2014 Legislative Session: Third Session, 40th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Thursday, October 23, 2014

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 16, Number

ISSN 0709-1281 (Print)

ISSN 1499-2175 (Online)

CONTENTS

Page

Routine Business

Tributes

Jack Adelaar

S. Robinson

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

Bill 4 — Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (N o . 2), 2014

Hon. S. Anton

Orders of the Day

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 2 — Greenhouse Gas Industrial Reporting and Control Act (continued)

M. Morris

L. Krog

J. Thornthwaite

D. Donaldson

S. Hamilton

L. Popham

D. Plecas

G. Holman

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 3 — Canadian Pacific Railway (Stone and Timber) Settlement Act

B. Routley

Hon. S. Thomson

V. Huntington

L. Krog

G. Holman

[ Page 4875 ]

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 23, 2014

The House met at 1:33 p.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Tributes

JACK ADELAAR

S. Robinson: Madame Speaker, today I’d like to just let the House know that the community of Bowen Island lost their mayor, Mayor Jack Adelaar. He passed away yesterday after a long battle with cancer. Our thoughts are with his family at this time.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

BILL 4 — MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT (N o . 2), 2014

Hon. S. Anton presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2014.

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

Motion approved.

Hon. S. Anton: I’m pleased to introduce Bill 4, the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2014. This bill amends the following statutes: Agricultural Land Commission Act, Mines Act, Gaming Control Act, Police Act and Vancouver Island Natural Gas Pipeline Act. The bill also makes a validation and confirmation provision and a number of consequential amendments.

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

[1335]

Bill 4, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2014, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Orders of the Day

Hon. T. Stone: I now call continued debate on second reading of Bill 2.

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 2 — GREENHOUSE GAS INDUSTRIAL

REPORTING AND CONTROL ACT

(continued)

M. Morris: You know, this House has heard lots from members opposite during the last several months now about their thoughts towards our LNG dream that we have. They call it a dream; They call it…. I’ve heard the term “pipedream” from several of the members opposite. But it is a dream, and there’s nothing wrong with having a dream.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

The opposite to that is nightmares. Listening to the member opposite for Oak Bay–Gordon Head speaking yesterday, it’s obvious that he’s having nightmares about this whole scenario of LNG in British Columbia, which this bill speaks to. So I just want to go into a little bit about dreams.

A mentor of mine and a gentleman I met that I have a lot of respect for, who has helped me through my career over the years, is Stephen Covey. Stephen Covey is a well-known author who wrote several books — The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People , “Four Roles of Leadership” and a number of books — a world-renowned management psychologist, a world-renowned individual who has helped a lot of corporations, a lot of governments and a lot of individuals around the world in achieving great things.

Just relating to his book The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People , he studied leadership over the centuries. What was the common thread that brought together all these great leaders from around the world and made them achieve greatness? The seven things that I’m about to relate, I think, depict exactly what this government has been doing now since the election.

The first one I want to talk about is being proactive. This government has been proactive from prior to the time of the election in saying that we need to do something differently in British Columbia. We have concern over mental health and addictions. We have concern over education. We have concern over health care. We have concern over infrastructure projects throughout the province, transportation and moving everybody back and forth in this province so they can work.

How do we address that? The way we’re going to address it is we are going to create a brand-new industry in British Columbia — a brand-new industry. I’ve heard the members opposite say many times that this is a pipedream. I haven’t heard anything from the members opposite, from the time I’ve been elected until this point in time, anyways, about what their dream is to bring economic freedom to British Columbia, to make sure that we

[ Page 4876 ]

have the money to run all of the different projects and all of the different concerns they’ve brought up in this House over the past period of time.

If they do have an idea, they must be claiming proprietary rights to it. They haven’t released it to anybody. Nobody knows what it’s all about. They kept very quiet about it. Maybe they have one; maybe they don’t. But we do have a dream, and we think proactively about this dream of bringing LNG as a brand-new industry into British Columbia. We have been taking the steps in order to make that happen.

The second step that Stephen Covey talks about in The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People , and one that I can subscribe to as well, is to begin with the end in mind. What do we have? What is our vision?

I think our Premier has articulated that vision very well from prior to the last election, during the last election and during this government. The end in mind is a strong economy and a secure environment for everybody living in British Columbia. How do we do that? By developing this LNG industry that is going to pay dividends.

[1340]

It is something that we haven’t had in this province before, other than on a very, very limited basis, but it’s something that is going to help supplement the other resource sector industries in providing the things that British Columbia needs.

The third element, the third habit, is to do first things first. So we’re being proactive, and we’re beginning with the end in mind and doing first things first. We have, as a government, been developing things, working hard on introducing legislation like Bill 2. We have been doing things like finding out what are the cleanest LNG facilities in the world, what contributes to that, what we can do to make things better, and what we can do to establish good relationships with First Nations and with communities along the pipeline routes, establishing social licence with all the public members in the province here in order to move this ahead.

There’s a myriad of steps that our government has had to take in order to get to the point where we are today, when we can introduce a bill like Bill 2 — and a bill like Bill 6, which will be coming up for discussion later. Those are individual little steps that we’re taking in order to achieve the dream that we’re looking for.

Along the way there are dissenters. We’ve heard much from dissenters, from the members opposite. We’ve heard concern from various environmental groups. Those are the kinds of issues that we are also working very hard to try and come up with, which is habit 4, a win-win relationship. We know there are saw-offs. We know that there are risks to just about everything that we do in life. But we look at LNG as…. Although it’s a fossil fuel, it’s one of the cleanest burning fossil fuels that there is in the world, and we see it as contributing to lowering the overall greenhouse gas emissions worldwide.

The member opposite from Columbia River–Revelstoke yesterday brought up the fact that we mine coal in British Columbia, and coal amounts to a significant part of our GDP in British Columbia. But we mine metallurgic coal. Metallurgic coal is one of the cleanest-burning coals in the world, and it’s used in the manufacture of steel. That’s it.

Without steel, then, we couldn’t be building pipelines. We couldn’t be building the bridges that we have. We couldn’t be building the highrise apartments that we have. We couldn’t be building the new ferries that we need. We couldn’t be doing a whole lot of things without steel and without the metallurgic coal that this province is so widely renowned for around the world. Now we’ve got India that is looking at buying metallurgic coal from British Columbia. I think that’s a good thing.

There are saw-offs on either side. We say that we’re going to develop an LNG industry that is going to be the cleanest LNG industry in the world. So we set these experts out, looking around the world, to find out what that means, what that looks like at the end of the day. We set a level of greenhouse gas emissions that is lower than any other LNG facility in the world. And that’s just to start. As technology progresses, that level is going to come down — lower and lower every year, as technology improves some of the systems that we have.

It’s a win-win. There are some people that will never see this as a win-win kind of a solution — that do nothing and wait for somebody else to come up with the good ideas, as long as it doesn’t involve fossil fuels and digging things out of the ground and changing the world. There are others that will say: “Okay. When I turn my natural gas stove on in Vancouver” — or Victoria or Kelowna or wherever it might be — “and I turn the thermostat up in my house to get warm, I guess I can handle that. I know that this LNG is going to help lower the greenhouse gas emissions from around the world.”

We know what it’s like when we get a forest fire in some remote part of British Columbia here, and the smoke filters down into Vancouver. It filters down onto the Island. In some cases we’ve had forest fires in Russia, and the smoke has come over the top and down into Canada from up there. So we do know that particulate matter travels around the world, and it’s a global issue.

British Columbia is going to step up to the plate in a big way and help countries like China and other countries eliminate the use of coal-fired generators and come up with a clean-burning solution that is going to make the atmosphere and the air better for everybody around the globe.

We also have the fifth habit, which is one of the ones that I really try to subscribe to in a big way. It’s called “Seek first to understand, and then be understood.” Now, I look at it this way. The Creator has given us two ears and one mouth. So I do a lot of listening.

[1345]

[ Page 4877 ]

I don’t talk a heck of a lot. People have accused me of being a very quiet individual, in fact. It’s unusual for me to get up and kind of ramble on like this. But I do a lot of listening to hear what people are saying, to try and figure out where they’re coming from.

For the life of me, I’ve been sitting here now for a year and a half, roughly, and I’ve been listening to the members opposite, some very fine men and women sitting across from the room from me here. But I’ve yet to understand what their solution is to all the problems that we have. I’ve yet to understand and figure out what their solution is to increase health care in the province and lower the cost, to look after our education, to look after our mental health and addictions.

What’s going to support that? Where is this money going to magically appear from? I’m still really struggling to understand that, and I would like to really hear how the members opposite plan on doing that.

Habit 6 is to synergize. To synergize is to gather as many like-minded people together and get the benefit of everybody working in the same direction. This government — we’ve got a great leader with the Premier. The Premier has articulated her vision very well to those of us in government. All of us share that vision, and we all have ideas that are contributing to the pot to enable us to achieve this dream — this pipedream, as I’ve heard it termed across the hall there.

We’re synergizing, we’re working together, and that synergy actually manifests itself down within the civil servant part of government, where we have members of the various ministries working hard together to try and achieve that goal and that vision that the Premier has articulated so well. That’s working. It’s going to benefit everybody in British Columbia.

Then the seventh habit of highly effective people is sharpening the saw — continually reinvesting in education, continually learning about all the latest and greatest technologies and things that are happening in the world, not just in Canada and not just in British Columbia but in the world. So when we do develop this brand-new LNG industry in British Columbia, that is going to be a world-class facility — world-class plants, world-class pipelines and world-class support in order to make sure that they are running as safely as they can in today’s world and as efficiently as they can in this world.

That’s what synergy is all about. Everybody’s got their oar in the water, and they’re rowing in the same direction. Their timing is right, and the canoe is travelling straight and true and fast. That’s what synergy is about.

Stephen Covey wrote his last book — the late Stephen Covey; he passed away a few years ago…. He wrote another book that was called the 8th Habit that he gave me as a gift when I retired from the RCMP. The eighth habit is: find your voice and inspire others. That’s exactly, again, what our Premier has done. She has found her voice, and she’s very inspiring, not only to those on the government side, but she’s also inspiring to the general public as a whole.

She has an ability to get her ideas out, to throw her vision out there so that everybody clearly understands where we’re coming from, clearly understands what her dream is and how she’s going to bring it to reality and how she’s going to make British Columbia a better place for my children, for your children, for our grandchildren and for future generations to come, based upon this 150-year supply of natural gas that we have in British Columbia that we’re going to turn into a brand-new industry.

That, in itself, is going to start a chain reaction with other industries downstream, with the petrochemical industry as a whole. And who knows what British Columbia is going to be on the map for ten, 20, 30 years down the road. It’s going to be a world leader in technology, it’s going to be a world leader in liquefied natural gas, and it’s going to be a world leader in a vast number of areas because of the education system and the health system and all the other support systems that we’re going to have in this province as a result of LNG.

