- prised. “We saw dolphins. We had great food. We had bev- erage service.

It was a stunning and wonderful landscape. Greetings from Switzerland. We will do this trip again. ” Th ey ought to help get the good word out about this service. G. Heyman: It would be great for the tourism oper- ators in the Cariboo and the coast if they could live off the minister’s fantasies, but unfortunately, they can’t. As Mr. Corbett explained, these international oper- ators don’t just sell trips to B.C. Th ey sell trips to destin- ations worldwide. In other words, they have choices. As Mr.

Corbett put it, when you’re mad at somebody, you look at other people to spend time with. [1040] We already know that over the course of a decade our province lost $2.3 billion, thanks to this government’s re- peated ferry fare hikes. To the minister: how much more business will Cariboo and central coast tourism lose be- fore this government listens to the people whose liveli- hoods you’ve put on the chopping block? Hon. T.

Stone: I will wait with bated breath to hear the personal experience of the member for Vancouver- Fairview or the member for North Island or any of the members opposite, who I would encourage to get out and actually do this service. Th e Discovery coast circle tour is still very much intact. It’s a viable tourism product. Th e ship has been retrofi tted. Th e schedules have been synced. Th ere is food on board. On this side of the House we have extended our hand to the tourism associations and to small businesses through Bella Coola and the Chilcotin.

My colleague the Minister for Tourism and Small Business has been there and has met with a number of the operators. I was there and met with folks as well. Th e sooner the members op- posite stop running down this service, the sooner we can actually tell the world what a fi rst-class tourism product this continues to be. COURT CASE WITH PRIV ATE CLINIC AND SUPPORT FOR PUBLIC HEALTH SYSTEM J. Darcy: In the last few weeks I’ve heard from over 1,500 people who are concerned about the threat to our public health care system from for-profi t clinics like Dr. Brian Day’s.

Th e government is now negotiating behind closed doors to settle a court case with Brian Day, and people are deeply concerned about what’s happening in those secret negotiations. Th ey believe in a public health care system where you show your CareCard, not a credit card, and they want it to stay that way. How can British Columbians trust this government to defend public health care when one of its own members, the member for Parksville-Qualicum, is openly advocat- ing for private care for her constituents? Hon. T. Lake: Th is government is, in fact, defending public health care.

Th at is why we are auditing and have audited some private clinics that we feel have broken the statutes of the Canada Health Act and, provincially, the Medicare Protection Act. We are being taken to court by the operators of those clinics because we have audited them and asked for the taxpayers’ money to be returned. We will stand up for public health care, as we always do in the province of British Columbia.

I look forward to the ability to have a court date when we can stand up and make sure that, in fact, our public health care system is intact and continues to be the very best public health care system in the country of Canada. J. Darcy: Th e fact of the matter is that the Brian Day clinic double-billed to the tune of $500,000 in just a 30-day period. We’re talking tens of millions of dollars over the last number of years, and this government has been letting them get away with it — not once or twice but for many years.

Now we have the member for Parksville-Qualicum, who is actually advocating, when people come to see her, that people go to the private system for critical screening for cancer. British Columbians believe that the quality of care you get should not depend on the size of your bank account, and they do want to keep it that way. Th ey’re tired of this government saying one thing and doing another. [1045] Will this B.C. Liberal government commit today to or- dering a full and comprehensive audit of all of Brian Day’s clinics? Will the minister commit to doing that today? Hon. T.

Lake: I’m not sure why the member opposite is confused about what we are doing. We are being sued. Th e province of British Columbia is being sued by a private clinic because we audited them and found that they were in contravention of the Medicare Protection Act. We are standing up for public health care. We’ll continue to do so and to make sure that British Columbians have the best quality health care that is publicly paid for and continues to be the best health care system in all of Canada. STATUS OF PINE FREE CLINIC AND HEALTH SERVICES FOR YOUTH D.

Eby: On Friday Vancouver’s only dedicated pub- lic health clinic for youth, the Pine Free Clinic, will

British Columbia Debates5070 Thursday, October 30, 2014 close. Th e sign on the clinic’s front door refers youth to a primarily adult clinic that has only 20 dedicated youth hours per week and no youth hours on Saturday. Th at’s less than half of the time currently available to young people at Pine. Remarkably, this restructuring that is leading to the Pine’s closure will cause this government to spend more money, not less, eliminating this regional youth clinic which has operated under governments of every stripe for 41 years.

Why is the minister closing this confi dential and safe health care space for youth and sending the vulnerable young people who depend on it to adult clinics? Hon. T. Lake: We have talked about the changes to pri- mary health care in Vancouver Coastal in this House be- fore. I have always said that health care must be dynamic, must respond to the needs of the population. Th ese chan- ges have been done very thoughtfully. Th ey will allow even more patients in the Vancouver community to have access to primary services, including youth. In fact, the Raven Song clinic will increase the hours of operation.

It will go to fi ve days a week, 12 hours a day, instead of the current eight hours a day, and then even- tually will be open seven days a week, 12 hours a day — more than doubling the current hours that are available to vulnerable clients. I know that over there the expression “change for the better” sometimes doesn’t work. But in this case this is change for the better. Madame Speaker: Recognizing Vancouver–Point Grey on a supplemental. D. Eby: Don’t take my opinion on this. Th is is a review — commissioned by Vancouver Coastal Health — by a family medicine expert from St. Paul’s.