Bill 2 is one step in the process. We’ve got Bill 6 coming down the road, which is another step in the process.

[1350]

I think we’re going to see here very quickly, within the next few months, that this pipedream is going to start to come together. To the other side of the House: quite frankly, I hope that you can understand where we’re coming from and start turning your nightmares into dreams as well. I’m supporting Bill 2, and I think it’s the only way that we can go in this province.

L. Krog: Yesterday I was highly critical of the members opposite during the course of the debate around the hoist motion, because I said that the problem with this place is that in order to have a debate, you actually had to have an exchange of views.

Deputy Speaker: Member, would you please take a seat. An introduction needs to be made. Sorry.

Hon. N. Yamamoto: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

Hon. N. Yamamoto: Earlier this morning I introduced a grade 11 class from Bodwell High School in my riding of North Vancouver–Lonsdale. This is the second class that has come in to watch the proceedings today. This is Mr. Smith’s grade 11 social studies class. Bodwell High School is an international high school and has students representing 40 countries from all over the world. In this particular class we have students from seven different

[ Page 4878 ]

countries, and probably eight including Canada. I would ask that the House please make them welcome.

Debate Continued

Deputy Speaker: The member for Nanaimo will continue.

L. Krog: I just want to make sure that every member opposite has a chance to listen, particularly the member for Prince George–Mackenzie because I want him to know that I have listened carefully to what he had to say in the last few minutes. I think it’s important in the spirit of what I said yesterday. The problem with this place and the debate around the hoist motion was that there wasn’t an exchange of views, because none of the members opposite seemed to be speaking.

I wanted to spend a little bit of time responding to what the member for Prince George–Mackenzie just had to say. I was very intrigued — and it’s not an admission I would ever make in a public place — that he said he wasn’t that comfortable, or something to that effect, speaking in public. I thought to myself: “Well, for heaven’s sake, then why did you bother running for the B.C. Liberals to sit in the B.C. Legislature if you’re not comfortable speaking in a public place, because that is ultimately what you’re required to do?”

He did say, however, that the good Lord, or something to that effect, gave us two ears and one mouth. I understand that. It’s a wonderful Mark Twain quote, and I agree with it entirely, particularly when you deal with your constituents. But what troubled me was when he said: “What’s their solution? I don’t understand. I’ve been here for a year, and I don’t hear the solutions from the opposition.”

I thought to myself that question period today would have given him a broad hint about why he doesn’t hear a pile of solutions from the opposition. Our job in this House — and this is a little lesson in politics and parliamentary tradition and history…. We are called Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition for a reason. Our job is to oppose.

Interjections.

L. Krog: Oh, I hear them. I love this, hon. Speaker. I hear them. We are trumpeting about liquid natural gas hour after hour in this House, and some of the politicians sitting in this very side of the House, on the opposite side of the House and over to my left…. Those are the folks who in the ’90s voted against the Oil and Gas Commission, for heaven’s sake, that led to prosperity in the northeast of the province of British Columbia.

I can’t believe it. Let’s step back a moment and illuminate for the member for Prince George–Mackenzie that the job of the opposition is to oppose and to criticize and to question and not take anything that the government says at face value. Again, I come back to the Oil and Gas Commission. I mean, all of those wonderful B.C. Liberals voted against that.

Now, is the member for Prince George–Mackenzie and all of those who have gone suddenly quiet….? They must be listening to me. That’s delightful. Do he and all of those members on the other side somehow feel a little chagrined now that that’s been pointed out to them — that they voted against something that led to the incredible generation of wealth and economic activity in the northeast sector of the province of British Columbia? Are they suddenly now feeling chagrined that maybe their political ancestors and some of the members opposite who did actually sit here and vote against it…? Are they feeling chagrined or apologetic? Is that what I’m sensing today?

As we debate Bill 2, the Greenhouse Gas Industrial Reporting and Control Act, they somehow think that our job is to just tell the B.C. Liberals how wonderful they are and how good this legislation is and that we should support everything the Premier says?

[1355]

I mean, if ever I heard a Freudian slip today, it’s when the member said this pipedream is going to come together. I didn’t take psychology in university, but I just thought if there was ever a Freudian slip that popped out, “this pipedream coming together” might have been one of the best lines I’ve heard here in a very long time.

It is for that very reason that we have concerns on this side of the House. We have heard the promises. We are looking now at two pieces of legislation that deal with this. Frankly, given what we were told not that many months ago about the amount of revenue and what was promised in the trillion dollars in economic activity and the elimination of the net provincial debt and all of those things…. Now suddenly we’re being told, “Well, actually, that tax rate — we’re going to cut that in half,” and the revenue projections aren’t quite what they used to be.

Is it any reason that the members of the opposition would stand in this place and question what’s being said in the Greenhouse Gas Industrial Reporting and Control Act? Is it any surprise?

When the minister introduced this bill, she said that it will be the cleanest in the world, with reference to our liquid natural gas industry — the cleanest in the world. She gave it all of two minutes of great support and then sat down.

The cleanest in the world — what does that mean? Is that a standard that was set by some international body of scientists? Is that something that’s agreed on by all the politicians in British Columbia? Is it the decision of cabinet or the judgment or evaluation of cabinet? I mean, who determined that it’ll be the cleanest in the world? In fairness, how do we look at that?

The production of liquid natural gas is a series of

[ Page 4879 ]

things. I said yesterday it was like talking about a part of a ten-link chain. The production facility is actually just one link in a long chain. There’s the fracking. There’s the transportation. There are the pipelines. There’s the plant itself. There’s the transportation to market.

So when we hear the hyperbolic phrase “cleanest in the world,” what exactly does that mean? Does that mean because of this legislation? Does it mean, as I say, because we have heard this from some other source? Or is this some evaluation? Or is this a judgment call?

Why the opposition has trouble with this bill is because of what we’ve been told and what the government has already reversed itself on. We have gone from this wonderfully prosperous future where liquid natural gas was going to solve everything — back in February, 7 percent, and now we’re down to 3½. We’re bargaining ourselves into the basement.

It seems to me we’re becoming like those characters in a Victorian novel. We’re being forced to live in reduced circumstances. It’s probably a good thing we’re getting the bill in the House now. By next spring it might have been down to a 1 percent return. We’re not exactly going in the right direction.

The member for Prince George–Mackenzie talked about dreamers and nightmares. Again, I thought that was particularly apt, because in order to have dreams and nightmares, you have to be asleep. You have to be unconscious. It’s not something that happens during your daylight waking hours when you’re alert to the world.

I must say, with great respect, that our sense over here is…. We don’t believe the government is asleep, and we don’t think they’re necessarily dreamers. We don’t, in fairness, think they’re necessarily the worst nightmare either, but there is a certain amount of fantasy involved in the proposition around liquid natural gas.

All we’re saying on this side of the House is that if you’re going to develop a scheme that is supposed to make this the cleanest in the world, whatever that may be — we can talk a long time about whatever that may be…. If you’re going to do that, then let’s talk reality.

[1400]

What exactly does it involve? Is it going to happen? Is there some scheme or plan that’s laid out and articulated, supported by scientific evidence or supported by scientific panels or supported by experts that tell us whether or not, in fact, this is even remotely true? That’s the problem.

The member for Prince George–Mackenzie said our Premier is inspiring. Now, I’ve said it many times in this House since the last election: they won; we lost. This is where they get to clap if they want to, if they’re listening. Not even going to bother. Their campaign beat our campaign — no question about it. First to admit it, although the good people of Nanaimo — bless them, each and every one of them — actually re-elected me. I am grateful for that, and I want to repeat that in this chamber while I’m here.

Inspiring is one thing. Delivering is another. You have to use that phrase my friend from Surrey–Green Timbers is always using. You have to be prepared to walk the talk. That’s where the opposition doesn’t sense that the talk is actually being walked. It’s certainly not being walked in this bill.

I can’t help but think, as I said yesterday, that Gordon Campbell would have a lot of trouble with this. You know, it was only six years ago that we had the climate action plan rolled out. We were going to be a world leader. The province was in the midst of heady times financially. The government still couldn’t afford to stop clawing back maintenance payments from children, but that’s another story. They couldn’t raise assistance rates, and they couldn’t put money into public education the way it needed to be done, but I won’t go on too much about that.

Things were looking fairly positive, and you know what? I think most British Columbians, whether they supported the government or not, or voted for the government, liked the concept that their political leadership — on both sides of the House, for that matter — was actually coming to grips with the issue of our time, and that was climate change.

I think most British Columbians supported it. There may have been arguments around the gas tax as an instrument. There were certainly arguments around those sectors of the economy to which it didn’t apply — the climate action plan generally — but clearly, in 2014 it’s safe to say, and forgive me for saying it, that that’s a vehicle that’s literally run out of gas.

We’re not going to be talking about that anymore, because the Greenhouse Gas Reduction (Cap and Trade) Act, SBC 2008, c. 32, is going to be repealed in

section 55 of this bill. Our great desire to be a world leader — a leader within Canada as well, for that matter — is dying with this bill.

Now, why is that happening? Is it because the Premier is particularly inspiring? Has the pipedream disappeared? Has the fantasy died? I’ve got nothing wrong with dreams. I like a good dream myself once in a while. Gosh knows, those of us on this side of the House fantasize about sitting on that side of the House. We do it all the time. It’s what keeps you going in opposition.

Having said that, hon. Speaker, you have to question: where are we? What is this plan all about? Are there strengths in it? Is it going to be a great improvement? Is it going to fulfil the goals that are talked about? There are, in fact, significant vulnerabilities with this bill.

I’ll come back to my analogy of the chain. This intensity benchmark talked about legislation. It does not apply to any upstream emissions. That’s the flaring. That’s the fugitive. That’s the pipelines. That’s the extraction. That’s all of those other things that go into this process.

Now, the end result may be a somewhat cleaner-burning fuel than coal. We all know what a great effort the U.S. coal industry has invested in, in terms of money, to try

[ Page 4880 ]

and convince people that there’s such a thing such as clean coal. It’s almost as wishful in terms of its thinking as the little boy who is told to go and clean up and runs back into the kitchen and shows his little washed hands to his parents and says, “Look, I’m clean,” when, in fact, the rest of the kid is covered head to toe with mud and muck.

[1405]

This is just one portion of that whole process by which we’re going to generate liquid natural gas, and there isn’t any evidence that we’re going to do anything about the rest of the process. When we use that very phrase “the cleanest in the world,” it’s like the Premier’s speeches — full of hyperbole and great promises, everything’s the best, and we’re going to do this, and we’re going to do that. But at the end of the day, when you scrape it away and you actually try to find the truth or research the facts or determine what the facts are, there isn’t anything there. The truth is something quite different. It’s not going to impact the rest of the chain.