Th is restructuring is “likely to reduce access to primary care for many high- needs patients” — like the youth at Pine, who are now facing half the number of hours that they used to have. As Vancouver youth began to organize to try to save their clinic, Vancouver Coastal Health undermined their eff orts by releasing a misleading poster with a headline that said: “None of our nine community health centres are closing. ” Th e Pine clinic was listed as one of nine com- munity health centres on the VCH website.

Instead of engaging youth on this issue that aff ects them, giving them accurate information and asking them their opinion, this government released misleading infor- mation that frustrated their organizing eff orts. How can the minister justify this? Hon. T. Lake: I had the opportunity to tour Raven Song clinic, which will have expanded hours and avail- ability to vulnerable patients in the Vancouver area. Interjections. Hon. T. Lake: It was the Health Minister who used to say that nothing should ever change in the NDP world, so I won’t say that, Madame Speaker. I have to be a little more original.

In fact, we must be responsive to the changing needs of the population. Th e expanded service of the clinics in Vancouver Coastal will allow vulnerable youth to have better and increased access to health care, including con- fi dential sexual and reproductive health care and mental health care and addictions services. [1050] Raven Song will off er 60 hours of youth clinic services fi ve days a week and then will expand to 84 hours a week in 2015. Th at’s an increase of 30 hours; Pine was open only 54 hours per week. We are looking after the vulnerable population in Vancouver Coastal.

We are making sure those services are available to youth. Th is really is change for the better. SITE C POWER PROJECT COSTS AND B.C. CREDIT RATING A. Weaver: On April 19 of 2010, I, along with numer- ous others, travelled to Hudson’s Hope to hear the then Premier, Gordon Campbell, announce that the proposed Site C dam project was moving to the environmental as- sessment stage. In 2010 the projected construction cost for the dam was $6.6 billion, but by May 2011, that cost had increased to $7.9 billion, a 20 percent increase.

There’s considerable upside uncertainty regarding these costs that could easily reach $10 billion to $12 bil- lion. Th e fi nal investment decision with respect to Site C now rests with cabinet. In the past our government has appropriately cele- brated the fact that B.C. has maintained a triple-A credit rating. However, in May of this year Moody’s downgrad- ed our outlook from stable to negative, citing concerns about the increasing provincial debt. My question to the Minister of Finance is this.

Is the minister as troubled as I am that the approval of the Site C dam could lead to the downgrading of our credit rat- ing that, in turn, would raise the costs of servicing of all of our provincial debt? Hon. M. de Jong: Th e member correctly identifi es the pride we do have for our triple-A credit rating. It’s a form of report card issued by international agencies, a com- parative assessment of how we’re doing, and the marks they have given us the past number of years places us in very, very exclusive company. Commercial Crowns, like B.C.

Hydro, are assessed as self-supported debt rather than taxpayer-supported debt. Th e other thing I can say to the member is that B.C. Hydro has over the past number of years been assessed

British Columbia DebatesThursday, October 30, 2014 5071 a fl ow-through rating, which means they have the same triple-A rating as the B.C. government. Now, some rat- ing agencies are now extending their analysis to extend to total provincial debt, including self-supporting Crown corporations. Th e Minister of Energy has — and will, if given the op- portunity — continued to point out the basis upon which a fi nal decision on this project will be made, but I can assure the member and all members that aff ordability of debt will be one of those considerations. Madame Speaker: Oak Bay–Gordon Head on a sup- plemental.

B.C. HYDRO MANDATE AND DEVELOPMENT OF ALTERNATIVE ENERGY SOURCES A. Weaver: We know there are aff ordable alternatives to Site C, and these alternatives would allow us to meet present and future energy needs without running the risk of incurring increased public debt and potentially dam- aging our triple-A credit rating. Th e fact is that circumstances have changed since 2010. Th at’s why I no longer believe it’s fi scally prudent to move forward with this project. In the last few years the costs of wind energy and solar PV have dropped dramatically.

In addition, just last month the Canadian Geothermal Energy Association released a report outlining the unheralded potential of B.C. ’s yet untapped geothermal resource. My question to the Minister of Finance is this. Will the government consider expanding the mandate of B.C. Hydro to allow them to develop our geothermal resour- ces? And will the government task B.C. Hydro with issu- ing new calls for power at a fi xed price below the projected cost of power produced from Site C so that the market can prove up these cheaper alternatives — and, subsequently, protect the ratepayer from unnecessary rate hikes? Hon.

B. Bennett: Th ank you to the member for the question. It’s actually, I think, a positive thing to be given the opportunity to talk about our electricity policy in the province and how we’re going to obtain the electricity that we’re going to need over the next 20 years. Th e esti- mate is that we’re going to need about 40 percent more electricity than we generate today over the next 20 years. Th e province obviously has some choices.

If you look at the ten-year rates plan that we announced a year ago, you’ll see that we’ve already made some choices in terms of priorities. [1055] Our number one choice in terms of meeting that new demand is conservation. B.C. Hydro is going to attempt to meet the growth in demand through conservation, to the extent of 78 percent of the growth in demand by conservation.