Now, if the government was introducing a bill that dealt with the whole process — that was, if you will, an honest approach, a more scientific approach — then the members on this side of the House would be supporting it. I’m sure the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head, who prides himself on being an expert in this area, might actually be applauding the government. But he’s made it very clear. He’s not happy with this bill.

Now, some have suggested that he was over the top in his remarks. But I’m going to give the good doctor, the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head, his due. He’s got more expertise in this area than I certainly do. I’m just one of those generalists. I’m one of those MLAs who was elected to speak on behalf of my constituents. I try and learn what I can and pay attention when I can. But he has significant problems with this. Does that not somehow send a message to this government, or the members of the back bench in particular, that maybe this bill isn’t all it’s cut out to be?

Moreover, this bill does not require actual greenhouse gas reductions. We’re promised again by the minister that we’re still going to meet our targets by 2020. Now, how conceivably can you reach your greenhouse gas emission targets by 2020 if you don’t have legislation that covers the entire production scheme involved in liquid natural gas? I mean, how is that going to happen?

Do the members opposite think…? I hesitate to say this — if you open the barn door, some horse might come running through — but do they think we’re a bunch of idiots over here? I mean, do they really think that you cannot require greenhouse gas reductions in the major environmental bill relating to an industry that’s supposed to generate billions of dollars and have us believe this is a sincere effort to mitigate or stop or control climate change?

An Hon. Member: Yes.

L. Krog: You know, hon. Speaker, from that member in particular I’m not surprised he’s working on blind faith on this issue. I would have expected more from someone of such incredible education and ability.

No, we are not going to believe it. We are not taking the government’s word. We’re not going to swallow it on blind faith. That is, firstly, not our job. Secondly, it doesn’t begin to meet the reality of what we’re presented with.

Under this legislation, as well, the liquid natural gas terminals are allowed to emit 0.16 tonnes of CO 2 emissions for every tonne of liquid natural gas exported without any penalty. So there’s a free pass. It’s a “get out of jail free” card. It’s Monopoly writ large on the province of British Columbia, and guess who’s paying. The environment and all our grandchildren and our children. That’s who’s going to pay for that Liberal promise.

With respect to offsets, this plan is not clear at all. Now, I don’t know how fast this legislation was put together, but it is not clear on the issue of offsets. We know that the record of this government on offsets has been pretty grim.

I mean, we do know that part of that wonderful scheme, of course, was our Pacific Carbon Trust. Again, I don’t wish to point out unnecessarily the failings of the British Columbia Liberals, but after a scathing report by the provincial Auditor General, that little puppy was scrapped too. And does anyone in this chamber remember: how many golden goals was it? I can’t remember whether it was the five golden promises or the ten golden goals.

[1410]

All of those things are all sort of washed away now. It’s kind of like they’ve been painted over. It’s like graffiti on a wall someplace in a disreputable part of town that gets painted over every once in a while, and then we see a few more slogans written up, and then they get washed over, and we’re all supposed to forget what’s under the new coat of paint.

We’ve painted up the wall again here with new slogans about the “cleanest in the world.” That’s all we’re supposed to remember. We’re not supposed to remember that the Pacific Carbon Trust is, pardon the expression, toast.

Now the incentive program. There’s an incentive program. I defy any member opposite to stand up here and explain to me what that incentive program is all about. If they can, I look forward to it. I know the minister is going to get a lot of assistance in this, I’m sure, when it comes to committee stage of the bill.

As I said yesterday, notwithstanding our hopes that the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head might have been right, the member for Columbia River–Revelstoke and myself did indicate that we were probably going to lose the vote. We accepted that. So we’re probably going to get to committee stage of this bill. I think that’s fair to say.

Moreover, details on the technology fund. They’re not available.

I come back to a point I made earlier. Meeting our

[ Page 4881 ]

legislated greenhouse gas reduction targets with this, the way it is before this House, is, I think, in fairness, and I say without exaggeration, highly unlikely. Highly unlikely that we’ll be able to meet those targets.

Moreover, this bill lacks the usual details, and it grants the government ability to change rules at any time by way of regulation. I talked about that at length yesterday. Giving governments a blank cheque is not what we do here. When I made reference yesterday to the Lieutenant-Governor thanking us in Her Majesty’s name for our benevolence, the concept is you don’t get to spend money or change rules or do things without the consent of the people, through this Legislature. Basically, a quarter of this bill says: “Let cabinet decide.”

I see another bill just introduced today, the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, giving more power to cabinet around the agricultural land act. This is a continuing and worrisome trend.

This bill, for that reason alone, isn’t worthy of support. If we continue to do this, then this place loses, frankly, its power, in a sense, its authority on behalf of the people and its ability to represent the people.

You know, there’s a paper out right now, a draft of a new Society Act. It contains a provision that allows groups or persons or people who feel they’ve been — I forget the exact language — we’ll say, unfairly dealt with by a society, or the society is not acting in the public interest. It allows people to bring suits against societies — so, not-for-profits. Whether it’s a society devoted to assisting women who have been beaten and abused or whether it’s a society to raise money for a cure for cancer or whatever, that legislation will allow those societies to be dragged into court by people with axes to grind.

Now, that’s not a healthy thing for democracy. Frankly, it’s the job of politicians to set the rules, and it’s the job of government to regulate conduct in society. That’s what we do here. But that power to regulate and manage conduct in society, if you will, is one that is reserved to this Legislature. It should not be reserved to cabinet.

What this bill proposes to do is to give enormous authority to cabinet to make those decisions, without resort to seeking not even so much as the opinion of the people by putting it before the members of this assembly — not even so much as the opinion — or to face a legislative committee even.

I mean, even if it proposed that it face a legislative committee, where all members could participate and raise their voice on behalf of their constituents or the people who’ve tried to educate them and illuminate them about the topic…. It doesn’t even go that far.

[1415]

It is all about, and this bill is all about, the power of cabinet — in the security and quiet of that chamber, which is not open whatsoever to the public — to make those decisions.

Now, I hesitate to bring up open cabinet meetings, of course. You might remember that was another great promise of Gordon Campbell’s: we’d have open cabinet meetings.

Just like the slogan, the graffiti on the wall, that one got washed away and wiped over too. We stopped having open cabinet meetings because it became sort of relatively apparent that there was the dress rehearsal before, and then everybody came in and ran through the cliché and played-out lines. Then the real stuff got talked about the way it’s always been discussed: in the privacy of the cabinet chambers.

The objection of the opposition is to that very process. We want to be able to have things debated in this place. Let government face the criticism and the scrutiny before the decision is made, not after. Let it receive the kind of publicity that this place lends itself to.

I mean, I’m not going to pretend for a moment there are a lot of British Columbians watching me speak today, much as I’d love to flatter myself.

Hon. S. Anton: Thousands.

L. Krog: My friend the Attorney General, my former classmate, says: “Thousands.” There may be a few thousand, and that’s delightful. But it’s not 4½ million.

Interjection.

L. Krog: The member for Saanich South says her mother is, too, so we’ve got thousands plus one.

But at least there is that opportunity. There is at least that opportunity that British Columbians can tune in and see what’s being said here and understand who we’re advocating for or what cause we’re advocating on behalf of. Whatever we’re doing, it’s open to public scrutiny. That doesn’t happen in the cabinet chamber.

I know everyone wants to sit around the cabinet table. You don’t get into this game just to sit in the bleachers all the time and cheer for the team. You want to get around the cabinet table. I understand how the system works. So that has a certain calming and mediating effect on people in terms of their behaviour as members of political parties. But we don’t want to so degrade the system by taking it out of the light of the public, out of the daylight, that the system becomes meaningless.

That’s what this bill is essentially proposing to do: give some more power to cabinet — more and more power to cabinet. As that power grows and grows, it becomes harder and harder for change to be made — in terms of good change, arguably — and for bad change to be stopped or criticized.

Speaking to those conscious British Columbians about the fantasy behind this bill, I just want to say that, surely, the B.C. Liberals can do a better job. I know that they love to pretend that the opposition is opposed to development of liquid natural gas. I know they want to do that, and I

[ Page 4882 ]

know that they get little instruction sheets and their prepared speeches that tell them to trumpet this over and over again. I get all that.

But, you know, if they actually listened to the members on this side of the House, what we’re saying is that we see potential and we see opportunity, as well, but let it be done in a sensible way that respects the rights of First Nations, that respects the environment, that respects our children and our grandchildren’s right to live in a society that is both free and prosperous and one in which they can be, generally speaking, healthy because they can still breathe the air and drink the water.

That’s not an unreasonable proposition. I know, in the hyperbole, I’m just as guilty as every other member. I understand that’s not the basis on which we’re going to discuss this. What we are saying as an opposition — if you look at this bill and understand its implications and what’s being asked, it’s just too much.

It is not in accord with the thinking of British Columbians. They have come a long ways. They understand better now that climate change is real, that something has to be done. Gordon Campbell got it. It’s clear this Premier doesn’t. I would hope the members opposite do, but if they honestly believe that this bill is going to help reduce greenhouse gas emissions and build a bright future for British Columbia in the form in which it is, I just have to say, my view, they’re wrong.

[1420]

Unfortunately, the price to be paid for being discovered and determined to be wrong will not be paid by the members opposite. It will be paid by all of those British Columbians who are looking to government, to the members of this assembly for leadership on the leading issue of our day.

They’re the ones who are going to pay the price. They’re going to pay the price economically. They’re going to pay the price environmentally. Those who are already suffering socially and are losing in every way, shape and form the fight for social and economic justice are the ones who are going to pay, because this bill doesn’t do the job that it should.

I look forward to further debate on this bill from the members of this chamber, but I for one cannot bring myself to support this legislation in the form in which it is.

Deputy Speaker: The member for North Vancouver–Seymour [Applause.]

J. Thornthwaite: I like that — having not said anything. Hopefully I’ll get that at the end.

This government supports responsible resource development and the highest safety and environmental standards. That has been proven time and time again.

The Premier said, with regards to the conditions to do with LNG companies in British Columbia a couple of weeks ago, that the conditions are this. You have to pass the environmental review, there has to be the best environmental protection on land and on water, there has to be First Nations involvement, and there has to be significant economic benefit for British Columbians.

Our commitment to the cleanest LNG has not wavered from this. Our government promised the cleanest LNG facilities in the world, and that is exactly what we’re delivering in this bill. This government will be a global leader in clean LNG because our facilities will address greenhouse gases to a higher standard than any other LNG facility in the world.

Our government acknowledges British Columbia is choosing a more difficult path to greenhouse gas reduction. Why? Because we’re going to reduce our greenhouse gases while supporting a strong and growing economy that includes a thriving LNG industry.

I was struck by the comments of the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head when he said that we can have a healthy environment and a strong economy. He recognized that job growth has occurred, economic growth has occurred, the GDP has gone up — all while reducing greenhouse gases from 2007 to 2012.

Our government will seize global leadership by reducing greenhouse gases while adding jobs and stimulating economic growth. As was mentioned times before, we already announced in June that we had reached our first interim greenhouse gas emissions reduction target of 6 percent below 2007 levels by 2012.

In contrast to the naysayers from the other side, we actually do deliver what we promise. The Premier, again, had mentioned before that we were not expected to balance the budget, and we did. We were not expected to balance the budget again, and we did. We weren’t expected to maintain our triple-A credit rating, and we did. We were not expected to have a settlement with the teachers, and we did. I’d like to just reiterate that we are promising the world’s highest standards of LNG, and we will commit to that promise.

The time is right to build on the success by revitalizing our climate action plan to reflect B.C.’s climate leadership in the context of a strong and growing economy. Where natural gas replaces other fossil fuels, lower greenhouse gases and improved global air quality will follow.

From this LNG emissions benchmark that I’ll discuss in a moment in this bill, British Columbia will see investments in B.C.-based offset projects, including forest management, natural gas vehicles, community energy systems, industrial energy efficiency and waste management projects.

[1425]

The offset provisions for carbon-neutral government under the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Targets Act will be repealed so that there is a single standard for B.C.’s offsets.

B.C.’s world-leading benchmark will limit greenhouse gas emissions to 160,000 tonnes CO 2 emissions per million tonnes of LNG produced. These are the lowest emissions of any similar facility in the world. British

[ Page 4883 ]

Columbia is committed to having the cleanest LNG facilities in the world. The province actually surveyed leading LNG facilities worldwide — Australia, the United States, Norway — and determined that a 0.16 benchmark would have a clear and lasting justification to be called the cleanest LNG facility.

A benchmark is a regulatory tool that sets an absolute limit on greenhouse gas emissions for every unit of LNG produced, while allowing for the growth and development of the LNG industry in B.C. In this way, a benchmark provides an economically efficient path to meet the goal, the province’s goal, of having the cleanest LNG facilities in the world. The benchmark will cover all greenhouse gas emissions, from the point where natural gas enters the plant to where it is loaded into a ship, train or other transportation system for delivery to the market.

By studying the greenhouse gas emissions of leading global LNG facilities — again, in Australia, Norway and the United States — along with independent research, B.C. has established that no other LNG facility in the world will have greenhouse gas emissions intensity as low as 0.16 tonnes CO 2 emissions per tonne of LNG produced. An LNG facility in B.C. that meets that benchmark through efficient plant design, investment in emission reductions or its clean technologies will have a clear claim for the world’s cleanest LNG facility.

As mentioned previously, in June 2014 we announced achievement of our first interim greenhouse gas emissions reduction target, of 6 percent below 2007 levels by 2012, and we did it at a time when we were growing the economy. It can and it will be done. This government remains committed to first achieving a 33 percent reduction and ultimately an 80 percent reduction from 2007 greenhouse gas levels.

The B.C. government is extremely sensitive to the competitive environment LNG facilities operate in, and it has worked with LNG companies and independent strategic advisers to identify a fair share of benefits for British Columbians. That is our goal, and that is what this bill and the next bill coming up are meant to accomplish.

The development of the liquefied natural gas industry in B.C. is a tremendous opportunity for even more economic growth for British Columbians, but we will not be doing this at the expense or the risk of the environment. That is what the Greenhouse Gas Industrial Reporting and Control Act is designed to protect, and that is why I will be supporting it.

Hon. D. McRae: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

Hon. D. McRae: On behalf of the Minister of Children and Families, the MLA for Surrey-Cloverdale, I gather that in the chambers today we have Southridge School from Surrey here. I would ask the House to please make them welcome.

Debate Continued

D. Donaldson: I’m happy to rise today and take my place in the second reading debate on Bill 2, the Greenhouse Gas Industrial Reporting and Control Act, not only to address the bill in a general way, but also because this second reading debate gives us an opportunity to discuss the challenge that is at the foundation of the bill.

As an aside, I would like to say that the challenge that is at the foundation of the bill is climate change. This could not be much more important a topic to me at this time, because less than 45 minutes ago I became a grandfather for the first time. [Applause.]

I’ll continue.

[1430]

I want to make it clear….

Interjection.

D. Donaldson: A baby girl. Yes, a baby girl.

I want to make it clear — because based on the comments we’ve heard from the other side, there are some B.C. Liberal MLAs who believe otherwise — that enhanced climate change is real. It’s real. It’s supported by scientific evidence and by those who make it a career to study the impacts of greenhouse gases on climate. So let’s all agree that this is the starting point for the discussion we are having in regards to this bill dealing with greenhouse gas emissions associated with the emerging LNG sector in this province.

We are witnessing the effects of enhanced climate change already. It’s not something that theoretically could happen in the future. In fact, as I studied the natural sciences in my undergraduate degree, it is something that has become a reality within my lifetime. I say “enhanced” climate change because western science has shown us that climate does change on this planet due to natural factors, often in a cyclical way.

What is different today is that due to man-made factors since the Industrial Revolution, and the dumping of large quantities of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide into the atmosphere, we have enhanced those natural cycles so that they become more rapid, extreme and unpredictable. Rapid, extreme and unpredictable climate patterns are not the ways that plants and animals evolved on this planet to become best-equipped for their surroundings.

There were some very rare catastrophic events that resulted in mass extinctions on a global basis due to potential causes such as meteor impacts. But these are not events that we should be willing to replicate due to our

[ Page 4884 ]

actions — actions that can be changed by means such as voluntary behaviour and through thoughtful legislation.

When climate change takes place rapidly and persists, we see problems. Plants cannot adapt quickly enough, for instance. Those areas where we are growing food — for example, with the help of irrigation — become unfarmable. That is what we are witnessing in California, where 70 percent of the massive food production area has been under drought for three years. Previously a breadbasket, that area is parched, and we are witnessing desertification.

That’s not a minor point when we consider how much of our food comes from California and Mexico. It’s a major reason why we see food prices jumping at our local grocery stores. It’s another important reason why agricultural land in this province needs to be cherished and protected, unlike the direction this government has taken us with changes to the agricultural land reserve.

In the northwest, salmon have evolved in an environment where water temperature has a huge impact on their ability to survive. It appears the failed sockeye run on the Skeena River last year, which had a huge impact economically and huge human consequences, had a lot to do with what happened to these fish when they were in the open ocean, where rising temperatures have decreased the amount of food for the developing sockeye and warmer temperatures have increased the range of competitors and predators from further south.

We know that increased river temperatures have significant negative impacts on spawning salmon and also on egg and fry survival. It’s partly why an NDP government in the 1990s introduced legislation to protect riparian zones from clearcut logging in order to keep those spawning salmon streams clear and cool.

Unfortunately, in the last 12 years we’ve seen this government turn to self-regulation by large forest companies for preventing such practices. We see increased incidents of poor results, once again, on the land as a consequence.

Underlying Bill 2 is the recognition of enhanced climate change — the incredible negative social and economic consequences that we are witnessing of increasing greenhouse gas emissions from industrial activity and the need to do something about it with respect to the emerging LNG sector. That is what underlies Bill 2.

But what we have in front of us really amounts to a whole lot of nothing. You will hear from this government about an intensity benchmark of 0.16 carbon dioxide equivalent per tonne of LNG produced and the cleanest LNG facilities in the world.

[1435]

But this bill is hardly a bill at all. Nothing in it concerns the statutory obligation. In other words, nothing in it is set in stone, as one would expect for a law governing GHG emissions. It’s all about regulation. For those who may be watching or listening or reading this later, here is how that works.

A proper piece of legislation would give details about exactly what the law does. In Bill 2 all those details are left up to regulations to be established at a later date by this government on its own and approved by the cabinet, not in front of this Legislature where some scrutiny and oversight can take place. It’s a trust-me approach.

After this government having Mount Polley happen during their watch; after this government passing legislation to allow industrial activity in parks while saying nothing about it before the election; after the government passing legislation weakening the agricultural land reserve after saying nothing about it before the election; after this government saying there’ll be no thing called the HST and then attempting to bring it in after the last election previous to 2009; after ripping up teachers’ and other public servants’ contracts and being told by the Supreme Court of Canada that they were wrong, do you think a trust-me approach by this government is something that deserves the support of fair-minded people?

I don’t think so. I don’t think so at all.

Let’s have a look at Bill 2.

Part 2, “Emission Reporting,”

section 2: “If required by the regulations....”

Part 3, “Emission Control” — “Compliance Obligation,”

section 4: “…in accordance with the regulations….”

Section 8 of “Emission Offsets”: “…the process established by regulation….” Division 6,

section 20, compliance unit transactions: “…in accordance with the regulations….”

Hon. Speaker, you get the picture. In fact, 21 times in this bill “in accordance with the regulations” is mentioned; ten times, “the regulations”; 14 times, “may make regulations”; five times, “if required by the regulations.”

Where are the regulations? They’re nowhere to be found in the bill. It’s absolutely ludicrous. Now, the problem with regulations is a well-known issue. A learned person wrote an

article called “Oversight of Regulations by Parliamentarians.” This was in the Canadian Parliamentary Review , winter of 2010. It was a very well balanced article, and the author of that

article is the hon. Speaker in this House. She wrote an article, well balanced, on a review of an oversight of regulations by parliamentarians.

She pointed out some of the pitfalls of regulations, and I’ll read from her very learned text.

“Since regulations are often drafted by a sponsoring department — often through consultation with officials, stakeholders and experts — to be later approved by cabinet, the potential exists for

an act to be implemented through regulation in ways that depart from the spirit or original intent of

an act previously endorsed by a parliament.”

Then she goes on to say:

“A second point pertains to the fact that delegated legislation” — in other words, regulations — “generally receives less attention and publicity than acts of parliament. This has fuelled concerns that delegated legislation may allow governments to enact significant or controversial statutory changes without due parliamentary debate or public scrutiny.”

That’s exactly the potential for what exists with this bill. Why are we concerned about this? Well, regulations are dealt with by the cabinet through orders-in-council behind closed doors, without the public scrutiny of what happens

[ Page 4885 ]

in this Legislature.

[1440]

A fine example of this happened just last April. This government, through an order-in-council, decided to let certain natural gas production facilities be exempt from the environmental legislation oversight. They gave exemptions to new natural gas production facilities in this province through an order-in-council. It wasn’t debated here.