In reference to that same plan that we announced a year ago, we are also going to meet that demand by re- investing in assets that were built a long time ago on the Peace River system and the Columbia River system and try to generate as much electricity as we can with the cur- rent generation assets that we have. Th e third thing that we’re going to do is to allow a number of IPP projects that are already in the pipeline to be fi nished, to be constructed, and we will acquire that electricity as well.

Even aft er those three responses to this growth and de- mand, we are going to need at least 1,100 megawatts of electricity over on top of that, and the government has not decided how we’re going to acquire that 1,100 mega- watts. I can tell the hon. member that we are, in fact, care- fully looking at all of the alternatives. MESSAGE FROM SMALL BUSINESS MINISTER IN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT NEWSLETTER S. Robinson: I would like to know if the Minister of State for Small Business can tell the House the purpose of her Economic Development in B.C. newsletter and her letter that appears in it. Hon. N.

Y amamoto: I appreciate that the member op- posite actually has seen it and read it. It actually isn’t my newsletter. It is done, actually, with the leadership of the Minister of Jobs, Tourism and Skills Training and Labour. I have a small portion of that.

I can tell you that regardless of who takes the lead in it, the purpose of the newsletter is obviously to demonstrate to whoever is reading it that economic growth in British Columbia is good, and that we have to fi nd a way to say- ing yes, and with respect to my portfolio, small business, it’s absolutely critical, as 98 percent of all businesses in B.C. are small business. Today we’re in October, so it’s Small Business Month. It’s to recognize and appreciate the incredible work that small businesses do in this province and in communities all over the world. M.

Mungall: I am glad that the minister laid out the purpose of the newsletter, but I was surprised to see that below the minister’s signature in the newsletter, which was mentioned by the member for Coquitlam- Maillardville, she added a link to her election campaign Facebook page. It reads “vote, ” and then her name. Can the minister tell us why she used a ministry publication to promote her re-election website? Hon. N. Y amamoto: I’m not aware of that link. If it’s there, it’s inappropriate, and we will have it removed. M. Mungall: I appreciate the minister may have made

British Columbia Debates5072 Thursday, October 30, 2014 a mistake in this situation. I mean, I assumed that she would have reviewed these documents, but I understand that she may have made a mistake. Th at being said, the responsibility for government communications lies with the GCPE. Can the minister tell us: is Athana Mentzelopoulos, who was responsible for the government communica- tions when this document was produced…? Was she re- sponsible for approving these documents? Hon. N. Y amamoto: As I mentioned, if, in fact, that link is there, it will be removed.

It is inappropriate, and I was unaware of it. [End of question period.] Tabling Documents Madame Speaker: Hon. Members, I have the honour to present the following reports. Offi ce of the Auditor General, Th e 2014

Summary Financial Statements and the Auditor General’s Findings. Offi ce of the Registrar of Lobbyists, Investigation Report 14-11, lobbyist: Benjamin Chin; and Investigation Report 14-13 , lobbyist: Brenda Swick. [1100] Orders of the Day Hon. M. de Jong: Committee stage debate on Bill 2. Committee of the Whole House BILL 2 — GREENHOUSE GAS INDUSTRIAL REPORTING AND CONTROL ACT Th e House in Committee of the Whole on Bill 2; D. Horne in the chair. Th e committee met at 11:04 a.m. On

section 1. Hon. M. Polak: I’ll just introduce the staff that I have with me. To my left I have Tim Lesiuk, the executive dir- ector of business development for the climate action sec- retariat. To my right I have our new head of the climate action secretariat, Susanna Laaksonen-Craig. [1105] S. Chandra Herbert: I appreciate the staff support. Obviously, they’ve worked hard to try and make this bill comprehensible to the layperson. I’ve learned a lot about diff erent forms of emissions and potential ways to reduce them and potential ways that we aren’t reducing them as well.

I have quite a few questions around defi nitions. I know other colleagues do as well. So I ask the Chair for his for- giveness if sometimes we are a little repetitive, as we have questions which are trying to interpret the bill to the best of our ability. I would also ask if the Chair could ensure that mem- bers of the House don’t be too loud, because I have hard time sometimes hearing the minister way down on the other side of the House here. I’ve noticed that challenge in this House. First, happy birthday to the minister. I appreciate that this will be the best birthday party yet.

Th at says a lot about birthday parties that I’ve been to anyway. Just kidding. I fi rst wanted to just move two amendments on no- tice. Th ey will come up for debate later in the bill, but I just thought I should provide notice for the House of the amendments I propose to move. One is a proposed amendment to the

schedule of regulated operations and emission limits, adding in the upstream side of the LNG equation to that section. Th e other is to eliminate the po- tential exemption of the carbon tax for LNG operations. I’ll just hand those to you now so you can have those for down the road. Getting into the bill itself, I wondered if the minister might be able to explain the defi nition of “accepted emis- sion off set project. ” Does that require that all off sets pur- chased by B.C. LNG companies be from B.C. emissions reduction projects? Hon. M.

Polak: Th e director will make a decision as to an accepted emission off set project if the validation statement that the director receives is in accordance with the regulations and if it meets the prescribed criteria that are in

section 9. S. Chandra Herbert: I’m to understand, then, at this stage, as the regulations have not been written, conceiv- ably regulations could be written to include off set pro- jects outside of the province. Or is that impossible? Hon. M. Polak: Our intent is to outline that in the regulation — that it would be a requirement for them to be purchased in B.C. S.