It wasn’t given the public scrutiny it deserved, and there was an outcry — an outcry publicly, an outcry from the Fort Nelson First Nation, who were hosting an LNG summit at the time. Chief Sharleen Gale stood up and asked government officials to leave. She said it was a disgrace. I was in Moricetown listening to the Minister of Natural Gas and the Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation fall all over themselves with apologies: “This should never have happened.”

That is the danger of regulation. That is the danger of what we see in Bill 2. That is the danger that the thoughtful hon. Speaker of the Legislature pointed out in her article. What we need is an open and honest discussion — a transparent discussion. That is not what we are having. That’s what people want to hear. That’s what First Nations want to hear.

The Wet’suwet’en have major concerns about natural gas pipelines through their traditional territories — pipelines that could serve as potential LNG production facilities that Bill 2 is referencing. They want to know: what is the province’s, this government’s, energy plan? How are the Wet’suwet’en, with their aboriginal title, going to plug in or have comment on or benefit from that energy plan? That’s unknown. This government has not come up with that. That’s a lack of transparency and not having an open and honest debate.

What we have to do is speculate on how this bill might work, since everything is in accordance with regulations — 21 times, yet not one regulation is spelled out in the legislation. How might this work? Well, we have to speculate, because there’s nothing in statutes in the bill.

In fact, the 0.16 CO 2 equivalency per tonne that this government seems so proud of is only mentioned once in the legislation, on the final page, under a

schedule of regulated operations and emission limits. That’s where it’s mentioned. No other time in this entire document.

Why is that a concern? Well, guess what. Schedules can be changed by regulation. The government, who we have already seen is prone to using orders-in-council to go against the wishes of most people in this province, could use an order-in-council to amend, rescind, change that

schedule without any debate happening here in front of the Legislature, where people should have a good idea of what this government is up to, what the legislation is up to.

We see that the 0.16 limit is barely touched upon in the bill. We also see that the bill…. Just as an aside, just before that

schedule on the very last page, where the only number listed in regulation to greenhouse gas emissions in the entire bill is, on the last page…. We see just previous to that that, in

section 55, the Greenhouse Gas Reduction (Cap and Trade) Act from 2008 is repealed. The act that was supposed to go hand in hand with the carbon tax to actually help reach our carbon emission goals in this province — well, it’s repealed now. That’s the legacy now of this government, of this B.C. Liberal government.

We have the 0.16 mentioned once in the document, and then we hear about some other details, important details, about how this might work. Important details about a flexibility between 0.16 CO 2 equivalency per tonne and 0.23. Where is that? It’s not in the bill. It’s nowhere. It’s in a press release that accompanies the bill.

The government is enacting legislation through press releases that have no statutory obligations, and they say it will all be taken care of by regulation at the end. What we see is LNG facilities that are free to pollute under Bill 2 and dump carbon dioxide emissions into the air up to 0.16 CO 2 equivalency per tonne.

[1445]

If we are able to believe what’s in the government news release, between 0.16 and 0.23 we see subsidization of up to 50 percent of the penalty if companies do not reach that 0.16 threshold. They might end up paying 50 percent of a penalty up to 0.23 and have to buy offsets for the other 50 percent or contribute to a yet undefined technology fund — again, undefined.

Why are they so afraid of putting these kinds of details in a bill? That would be a question I think a fair-minded person in the province would ask. If you’re so proud of a potential technology fund, why would you not put stipulations, statutory obligations in law, in the bill?

Above 0.23 companies have to buy offsets — that’s what we can learn from the news release; it’s not in the bill — or contribute fully to a technology fund. But again, very undefined, through regulation. Some people have typified this as not addressing the LNG greenhouse gas emission issue. It’s companies being able to buy their way out of polluting. “Trust them.” That’s all we hear. “Trust them with the offsets.” Well, we’ve seen a pretty bad track record on offsets with this government already with the Pacific Carbon Trust fund.

The other part of this bill that’s dismaying is that the full cycle of the LNG sector industry is not established. Think about how ludicrous that is. You’re saying we’re going to have the cleanest LNG in the world. The plants contribute 30 to 50 percent of the carbon emissions, the greenhouse gas emissions, of the potential LNG sector in this province.

The upstream activities associated with LNG contribute anywhere from, perhaps, 50 to 70 percent of the total carbon pollution from the industry. This involves extraction activities at the wellhead, upstream combustion, flaring, fugitive emissions. When you’re fracking, you don’t

[ Page 4886 ]

necessarily capture all the methane that’s coming up, all the gases that are coming up. So what we have are potentially 70 percent, by some studies, of emissions involved in the LNG sector coming from upstream activities.

To say that this bill will mean the cleanest LNG in the world is ludicrous. It’s not true. In fact, it’s absurd. On top of it, to say: “Well, the part that’s even going to be better is that we’ll ship LNG to China, and they’re going to reduce their emissions….” Well, get a grip. That’s what I say to the MLAs on the other side. Get a grip.

China has unbelievable energy needs. I sat in on budget estimates, where our leader was asking the Premier last spring: are there any agreements B.C. has with China that if we do export LNG to that country, they will decrease their coal-fired plants for electricity? No. None. So again, just a fallacy that that’s going to occur. “Get a grip” is what I say.

Getting back to the actual bill, this government has been talking about LNG for two years, and this bill is the best this government can do? Regulation, regulation, regulation to be determined at a later date. I’d venture to guess that a few aspiring lawyers at the University of Victoria Environmental Law Centre could have put together this effort in about a week. What Bill 2 represents is this government’s sole focus on LNG instead of any other vision and at the cost of other economic sectors in this province.

Just imagine for a minute a government that was focused on forestry as well. Instead of raw log exports at record-breaking rates under this government, perhaps we would be able to see tax incentives and penalties to encourage value-added in B.C. so we could recoup some of the 30,000 jobs that have been lost under this government in the forest sector.

[1450]

Or, perhaps, imagine a government that was focused on forestry that would look at fibre piles — piles of wood that are being burned, as we speak, in the northwest that can be used for jobs, for pellet plants and other kinds of value-added facilities. Right now they’re being burned, under this government, and they’ve done nothing about that legislatively. Instead, their sole focus on LNG has led to lost opportunities in forestry.

Imagine a government that was more focused on mining, as well as forestry, having the wherewithal to actually have monitors in the mining sector. Government monitors, as the Auditor General pointed out, are sadly lacking to even monitor the mitigative measures that the B.C. environmental office has put on mining projects to make sure they’re done in a more environmentally sustainable manner.

Imagine if this government had the wherewithal to have the monitoring that was required. Can you imagine the confidence that would inspire? Not just among First Nations and among residents but among investors worldwide in the mining sector in B.C. But no, we have a government solely focused on LNG.

Can you imagine if we had a government that instead of spending two years on Bill 2 — all it talks about is regulation — had paid attention to the agriculture sector? Can you imagine a government that valued farmland and cherished it and defended it instead of introducing legislation attacking it? A government where farmers are supported in what they do, not a government where we have the worst support, for a government, towards farmers of almost all provinces in the country.

Again, Bill 2 is an epitome of government that’s lost its way by solely focusing on a single sector. Imagine a government that could spend some time looking at the fishery in this beautiful province. We have many people who spend money on fishing licences. A part of that is supposed to come back for projects that improve access for sport fishermen and -women to rivers in this province. We haven’t seen that.

Can you imagine the value-added opportunities — a government who’s concerned about more things than just LNG — in the fishery? I think about the commercial inland fishery the First Nations embark upon on the Skeena River and the opportunities that are being lost because this government is focused solely on LNG.

Bill 2 epitomizes a government that has blinders on when it comes to the economy. Co-ops — another area this government has ignored. There’s no one accountable. No one person is accountable for co-ops, in this government. That’s unlike any other province in Canada. This sector, largely made up of non-profits, is a big part of our economy — $11 billion in revenue and 140,000 people working — and it’s ignored by this government as they work feverishly for over two years on a bill that is nothing but regulations to be determined at a later stage.

There’s no certainty for the people of B.C. in this bill — no certainty at all. We have a government bending over backwards trying to offer a global LNG industry certainty when it comes to a tax regime. But when it comes to the people of B.C. around certainty that their environment will be protected, that greenhouse gas emissions will be reduced, there’s no certainty, because Bill 2 does not outline anything other than regulations to be determined at a later date.

I’m going to wrap up my comments, as you would suspect, hon. Speaker, regarding this bill, as one of the poorest efforts I’ve ever seen in this Legislature around the introduction of legislation. Pages and pages of yet-to-be-determined regulation — nothing when it comes to the details that would give some certainty, some comfort for the people of B.C. about a government who’s concerned about climate change, about climate action. That’s why I will not be able to support this bill as it stands and as it is.

[1455]

S. Hamilton: It’s my pleasure to rise in the House today in support of Bill 2. We know this is a very important bill. It’s very important to the future of this province.

[ Page 4887 ]

It’s very important to the future that’s actually up in the gallery today — the young people in this province that are going to rely on us to make decisions that are going to be, hopefully, helping to advance their futures as they grow older and they contribute to this economy and to this province.

Natural gas is by no means a new industry in British Columbia. Our member for Stikine, a little earlier in his dissertation, asked us to get a grip. This government has a grip. This government has a grip on this province’s future. We are seeing that this future is going to be bright and vibrant, and it’s going to benefit future generations in this province.

It’s not just because we believe LNG is our sole focus. It is not our sole focus. We do not have monovision. We are focused on the environment. We are focused on agriculture and small business and jobs and fisheries and forestry and mining. We don’t forget all of that just because we think LNG is the be-all and end-all. There are a lot of other things going on in this province that we are taking responsibility for, and we’re moving this province forward on behalf of the people who live here. We’ve got an unprecedented opportunity to help grow this economy.

British Columbia is the second-largest producer of natural gas in this country, and it’s responsible for 26 percent of Canada’s natural gas industry. In fact, B.C. produced 1.6 trillion cubic feet of natural gas over the last 12 months, and the energy equivalent of that is 270 million barrels of oil. That’s what we’ve been able to offset with the cleanest fossil fuel that we can produce. Because of this, major global companies have shown a strong commitment to B.C.’s natural gas future, and these companies are already making large investments to prepare for LNG exports.

I had the pleasure on Tuesday of joining the Premier in my own community of Delta to announce an expansion of the FortisBC LNG facility — $400 million. They have partners who are going to be shipping LNG all over the world — Asia, up and down the west coast of North America, South America. They’re going to ramp up to 3 million cubic tonnes of LNG to take to places like Hawaii and Brazil and up and down the west coast of British Columbia, to Asia, as I mentioned. It was a huge….