Chandra Herbert: ust so that I understand and so that anybody at home or at work watching this debate understands, the possibility, then, very much exists that this government or a future government could change those regulations to allow off set projects to be anywhere else but B.C. Hon. M. Polak: It’s quite conceivable that in the future, given the work that we’re doing internationally, there may be other jurisdictions in the future that meet the criteria that we have with respect to off sets.

British Columbia DebatesThursday, October 30, 2014 5073 [1110] At some time in the future it might make sense to allow the purchase of off sets outside B.C. Right now it doesn’t. But we believe it’s appropriate to allow that fl exibility to be in regulation so that if the circumstances do change, we can adapt. S. Chandra Herbert: Well, the minister will know, of course, that international rules and regulations require that emissions be counted where they are produced, and we have a legal requirement to reduce our emissions by 33 percent by 2020.

Th e concern many have is that while the Premier may say reducing coal emissions in China is good, not be- ing able to be defi nitive that that wouldn’t happen any- way…. Would that be the kind of thing that the minister could consider as an off set in the future — in China — to count towards B.C. ’s emission targets and legally re- quired reductions? Hon. M. Polak: It wouldn’t operate that way. It wouldn’t be possible. Th e off sets have to follow strict ac- counting rules which would not allow for us to count as off sets any impact that it had on reducing emissions in other parts of the world. S.

Chandra Herbert: So “accepted emission off set pro- ject. ” A director, with whatever the regulations the gov- ernment decided, could be, though, conceivably — just so I’m absolutely clear…. Let’s say an off set reduction project in China could be funded by B.C. off set dollars from LNG projects, should the government structure the regulations that way. Is that possible? I just want to make sure that I understand that correctly. Hon. M. Polak: Th at concern is precisely why, at the current time, staff have been directed to develop regu- lations that require those off set purchases here in B.C.

Th e idea of having that in regulation, though, is…. I’m sure the member will be aware that there are many oc- casions, with older pieces of legislation, that we fi nd our- selves here debating relatively small-sized amendments because times have changed. Y et, because it was put into legislation, one has to come back here to the House. Th e idea is to allow for that ability to change it in regulation. We have no intent at this time to be using taxpayers’ money to be funding purchase of off sets in other jurisdic- tions around the world.

We want the LNG industry here in B.C. to be generating revenue for people here in B.C. and certainly for off set projects like First Nations off set projects here in B.C. S. Chandra Herbert: Th e minister will be well aware that the Auditor General pointed out that off sets can be challenging. She will likely know that many international fi nancial agencies and others have pointed out that off sets can be gained, that white-collar crime has been a chal- lenge in the off set world.

It is a very challenging thing to regulate to ensure that an off set is a new, real off set as op- posed to something that would have happened already. For those watching at home, if you don’t know what an off set is, it is, of course, if you pollute and you stop some- body else who is planning on polluting…. Th e argument is that they can off set each other because you’ve stopped increased pollution on the one side and, in a sense, bal- anced it out. I’m just curious.

Given that approximately 70 percent of the off sets the government used to justify and to argue as carbon-neutral one year, including the Darkwoods project and the Encana project, were shown to be quite convincingly not additional, not convincingly new — they were projects that were likely going to happen al- ready — what kind of assurances can the government give that an off set will be real, as opposed to something that was already going to happen? [1115] Hon. M.

Polak: Th e member will be aware that, while we disagreed with the conclusions of the Auditor General in his report, we responded positively to all the recom- mendations. Th at entire process of off sets has been re- structured within government. I can tell the member that the new off set system has some important new requirements to it — project regis- tration, off set issuance, positive list protocols — and, in fact, is accredited under the Canadian Standards Council as well as the American National Standards Institute. Th at takes us to the international standards for off sets. S.

Chandra Herbert: Th e minister will have to for- give me. For the list of things that she said that the gov- ernment is going to do to ensure that off sets are credible, if she could go into a little bit more detail. Some of the phrases I’m not completely familiar with and I under- stand others who are not experts in off sets would be even less familiar with. Hon. M. Polak: Just a friendly suggestion — that might be a more productive discussion under sections 8 and 9. S. Chandra Herbert: If the minister prefers to get to that under

section 8 or 9, I can understand that. I guess the question is as well: what kind of discretion will the government be giving the director around these stan- dards? We’ve had this debate before. What one govern- ment says they’ll do by regulation, if there’s a cabinet change or a change in government, can be undone and changed again. How do we ensure the highest standard of off sets? My preference, as I said before, is just not to do the pollution if you can. But I understand there is defi nitely a role to

British Columbia Debates5074 Thursday, October 30, 2014 play for off sets. It’s just not the fi rst role. If you can drive the emissions down fi rst, that’s the best way. If you can’t, off sets have a role to play, and certainly there have been good off set projects as well. I just want to ensure that the highest standard is met so that we don’t get into the situation of thinking we’re fi ghting pollution when, in reality, we are just creating more of it but patting ourselves on the back, assuming we’ve done something good, when the reality is that we haven’t actually changed a thing. Hon. M.

Polak: Th e director would have no discretion to accept off sets that weren’t accredited under the scheme that I just outlined. S. Chandra Herbert: I guess the question is: what dis- cretion does the director have to change that scheme? Or the minister could, I suppose, through order-in- council. What kind of process…? How quickly could that be done? Hon. M. Polak: Th at’s actually covered in the legisla- tion, so it would require a legislative change. V .

Huntington: Most of my questions have now been asked, except that I would like the minister to confi rm that the B.C. carbon standard will not be used to verify a project. Hon. M. Polak: We’re not clear to what the member is referring. [1120] V . Huntington: Well, the Pacifi c Carbon Trust used a B.C. carbon standard that hasn’t been accepted globally. Th e minister mentioned that the Canadian Standards Council and the international standards would be used to verify a project. I am asking, then: the B.C. carbon standard is not part of that verifi cation? Hon. M.

Polak: Th at was actually a standard by which products could be sold to the Pacifi c Carbon Trust. It no longer exists. Again, the current requirements are prob- ably more easily discussed in sections 8 and 9. But the B.C. carbon standard wouldn’t apply here. S. Chandra Herbert: I’m just curious. To give me greater faith that the government is moving towards real off sets and professional off sets, as opposed to ones that you can’t really feel confi dent in….

Th e minister said the government disagreed with the Auditor General’s fi nd- ings around carbon-neutral government although argued that they would implement what the Auditor General said should be done to improve the standards. I’m curious what the minister disagreed with, in the sense of the Darkwoods project, a project that had al- ready been purchased prior to the creation of the Pacifi c Carbon Trust, by the Nature Conservancy of Canada. By law, they were required not to clearcut the forest.

Th ey were required by law not to liquidate logs, which was the assumption that Pacifi c Carbon Trust made, despite it not being anywhere founded in reality. What with that did the minister disagree with? It’s a pretty fundamental project and a pretty fundamental understanding of what an off set is and if it’s credible or not. Hon. M. Polak: I’m going a bit from memory and a bit from staff ’s memory — because, of course, I was not minister at the time.

My recollection of the statements from the Environment Minister at the time was that gov- ernment disagreed with the conclusion of the Auditor General that found that government was, in fact, not carbon-neutral. Government, of course, was backed up in that by independent accrediting agencies internation- ally. But all the recommendations for improvements that the Auditor General made we have completed. S. Chandra Herbert: I can understand that the minis- ter was not the responsible minister at the time.

However, the government continues to argue it was carbon-neutral at the time, despite looking at the international standards and comparing them to what was actually done in both the Encana and Darkwoods projects. It’s hard for me to understand how they could be seen to be additional, that they could actually be an off set, when the standards that the Pacifi c Carbon Trust used at the time made assump- tions which were not based in fact and which were not based in law. It is very troubling that that would be counted as an off set. Now, I’m not going to downplay the signifi - cance of the project.

It certainly was important for bear habitat. It certainly was important to the people in the Kootenays and, indeed, across the nation. Th at’s why it had been purchased prior to the government’s carbon- neutral government decision. Th at’s why they had been fundraising: to purchase it completely from the bank so that it wouldn’t be logged. But there had been no inten- tion to liquidate, log it. It was actually not possible under their legislation.

Th e other one, I guess, would be the Encana project, which was shown that rather than wasting gas, the com- pany could make millions with a slight technological change so that they didn’t waste gas and instead could send it through the pipelines so people could use it to heat their homes and do those kinds of things. While the government may want to say it was carbon-neutral at that time, I can’t see how the facts back it up. [1125] I’ll leave that there. We can have a diff erence of opinion on that, but it is a challenge for me to accept when the government says it’s carbon-neutral or that an off set is a

British Columbia DebatesThursday, October 30, 2014 5075 real off set, given the problems — the very fundamental problems — that the government refuses to acknowledge with those two off set purchases. I don’t have any more questions on accepted emission off set projects at this time. I understand my colleague does, and we’ll continue from there. Hon. M.

Polak: Just to say that certainly, diff erences of opinion are fi ne, but it is important to note that while we employed accredited professionals to review the evi- dence of off sets that were purchased, the Auditor General, in his review, did not employ accredited professionals. We still rely on the advice of accredited professionals. If we were not to do that, I’m not sure what other standard we would choose. Going forward, we continue to do that. S. Chandra Herbert: I would just say that of course, the Auditor General did use accredited professionals in the auditing fi eld.

Now, the minister may argue around carbon off sets — that they weren’t accredited in the car- bon off set world — but just to be clear, they were, of course, accredited auditors in the Auditor General’s offi ce. I would say that they should be accountants. Th ey may not be off set accreditors. My point is that they still had professional accreditation in their fi elds. Th e Chair: I note that the member for Saanich South is not in her place. L. Popham: Sorry about that. It’s always nice to share a birthdate with someone, so happy birthday, Minister.

My question is around the accepted carbon off set pro- jects, specifi cally around the agricultural land reserve. Could the minister tell me how many thousands of acres of agricultural land reserve land are currently being used in accepted carbon off set projects? [1130] Hon. M. Polak: Let me just describe the process here. I understand there is an issue, certainly, of concern around the potential loss of farmland if that land is indeed used for tree-planting and, therefore, those are used for off sets. Th ose that I am most familiar with….