The global demand for liquefied natural gas has doubled in the last ten years, and it’s projected by experts to increase by another 50 percent in the next seven years. Demand is flourishing. B.C. is serious about becoming a stable and reliable source of energy on the global stage. This is one of our classic commitments and, I think, a defining moment for the government in many ways. LNG will diversify our economy and provide a significant source of public revenue for decades to come.

Again, specifically to Delta, anybody who thinks LNG is a pipedream: come to Delta. I’d be glad to take the opposition on a tour of the now Fortis LNG facility. It’s real. You can see it, you can touch it, and it exists. I’m very, very proud to be a member of that community that’s going to help make this industry flourish.

Just to address issues around safety, the facility has been operating safely since 1971. It’s 41 years that that facility has been in existence, and it’s providing gas supply to utility customers during peak periods of high demand, such as cold winter days. We know how many of those we have down here on the south coast. As the operator of only two LNG facilities on the west coast, out of five in all of Canada — the Mt. Hayes facility near Ladysmith and the Tilbury Island facility in Delta — this facility will be equipped to meet the demands of B.C.’s transportation sector, remote communities, industrial customers and the marketplace.

[1500]

We’re committed to ensuring that B.C.’s LNG facilities are the cleanest in the world. Natural gas is the cleanest-burning fossil fuel, as I mentioned. By exporting LNG, B.C. will help to avoid the use of higher greenhouse-gas-producing fuels such as coal.

It was pointed out to me earlier today how much diesel fuel the islands of Hawaii actually have to burn to keep their lights on and to keep them warm at night. It’s astounding. LNG will have the opportunity to replace much of that demand on that bad burning fossil fuel — which is why this bill is so important, as it reinforces this commitment. Our commitment to the cleanest LNG has not wavered.

B.C. is now competing with jurisdictions globally to be part of an LNG supply. Our government promised the cleanest LNG facilities in the world, and that’s exactly what we’re going to deliver. This government will be a global leader in clean LNG because our facilities will address greenhouse gases to a higher standard than any other LNG facility in the world.

We will encourage further investment to reduce emissions in the upstream. Our government is introducing an emissions benchmark with flexible options, including purchasing offsets, and a technology fund, because this is the most effective way to meet the province’s climate goals while ensuring industry competitiveness. Climate change is a global issue, and by exporting natural gas B.C. will supply growing markets with the cleanest-burning fossil fuel.

Our government acknowledges British Columbia is choosing the more difficult path to greenhouse gas reductions because we’re going to reduce our greenhouse gases while supporting a strong and growing economy that includes a thriving LNG industry. Our government will seize global leadership by reducing GHGs while adding jobs and stimulating economic growth.

We have already had some successes in reducing our emissions while growing our economy. In June it was announced that B.C. had reached this first interim GHG emission reduction target of 6 percent below the 2007 levels by 2012. More will have to be done to continue reducing emissions, but we remain committed to achieving,

[ Page 4888 ]

first, a 33 percent reduction and, ultimately, an 80 percent reduction from 2007 GHG levels.

B.C. has been a global climate action leader since we introduced our climate action plan in 2008. Some examples proving our success include lowering our GHG emissions while growing our economy, 48 percent growth in our green tech sector and double the Canadian rate for hybrid vehicle use. Almost one-quarter of LEED gold building projects registered in Canada are located right here in British Columbia.

The time is right to build on that success by revitalizing our climate action plan, to reflect B.C.’s climate leadership in the context of a strong and growing economy.

Where natural gas replaces other fossil fuels, lower GHGs and improved air quality will result. For example, here in B.C. we have an opportunity to reduce our GHG emissions in the transportation sector by making greater use of LNG. B.C. also has opportunities to significantly reduce GHG emissions in the building sector through the use of climate-friendly construction.

From LNG emissions benchmark, British Columbia will see investment in B.C.-based offset projects, including forest management, natural gas vehicles, community energy systems, industrial energy efficiency and waste management projects. This will provide a broad range of new opportunities across all sectors to reduce provincial GHG emissions.

The liquefaction of natural gas is an energy- and emissions-intensive process. We all realize that. We all agree to that. However, natural gas is still part of a global climate solution. Natural gas is the cleanest-burning fossil fuel. I can’t say it enough. As aside from coal, as aside from diesel, natural gas is the cleanest-burning fossil fuel. It’s the responsible thing for us to do to try and promote it, not just here in British Columbia but around the world, for its use.

B.C.’s world-leading benchmark will limit GHG emissions to 160,000 tonnes of CO 2 per million tonnes of LNG produced, the lowest emissions of any similar facility in the world. New measures in every sector are going to help B.C. reach its long-term climate change goals in tandem with the building out of the LNG industry.

The LNG industry is concerned that costs for their operations in meeting the GHG emission intensity benchmark will affect their overall competitiveness. Having the cleanest LNG facilities in the world and protecting the environment is a core principle of our government. It’s only reasonable, then, to be part of the solution by contributing to the additional costs incurred to achieve the lowest GHG output.

[1505]

The LNG environmental incentive program reduces compliance costs for B.C. LNG industries of meeting the GHG performance benchmarks and provides an incentive to further reduce their emissions.

[D. Horne in the chair.]

Natural gas–fuelled compression technology can achieve 0.23 tonne of CO 2 per tonne of LNG produced. Providing an incentive for LNG facilities to achieve a lower intensity of GHG emissions than 0.23 tonnes of LNG produced will encourage the industry to place a greater emphasis on incorporating lower-emitting technology into their plans.

The incentive program will provide a higher percentage of compliance costs to LNG facilities that are nearer to the benchmark. The cleaner the facility, the less they will have to spend on GHG compliance, and that is a huge incentive. In the global LNG market every penny counts, of course, and the incentive program will ensure that B.C. remains an attractive place to invest and will ensure that our LNG is competitively priced in world markets.

The LNG companies can design efficient plants so that they don’t exceed the benchmark or use offsets for emissions above the benchmark or contribute to a technology fund that will be capped at $25 per tonne.

The LNG environmental incentive program will be an expenditure program open to facilities producing LNG in the prior calendar year with eligible offset or technology fund expenses. There are no immediate impacts on the province’s fiscal plan. No expenditures will occur before revenues from LNG are realized by government, and no payments are anticipated before 2019.

The annual cost of the program will depend on the final investment decision of LNG proponents and their respective in-service dates and production amounts. Any funding for the program would be approved by the standard provincial budget process in the appropriate year.

Again, I’m excited about the progress that we’re making, but we need to do so responsibly. This bill ensures that we’re looking out not only for the economic well-being of our province but also the health and well-being of our natural resources and, most importantly, British Columbia as a whole.

L. Popham: It doesn’t give me a lot of pleasure to rise to respond to this bill, and I’ll tell you why. One of the things that I have noticed over the last 5½ years of being elected in here is that the government side of the House is in charge of the entire end result of climate change in our world, as far as British Columbia goes. If we could split the world in two and they could be in charge of their side and we could be in charge of our side, I would have given up on their side long ago, because they’re heading down a path that is extremely dangerous.

I wonder if members on the other side of the House do not believe in climate change. The way that they’re going on about the cleanest LNG and how they’re reducing emissions makes me believe that they can’t connect the dots.

[ Page 4889 ]

So 20 years from now, when we’re having such extreme weather events that we’re unable to mitigate them because we haven’t done any planning…. It means to me that they can’t connect the dots.

They will probably stand out in one of these major storms and wonder: “Why is it happening?” It’s like not planting a crop and wondering why you didn’t get any food at the end. For me it’s bizarre, but it’s also sad.

I am 46 years old. I have a 16-year-old son, and he’s in a program at school where they’re learning about climate change. It’s a school in Cordova Bay which is extremely focused on what people can do in the world, how people can make decisions which will result in a better environment for all of us.

I go in and listen to what’s going on in his class. It’s very inspiring, because there are so many students who are so focused on the climate change issue. Then I walk into this chamber, and it’s like I have gone back a hundred years. It’s hard to believe that we are discussing this in this chamber — about the results of climate change and what causes it.

We have a renowned climate scientist who sits in this House, and the government side of the House has basically said: “Sorry, we don’t believe what you’re saying.”

[1510]

Apparently on the other side of the House we have loads of scientists that are experts in climate change. If I had access to a climate scientist who specifically studies climate change, I would take that member a little bit more seriously. On this side of the House we actually believe in science-based decision-making, not Kool-Aid–based decision-making — which is what I’ve been hearing a lot of.

Obviously, to anybody who would read this bill, the main problem is that none of the upstream emissions will be counted. What does that mean? How can I explain how ridiculous that is? What it means is that…. Here’s an example that’s similar. Somebody needs to go on a diet, and they need to cut their calories in half. So the person in charge of the diet says: “Well, we’re not going to count what you’re eating for the first 12 hours of the day, just the last 12, and there’s your cut.” It doesn’t make sense.

This is exactly what this government is doing. They’re not taking into account any of the extraction emissions, upstream combustion emissions, flaring emissions, fugitive emissions and pipeline emissions. How is that possible? I haven’t heard anybody give a good explanation on why that’s possible.

The main topic that I’m going to concentrate on in this bill is around the carbon offsets that will be possible for companies to purchase.

The reason why I’m very concerned about this and why I think the member from Prince George should also be very concerned about this is because all over B.C., around Prince George, there are offshore companies purchasing thousands of acres of land in the agricultural land reserve. These companies are setting up carbon offset programs. So our very valuable land in the agricultural land reserve is now being owned by foreign ownership that’s using it for carbon offsetting.

What do you have to do in B.C. for carbon offsetting? Some of the things you have to do include planting a forest, so our agricultural land is now being planted. It’s being used as silviculture, which takes it…. As offset programs govern, you can’t log these forests for over a hundred years. What they’re doing is they’re taking this land out of our agricultural production for over a hundred years.

We don’t have that much land in the agricultural land reserve. But one funny situation, especially around Prince George, is that this land was Crown land in forest, removed from Crown forest land, transitioned into agricultural land, where it’s now sold to offshore companies that are replanting it and returning it to forest land. How does that make sense? Well, it all makes sense if you look at this ridiculous path that the government is going down.

Now any of the indications that they don’t value agricultural land, from the spring, are ringing true again in this chamber. This is not a new problem, and the member from Prince George knows that. There are members in this House that heard about this situation during the Agricultural Land Commission consultations in the summer. This is not a new situation that’s going on with the ALR land and the carbon offset programs.

In fact, this situation came up in 2008 in a debate between then MLA Bob Simpson and MLA Pat Bell. This was discussed then. This was brought to the government’s attention — thousands of acres of farmland being returned to forest land, owned by offshore companies. Is this the type of carbon offset incentive program that the Liberal government supports?