I’ll start just by saying we don’t have fi gures on whatever acreage — I guess it’s hectarage now — would actually be used at this point, although we’re aware that some international pur- chases and agreements have been made. But those are all private sector. We don’t actually manage the off sets. Th at’s not some- thing that we do. Th e issue would rest in the question of whether or not the Agricultural Land Commission would decide if that is actually an acceptable farm use. I know the member is well familiar with that — and happy birthday to her as well.

In this particular scheme that we’re discussing today, what we would look to is the criteria as outlined in sec- tions 8 and 9. As to whether or not it should be on agri- cultural land, I know that’s an active discussion right now within those departments of government that deal with agriculture. It wouldn’t be a decision that we would make. But I certainly acknowledge and understand the concern and the issue. L. Popham: I know the minister is aware of the situa- tion.

I guess I just wanted to state that having an incen- tive of a carbon off set program, there are unintended consequences of that for agricultural land, and it’s be- coming more and more clear. From Prince George up through the Cariboo there are thousands of acres that are being aff ected. One of the stipulations on the carbon off set programs, I believe, in this bill is that it has to be a B.C.-based off set company, although the older companies are going to be grandfathered. A lot of the companies that are involved that I’ve researched are foreign companies that have pur- chased this land.

It’s being changed from agriculture land into sivilcuture land. Th at is the concern I just wanted to put on the record. Hon. M. Polak: To be clear, what we look to in terms of accreditation and evidence is the off set itself, so not just the company, right? Th ey might be a B.C.-based com- pany; the off sets have to be B.C.-based. Th at’s our intent in terms of the regulation. But yes, I certainly acknowledge the concern. It’s a dis- cussion that is alive and is happening. But it is ultimately a land use decision as to whether or not that kind of use should be acceptable as a farm use. A.

Weaver: To build up on the previous member’s question, is the government considering the develop- ment of in-house protocols for off set credit for land use change within farms — for example, tilling practices or perhaps the use of biochar or other types of farming prac- tices that have been used historically to try to enhance the carbon content of farming soils? Hon. M. Polak: We’re certainly open to all those kinds of opportunities. It would be our responsibility to ap- prove the protocols that would guide that. But we’re cer- tainly open to all those opportunities. [1135] V .

Huntington: I’m extremely pleased this issue was brought up by the member. I can’t say strongly enough to the minister and her colleagues that this could become an extremely serious issue throughout the province and that agricultural productivity could become of real con- cern to the industry itself. Th ere may be some ways in which you could — in areas, for instance, like Delta South, which is so agricul-

British Columbia Debates5076 Thursday, October 30, 2014 turally based — work out how an off set might work and be benefi cial to the land and the community and wild- life, etc. But I would strongly urge the minister to ensure that her colleagues in the Ministry of Agriculture work very closely with the public on this. I do not think that remov- ing agricultural land from productivity without the con- sent of the public in this province would be something that people would appreciate in order to benefi t an off set project. I strongly urge the government to consider this step very closely. Hon. M.

Polak: Let me be quite emphatic that it is in no way our intent to see this kind of practice expand in the way in which it has been happening in some of the communities of concern. I take the member’s point that it’s conceivable some- one may come up with an agricultural off set that makes sense and maybe improves agriculture land. But the way that it’s been occurring to date is something that certainly concerns all of us. For us in our department, even if we were to go to…. No, I’ll say it a diff erent way. Th e issue becomes one of who can control what might be done from another jurisdiction.

Th e projects, for example, that I’m familiar with are ones where companies are seeking to have off sets recognized in other jurisdictions. Th e issue then becomes a land use one. It is one that we’re taking very seriously, and we are looking at what appropriate policies need to be in place. It’s an emerging issue and one, certainly, of concern to all of us. V . Huntington: Just one follow-up question and then a comment — well, two questions. One, I hope that those policies are canvassed with the public.

Th is is not something I believe the government should deal with, in terms of its agricultural land, behind a closed door — an issue of regulation that hasn’t been strongly canvassed with the public and with the industry. Secondly, is the ministry and is the government look- ing at the ramifi cations on the forestry industry if off sets within the forests of British Columbia are purchased and bought? Do they ever see a scenario where the forest in- dustry, the logging industry itself, could suff er as a result of an off set within that land use area? Hon. M.

Polak: To the fi rst point, I agree with the member in principle. I would say, though, that if the deci- sion of government or the Agricultural Land Commission is to prohibit that kind of use on agricultural land, and if there’s a timing issue in terms of wanting to stop that ac- tivity quickly so that it doesn’t proliferate, I leave it up to the Agriculture Minister and others to determine what the best process is for that. But that is something that we are going to have to address quickly and make sure that we do things the right way.

When it comes to the forest industry, yes, in fact there has been involvement of the forest industry in a number of diff erent areas. Th e member will be aware of things such as Great Bear rainforest and atmospheric benefi t agreements that we have with First Nations around land that won’t be forested. But there are also huge opportunities in the forest in- dustry around replanting, with respect to pine beetle kill and things like that.

We’re always cognizant of the ar- rangements we make — for example, with First Nations around off sets that they can sell — and what impact that has on harvestable timber and the availability for the for- est industry. V . Huntington: On replanting schemes, then, it would remain Crown land, and the off set would be the benefi t of the replanting? [1140] Hon. M. Polak: I’ll do my best to explain the idea that is currently being worked on. Th e carbon would be owned by the planter, if that’s what we wish to call them, and the trees, the harvestable timber, would be owned by the Crown still. S.