There are not enough details in the carbon offset portion of this bill. What I know is that it must be B.C.–based. Offset companies must register with the government and receive certification. That sounds good. It sounds like they maybe have covered things off. But here’s the catch. If you’ve had a carbon offset company working in B.C., it can be grandfathered. So these companies that have bought huge swaths of agricultural land can be grandfathered as carbon offset incentive programs.

[1515]

This is what the B.C. Liberals stand for. They don’t care about agricultural land. All they care about is LNG, and they are not considering the results of unintended consequences. This is something that I’m going to be investigating a lot further.

I have contacts around the province that are contacting me because there are a lot of people that are concerned. And it’s not just people who live in Saanich South on Vancouver Island who would be concerned; it’s people all across the province. These swaths of land are from Prince George up through the Cariboo — thousands of acres. I wanted to just mention that today in my response to this bill.

Obviously, I don’t support it. You cannot support a bill on emissions that a climate scientist cannot support.

[ Page 4890 ]

He’s given very good reasons. We’ve given good reasons. I don’t support this bill.

The theme that this government has going, as an assault on agricultural land, is something that gets right up the noses of British Columbians. If you’re looking for an issue to lose support on, it’s our agricultural land. If you thought that the spring was a problem for this government, if this continues and this is a reality in this emissions bill, you just wait for the problems you’re going to have.

Deputy Speaker: Through the Chair please, Member.

I thank the member and recognize the member for Abbotsford South.

D. Plecas: On behalf of my constituents in Abbotsford South, indeed the people of British Columbia, I’m honoured to take

part in this debate that is literally going to usher in a new era of opportunity and economic growth for our beautiful province. Bill 2, the Greenhouse Gas Industrial Reporting and Control Act, is one of two major pieces of legislation that will bring expansion to B.C.’s natural gas industry and to one of the safest and cleanest LNG export industries in the world.

B.C. is blessed by the fact that we are sitting on trillions and trillions of cubic feet of natural gas. That is enough to satisfy our domestic needs for generations to come, and it will allow us to still have plenty left over to benefit the province by selling it to developing economies in Asia, such as China and India.

Natural gas is the cleanest-burning of all fossil fuels, as we’ve heard, far surpassing coal and oil. By making natural gas available to countries such as India and China, we will contribute to lowering greenhouse gas emissions worldwide. And as those economies move away from using dirtier sources of energy, the whole world stands to be cleaner.

The natural gas industry is nothing new in British Columbia. It currently employs about 13,000 people in production of gas. But creating an entirely new export industry is not a simple task. It requires vision and an unwavering commitment to succeed, especially in the face of those critics who offer very little encouragement to thousands of British Columbians who will benefit from highly skilled and well-paying jobs in the natural gas sector. This is especially true for First Nations people and others living in remote areas of the province, who for the very first time will have access to rewarding jobs in their own communities.

Let’s talk about the environment. By introducing these key pieces of LNG legislation before the House, the government is delivering on a commitment made during the last election to promote the cleanest LNG industry on the planet. This is a fantastic goal. It is an opportunity for us to become a world leader in clean technology and boost our competitiveness beyond that of other LNG suppliers.

Bill 2 is designed to ensure that our facilities will address greenhouse gases to a higher standard than any other LNG facility in the world. B.C.’s world-leading benchmark will limit GHG emissions to 160,000 tonnes of CO 2 per million tonnes produced. That is the lowest emissions of any similar facility on the planet.

This legislation is far-ranging and makes room for technological advances in the future to be incorporated into the supply stream. Our government remains committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions and, in fact, has been a global leader ever since introducing our climate action plan in 2008.

[1520]

Without a doubt, the government is choosing a more difficult path towards the reduction of greenhouse gases and growing our economy at the same time. We must, therefore, rely on innovation and cleaner technologies.

For example, of the 18 proposed export facilities in British Columbia, three intend to focus on a domestic market that provides fuel for the transportation and heavy equipment industry. With this new source of cleaner-burning fuel, British Columbia will become more energy self-sufficient and will be able to take an at-home advantage of our own natural resources. That means we can convert existing fleets of vehicles from heavy polluters to environmentally friendly parts of our economy.

Just last month B.C. Ferries announced that two of the largest vessels in the fleet are going to be running on natural gas by 2018. This announcement comes in addition to plans to build three smaller vessels that will also run on LNG. Fuel is B.C. Ferries’ largest expense, and natural gas is 50 percent cheaper than marine diesel. By gradually converting the fleet to run on natural gas, fare prices can be kept under control, rather than be ruled by volatile spikes in the price of gas on world markets.

Think of it. By reducing our reliance on petroleum and converting to a cleaner-burning fuel, LNG will be the source of energy for everything from public transportation buses to ships at sea. As we lead the way in LNG transportation technology, we will encourage our customers overseas to make similar conversions. Since our customers realize a 50 percent saving in the cost of fuel by converting to LNG, we will generate an even greater demand for our product.

The main point here is that we can reduce our greenhouse gas emissions simply by converting to LNG in the transportation sector.

But we have other opportunities to reduce greenhouse gas emissions as well. We can do it in the construction industry by using climate-friendly building materials. In fact, as has already been pointed out by one of my colleagues on this side of the House, almost one-quarter of LEED gold building projects registered in Canada are located right here in British Columbia.

Natural resources have always played a part for public infrastructure and social programs in British Columbia

[ Page 4891 ]

for everything from schools and hospitals to health care and education. There is not a road or bridge in British Columbia that was built without the benefit of our traditional forest and mining industries. They will continue to be mainstays of the provincial economy, but now LNG will also be a major player.

In the Lower Mainland we are benefiting from highway improvements such as the South Fraser Perimeter Road and the completion of the Port Mann Bridge. The government is focused on highway developments to further separate commuter traffic from commercial vehicle traffic.

In Abbotsford in particular we benefit by this because we want greater access to our airport, Abbotsford International Airport, which has the potential of overtaking Bellingham Airport in the area of destination flights. Why not give British Columbians the opportunity to spend their vacation dollars here in Canada and still enjoy the competitive rates offered outside the country?

But investments in highways and railways and overpasses require huge amounts of money. What better way to get there than to develop an environmentally friendly — and I emphasize “environmentally friendly” — and forward-looking industry, using a resource that lies right below our feet.

This government will deliver on LNG. There is no doubt in my mind that it will prove to be the single best thing, economically, that has ever happened to this province, and that will be true for generations to come. It will give us, most importantly, an opportunity to deliver on this government’s other obligations, such as health care, education, social services and great transportation — all of which we are committed to being world-class, number one in the world.

This is going to help us get there. Along the way we will be making a positive contribution to the environment on a global scale. Thank goodness we have leadership in this province that understands this completely.

[1525]

The official opposition has been very clear that we do support the establishment, the development of an LNG industry in British Columbia, with four conditions: that they include an expressed guarantee of jobs and training opportunities for British Columbia; that they offer a fair return for our resources….

I would include in that a return to the communities most directly affected by the development of the industry, such as Prince Rupert, Terrace, Kitimat, who right now are experiencing…. In addition to their normal demands on overtaxed infrastructure that needs to be upgraded, they are already experiencing growth pains related to this industry that are not being addressed by this provincial government.

It’s very important that the communities directly affected by LNG get a fair share of the resources, as well, to deal with these kinds of impacts.

The third condition on our

part is benefits for First Nations and recognition of First Nations’ constitutionally guaranteed rights. In the wake of the Tsilhqot’in decision, this is a very, very important condition on our part.

Finally, we support the development of an LNG industry as long as our air, land and water are adequately protected. This last condition includes living up to our climate change commitments. That’s what this debate is about, in particular this last point around living up to our climate change commitments.

This bill is supposed to address that. This bill is supposed to be all about that. Other speakers have pointed out, earlier in the day, that despite the name of the bill, which is the Greenhouse Gas Industrial Reporting and Control Act, the legislation, in fact, neither reports nor controls.

It’s an ironic title for this legislation, which is so lacking in terms of the reporting, in terms of the emissions being covered under the bill and the actual controls on them. As my colleague from Oak Bay–Gordon Head has pointed out, it’s an intensity approach as opposed to a cap. It doesn’t actually absolutely cap emissions.

Before I go on to talk further about whether this bill actually addresses the concerns around climate action and our legislated targets, I did want to talk a little bit about the threat. In the pre-election and during the February budget LNG was touted in terms of the trillions of dollars of economic activity, the prosperity fund, “Debt-free B.C.,” the elimination of the sales tax, on and on. As I indicated in my throne speech remarks, this language now has turned from the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow to what amounts to an economic threat.

We heard, actually, the member from Prince George repeat it earlier today, where he essentially said that without LNG we’re not going to be able to pay for our current level of services. That’s just simply not true.

[1530]

Current natural gas revenues in British Columbia…. Despite the millions of tonnes of production currently in British Columbia and the truly large potential for natural gas production in British Columbia, natural gas revenues only comprise about 1 percent of total B.C. revenue. So of about $44 billion in revenues per year, natural gas currently accounts for 1 percent.

Even if that were to go away…. I’m not advocating that. I’m just suggesting that natural gas right now is a very, very small portion of government revenues and, also,

[ Page 4892 ]

pointing out, particularly to this government, that over the past decade they have stripped literally billions of dollars in tax revenues from the provincial budget. All of a sudden, though, LNG becomes the saviour and the only way in which we can sustain our current level of services. It’s fearmongering at its worst.

I want to talk a little bit more about the actual legislation itself. As I said before, it’s not an absolute cap on emissions. One of my colleagues opposite used the phrase that it was an absolute cap on emissions per tonne, which is a roundabout way of saying that…. Really, it is an intensity kind of approach. Again, as my colleague from Oak Bay–Gordon Head has pointed out, this is the approach being taken by the federal government, which is yet to actually even impose intensity controls, never mind absolute caps. And it’s the approach taken in Alberta.

What it means is that while government can claim to have the cleanest LNG in the world — and there are some pretty serious caveats to that claim — it is theoretically possible to have the cleanest LNG in the world and still completely violate our climate action targets, targets that are legislated in this province, or at least used to be legislated. So it’s an intensity approach. It’s not an ultimate cap on emissions.

Some calculations done by the Pembina Institute indicate that if there were five plants, five out of the 18 that government suggests is a modest target that can be achieved…. And by gum, they’re going to achieve it. If those five plants went ahead as planned, the 0.16 benchmark would in itself allow 13 million tonnes per year of GHG emissions — as other colleagues have stated before, essentially a free pass.

So 13 million tonnes. Our current emissions are on the order of, I think, 58 million, 60 million tonnes. Already with that free pass, with the cleanest LNG in the world, that will increase emissions by 22 percent.