Chandra Herbert: Obviously, there are impacts, potentially, with off set schemes that could impact agri- cultural land, agricultural jobs, food productivity and food security in the province. Th ere are also potentially impacts in the forestry sector, with possibilities of, on the one hand, protecting forested land, which people would want to protect — it could be for environmental reasons; it could be for cultural reasons, what have you — but, on the other hand, potentially causing an impact on jobs in the forestry sector. I’m just curious.

Given the amount of off sets that could be required if you had ten or 18 LNG facilities, as the gov- ernment has sometimes said are possible, what kinds of studies or cross-ministerial work has been done to pre- pare for that possibility for accepted emission off set pro- jects? I just want to make sure, as the minister said…. She agreed that we should be out in front of it, get ahead of the challenge on the agricultural side — although I understand, according to my colleague, there are a num- ber of farms that have already been purchased as poten- tial off sets prior to this legislation even being introduced.

Hon. M. Polak: Again, to the agricultural question. What we’re talking about here, though, is an issue of land use at this stage. I mean, it’s an emerging issue, but it is not currently an issue where we are looking to accept off - sets that would be constructed in that form, where you’ve planted trees, used agricultural land. Th at’s not our intent. It’s not what we’re contemplating. Th e issue that has emerged, which the member’s col- league described, right now rests largely — or entirely, as

British Columbia DebatesThursday, October 30, 2014 5077 far as I am aware — with companies that have purchased land and are developing off sets that are accepted in other jurisdictions. Th ey’re on British Columbia land, so the question, really, at that stage is one of land use. When it comes to the issues around forestry or, indeed, other industries on the land base, those, again, wouldn’t be an issue for policy acceptance by us. We’re looking at the evidence for an off set and whether it’s valid.

Whether or not something is appropriate in terms of forestry policy, agricultural policy, mining policy is a question for those ministries and how they manage things like tenures and licences and things like that. I think a better example to use…. It is evident in the move toward an incentive program and encouragement of purchase of B.C. off sets. Many of the liquefi ed natural gas companies are integrated companies, so the facilities won’t be the only thing they own in British Columbia. Many would own pipelines. Many would own large oper- ations in the upstream.

What I’m sure the member can appreciate would be very valuable is if an off set took the form of a company investing back into improved technology in the upstream, for example, to deal with fugitive emissions or a new tech- nology that maybe we’re not even aware of today. Th ose are the kinds of things that could have a major positive impact on industry. Th ey won’t be the only ones, I’m sure. It’s not our intent to step into the realm of other min- istry departments and determine their land use.

We’ll deal with the evidence on the off sets, and then we’ll cer- tainly work with the other departments in government to ensure the right policy structure is in place so that we don’t see a proliferation of unintended consequences. [1145] A. Weaver: Hon. Chair, prior to our break for lunch, I’m hoping to put three proposed amendments on notice via the Clerk, through you, so that when the appropriate time comes in

section 1, I will speak to them then. Th e Chair: If you pass them to the table, that would be great. S. Chandra Herbert: Th e minister’s last answer was helpful to me. I appreciate it. I think the challenge, of course, is when you’re dealing with international off set schemes, potential international agencies wanting to pur- chase land in B.C. — currently not with the future possi- bilities of off sets here being the reality. I guess I don’t have more questions on the accepted emission off set project — aside from one. Th e minister can direct me as to if this should be discussed later or not.

Over time, as has been pointed out in the government’s own climate change strategy, policies can lose eff ect due to infl ation. Th e carbon tax over time becomes less of an eff ective tool as you see infl ation happen in our econ- omy — something that the government itself pointed out. Around accepted emission off set projects, I’m just curi- ous. Is there any concern around — maybe this is not the right time to talk around the technology fund — the potential of the off sets losing eff ect over time as maybe infl ation occurs or maybe the emission standards aren’t successful enough?

Are there any concerns about them losing their eff ectiveness over time? Or do we think this is acceptable at this point? My final question would just be…. If the minister could point out to me where I should best deal with the technology fund, that would be helpful as well. Hon. M. Polak: To the question around the technology fund, it’s probably best discussed in and around

section 11, with the funded units. With respect to the effectiveness, I think what the member is getting at is probably the price of them, the $25 per unit. It’s no diff erent than any other kind of fee structure that we put in place. From time to time they may need to be adjusted. In this case, of course, we expect that much of that would also be taken into account in the agreements that were ultimately signed with companies — again, not dif- ferent than many other fees, etc., associated with indus- trial development.

If there was a need to adjust, we could adjust those through order-in-council, but likely those would also be governed by agreements that would be reached with companies. S. Chandra Herbert: Thank you for the guidance around the technology fund. Certainly there will be a number of questions, as that’s one of the least fl eshed-out parts of the bill. I understand why, but there are a number of questions to ensure it could be eff ective in the short term, as opposed to, potentially, long term. [1150] Given that our need to bring down climate change emissions certainly is…. Th e sooner we do it, the better.

Th e benefi ts of emissions reduction way down the road are much less than emission reduction today, accord- ing to the best science — and mathematics, when you do the numbers. Moving down to “administrative agreement, ” I’m just curious — “registry operated outside government. ” What was the thinking in terms of deciding it should be an outside agency, an outside entity, as opposed to within government? Hon. M. Polak: In regards to having an outside agency, we could develop our own registry within government. But there are also outside agencies that operate registries.

At this stage we have not decided which would be the best route for us to go. Th is allows us the ability to work with an outside registry if we felt that that was appropri- ate. Again, this looks to the long-term nature of it. Th at circumstance may change over time as well.

British Columbia Debates5078 Thursday, October 30, 2014 A. Weaver: Th e defi nition of “administrative agreement” here directs us to

section 16(2). I also note that in

section 17 that provides direction for another administrative agree- ment. So I’m wondering if the minister could please explain how administrative agreements will diff er if it’s for a registry inside government or for one outside government. Hon. M. Polak:

Section 17 is there to explicitly outline that no powers are conferred onto the registry adminis- trator, that they’re not an agent of government. A. Weaver: Perhaps the minister can actually explain to me what the purpose of these administrative agree- ments is. Hon. M. Polak: Th ere’s a series of sections that lay out, if we were to enter into an agreement, what activities that agency would be performing. It’s explicit what they’ d be expected to perform and also what the requirements of such an agreement would be. We can go into that in more detail, perhaps, when we get to those sections. S.

Chandra Herbert: Attributable. Moving down to the defi nition: “‘attributable’ in relation to greenhouse gas emissions, means attributable under the regulations to an industrial operation. ” On the face of it, I can understand it. I guess the challenge comes to when we say: “ …means at- tributable under the regulations to an industrial operation. ” When the Premier fi rst started speaking about LNG, she said very clearly: “Th e cleanest LNG in the world. ” Th e government’s LNG strategy said that included the life cycle of LNG.

Th e Premier then later backtracked and argued that there was no LNG without the letter “l” — without the liquefi cation — and argued she really meant that cleanest LNG life cycle only applied to the liquefi ca- tion process, as if only the letter “l” mattered — when, of course, there was no LNG without the letters “n” and “g” as well, using the Premier’s argument. [1155] I would argue that when you talk about a life cycle, that includes the entire life, not just the last 30 percent of the emissions, as this bill continues to do. My question is really….

It “means attributable under the regulations to an industrial operation. ” As the min- ister earlier said, many of the potential LNG companies are integrated, so they go from the well to the water- line. Th e question I have, really, is why the government, say, instead of including the entire industrial operations from well to the waterline, is only focusing on the actual liquefi cation process when under the Premier’s previ- ous words, it included the entire life cycle of the cleanest LNG in the world. Hon. M. Polak: Noting the hour, I will attempt to make my answer very short.

For other industrial activities, there are already regu- lations under the current cap-and-trade act, and our in- tent would be to move those over to support this act. For LNG specifi cally, it would cover electricity generated on and off site for the purposes of liquefaction. One of the challenges that I should point out to the member with respect to the idea of using this act or an- other one to create a power that would extend, as the member says, from wellhead to waterline, is that while many companies are fully integrated and have assets in all those areas, not all do.

And it is the company that owns a facility for which those emissions would be attributable. I’m sure the member can see the challenge, then, in terms of making one company account for emissions that are owned, if you will, by another company. I move that the committee rise, report progress and seek leave to sit again. Motion approved. Th e committee rose at 11:58 a.m. Th e House resumed; Madame Speaker in the chair. Th e Committee of the Whole, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again. Hon. M. Polak moved adjournment of the House. Motion approved.

Madame Speaker: Th is House, at its rising, stands ad- journed until 1:30 this aft ernoon. Th e House adjourned at 11:59 a.m.

British Columbia DebatesThursday, October 30, 2014 5079

Hansard Reporting Services Director Robert Sutherland Manager of Reporting Services Christine Fedoruk Publishing Supervisor Laurel Bernard Editorial Team Leaders Janet Brazier, Karol Morris, Robyn Swanson, Glenn Wigmore Technical Operations Offi cers Pamela Holmes, Dan Kerr, Yvonne Mendel Indexers Shannon Ash, Julie McClung, Robin Rohrmoser Researchers Jaime Apolonio, Richard Baer, Mike Beninger, David Mattison Editors Kim Christie, Deirdre Gotto, Jane Grainger, Betsy Gray, Iris Gray, Linda Guy, Martin Hicks, Barb Horricks, Bill Hrick, Jessica Hutchings, Treava Kellington, Catherine Lang, Paula Lee, Donna McCloskey, Bob McIntosh, Anne Maclean, Jill Milkert, Lind Miller, Lou Mitchell, Erik Pedersen, Janet Pink, Amy Reiswig, Antoinette Warren, Heather Warren, Arlene Wells, Kim Westad Published by British Columbia Hansard Services, and printed under the authority of the Speaker.

Printing Agent Crown Publications, Queen's Printer for British Columbia PO Box 9452 Stn Prov Govt, Victoria, B.C. V8W 9V7 www.crownpub.bc.ca Daily and annual Hansard subscription information is available from Crown Publications. www.leg.bc.ca Access to on-line versions of the offi cial report of debates (Hansard) and webcasts of proceedings is available on the Internet. Chamber debates are broadcast on television.

Document details

Collection	British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	20141030am-Hansard-v16n9
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	20141030am Hansard v16n9
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	12b13d973e1ca149899418ad684c026fd4fc1e3f

Source file is stored in the law ingest library (pdf).