Then, of course, as other colleagues have mentioned, the biggest omission in this legislation is around the upstream emissions, which the Pembina Institute and others estimate to constitute about 70 percent of the emissions associated with these five new plants — 70 percent. Again, if those five plants were to go ahead and the production in B.C. were to increase in order to supply these plants, supply these facilities, the 70 percent of emissions that are actually excluded from the legislation would constitute a 74 percent increase in our current level of GHG emissions.

Together with the plants and the excluded upstream emissions, you’ve got pretty much a doubling of emissions. So the cleanest LNG in the world, if in fact that is true, will result in a doubling of emissions. Yet our climate action target, which is actually legislated in British Columbia — and full credit to the Liberal government for putting those targets in….

[1535]

The climate action target for 2020, which is only six years away, is a 33 percent reduction in emissions — versus those five plants, which suggest, imply, a doubling rather than a 33 percent reduction. The numbers don’t…. Well, unfortunately, the numbers do add up, and it’s just completely incompatible — the current legislation that’s in place, requiring a 33 percent reduction by 2020, and this legislation.

In fact, again, as has been pointed out before, a piece of legislation that would actually cap emissions for industrial facilities and sectors, the cap-and-trade act, is being repealed with this legislation. What’s being replaced is an absolute cap and replaced with this per-tonne-intensity kind of approach, which will allow a doubling of emissions. One can’t find the language, but certainly it’s completely contradictory with our climate action goals.

Now, another very serious problem with this legislation is the provision allowing the purchase of offsets or the contribution to a so-called technology fund. You know, for these kinds of measures, the devil truly is in the details, and this government certainly does not have a very good record when it comes to applying these kinds of measures.

Remember the Pacific Carbon Trust, which was just recently abolished by government. That Carbon Trust was in fact supposed to do exactly what this legislation is talking about here. It was supposed to facilitate offsets, facilitate investment in new technology that reduced greenhouse gas emissions.

Well, that entity, that organization, has been scrapped after a scathing report by the Auditor General of this province. In its review they looked at two particular transactions by the Pacific Carbon Trust — one involving Encana around GHG-capture technology that it was investing in and another one that purchased the protection of a large tract of land called Darkwoods by, I believe, the Nature Conservancy of Canada.

In both those cases the Auditor General found that those investments would have occurred anyway. What the Pacific Carbon Trust did in those cases was to transfer millions of dollars to two projects that would have occurred anyway, would have happened anyway. So this is the concern with reliance, and the excessive reliance in this legislation, on offsets and purchase of technology rather than actually reducing emissions at the facilities themselves.

The record has not been good, and it has certainly not been good by this particular government. It has already tried and failed in establishing that kind of organization.

It’s been also mentioned by previous speakers that there is an excessive reliance or reference in the bill to a whole number of regulations that will affect the offsetting measures, that will affect the contributions to the technology fund — a whole number of regulations that are to be declared later. Twenty-five percent of the bill is regulations that currently aren’t in place, so that certainly sends alarm bells, especially when there’s such a

[ Page 4893 ]

reliance on offsetting — you know, carbon-credit kinds of mechanisms — in this kind of legislation. There’s so much that is unknown.

It’s been pointed out, as well, that contributions to the technology fund would be at a prescribed rate of $25 per tonne. But actually, on the world market for carbon credits you can purchase those credits for much lower dollars than that.

[1540]

Given that — and there’s no indication whatsoever that those kinds of purchases would not occur — why would LNG producers contribute to a technology fund at $25 a tonne when they can purchase offsets for much lower value? This is the kind of devil in the detail that really raises alarms here.

Again, it’s not that in theory these things are by definition bad. It’s just that the history of this government in particular, applying these kinds of measures, has been such a failure in the past. Such an excessive reliance in this legislation on them really does create cause for concern.

The argument about displacing coal use in China and other countries has come up. We need to be clear here that what this debate is about is British Columbia’s legislative targets, not the world market for offset, not the world demand for coal.

What’s at issue here is British Columbia’s own emissions, which are required by legislation to be reduced by 33 percent by 2020. Arguments around reducing coal use in China really have nothing to do with this legislation, nothing to do with this debate. It’s a red herring. In fact, any LNG producer could make that claim. British Columbia could have no plants go forward, and China will still be looking for natural gas imports. In fact, it’s already made arrangements with Russia, which is going to be building a pipeline into China.

The claim by British Columbia that somehow our LNG exports are going to be uniquely offsetting China’s use of coal is nonsense. First of all, it has nothing to do with our obligations, and secondly, any LNG supplier could make that claim. So it really is irrelevant to this debate.

With regard to the upstream emissions, what’s problematic is that right now even the carbon tax…. Again, I give credit to this government for bringing that carbon tax in. But right now that carbon tax only applies to certain sectors. It omits sectors and, in particular, it omits the upstream components of the natural gas industry. Of particular concern there are the methane emissions associated with fracking. Not even the carbon tax applies to those upstream activities. So it’s not at all clear how those impacts, how those GHG emissions are going to be in any way mitigated.

I just wanted to read a couple of comments from, let’s say, an expert and from some of our better-known pundits, about the legislation.

Marc Lee, who’s an economist with the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, referred to the offsets as one small step for GHG emissions and a giant step for greenwashing. That was Mr. Lee’s comment.

He described how the offset process would work. Not only whether or not they’d be effective is pretty murky; but government is actually going to be subsidizing these multi-billion-dollar enterprises that are making billions of dollars a year in revenues. This provincial government is actually going to be subsidizing them to reduce their greenhouse emissions rather than just requiring it by regulation.

This is what Mr. Lee has to say. “Government will subsidize the GHG penalty” — where this comes into play is between the 0.23 and the 0.16 per tonne of emissions — “as much as 100 percent of it for plants with emissions just over the 0.16 standard, say, 0.17 tonnes” — so there’ll be almost a 100 percent subsidy for these companies that generate billions of dollars in revenues and are going to be generating millions of tonnes in emissions — “dropping, on a sliding scale, to 50 percent of the penalty for plants at 0.23. Above that, no subsidy.”

[1545]

What does this mean in terms of numbers? At ten million tonnes per year, an LNG plant at 0.23 intensity would have to contribute $17.5 million to the tech fund, but half of that would be paid by government. By comparison, the profits to the company for export to Asia, just the profits, would be just be shy of $2 billion. At a moderate price of $14 million cubic feet and a landed cost of $10, the post-subsidy hit to the company would be less than one-half of 1 percent of total profits. At 0.19 intensity the subsidy ramps up, and the hit to profits would be 1/10 of 1 percent.

That gives you an idea of the degree to which it appears this government is so desperate to get this off the ground that we’re subsidizing an industry making billions of dollars of profits on these facilities — and we’re still subsidizing them. It makes no sense whatsoever.

Just another comment about the targets, and this is from the inimitable Mr. Palmer writing about the Environment Minister’s comments insisting that the province will still meet its targets — although if you look at the arithmetic, it just boggles the mind about how that’s going to happen, particularly given the gaps in this bill. Mr. Palmer says: “Her claims on that score were the least persuasive part of the briefing.” He went on to talk about exactly what I did earlier.

You look at the arithmetic, you look at the greenhouse gas emissions that will be allowed in terms of a free pass and allowed if the offsets don’t work, and we’re going to be doubling our emissions. Mr. Palmer was pointing that out.

He also made a point about the regulations — about which we know nothing, essentially, with 25 percent of the bill around regulations yet to be determined. Mr. Palmer says: “Even by the lax standards established by the B.C. Liberals over the years, it may be some sort of record to have, in effect, consigned 25 percent of the bill to provisions to be named later.”

[ Page 4894 ]

Clean Energy Canada had a comment about the claim about the cleanest energy in the world. They state that “on its own the bill won’t result in the cleanest LNG in the world. LNG production releases carbon production all the way down the chain of production, from wellhead to waterline. Today’s legislation only addresses the last link in that chain.” It also allows companies to buy credits rather than actually build cleaner terminals. They say: “Even if B.C. does ensure that this industry is built to world-leading standards” — let’s take that as a given; let’s take government at their word — “it would still sharply increase the province’s greenhouse gas emissions.”

Mr. Speaker, I understand that there is other business to be considered by the House, so I would move that we adjourn debate on Bill 2 for the moment.

G. Holman moved adjournment of debate.

A. Weaver: I stand on a point of order.

Deputy Speaker: Proceed.

Point of Order

A. Weaver: I’m standing to seek clarity from you with respect to decisions regarding the banking of time subsequent to proposing an amendment by a member of this House. There has been inconsistent application of the rulings within this Legislature over the years, and I think the Legislature and our members would benefit from some clarity from the Speaker as to whether or not, once the amendment is introduced, the person introducing the amendment may stand and speak to the original motion after the amendment has been passed or defeated.

[1550]

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Member, for your point of order. I’ll take it under advisement.

Debate Continued

Deputy Speaker: The question is the adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. D. McRae: I call committee stage for Bill 3, intituled Canadian Pacific Railway (Stone and Timber) Settlement Act.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 3 — CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY

(STONE AND TIMBER) SETTLEMENT ACT

The House in Committee of the Whole on Bill 3; D. Horne in the chair.

The committee met at 3:51 p.m.

section 1.

B. Routley: In reviewing Bill 3, it’s clear that this is connected to litigation that was started by the CPR and the government. I would just ask, for greater clarity, if the minister could give us a brief overview of how this got started.

Unfortunately, I wasn’t able to be there for the briefing the other day, so while I don’t expect you to do a half-hour- or an hour-long briefing, it would be good for the benefit of the public and, certainly, for this House to have a better understanding of how this came about.

How did the government get approached? What is the purpose of this bill?

Hon. S. Thomson: Just a little bit of history. We’ve talked about that in the introduction of the bill. This is as a result of a very long, historic situation where there have been reservations of timber and stone on properties that CP Rail became the owner of when they took over the assets of those historical railways where the lands were originally granted.

The way it came forward, I think, is that this was about early 2000. People were aware of this. People have known about this. Discussions started with the CPR to try to resolve and create certainty around the uncertainty that was in place as a result of those reservations. That process went on over a period of time, ultimately without resolution. Then CP launched legal action, a legal claim against the province, to clarify their interests, to confirm their interests in those reservations.

[1555]

That created further uncertainty, and it was viewed that we needed to find a way to settle this without ultimately going through the full court process, which would have been expensive, time consuming. It would have had potential additional liabilities to the province as a result of activities, decisions and actions that had been taken on those properties over time.

A process was initiated to negotiate a settlement. That was reached in agreement with CP Rail, plus some additional considerations as part of that settlement.

What the legislation does is confirm that settlement, validate retroactively past actions that were taken on that to remove any of the liability and risk, extinguish those reservations on the properties and, ultimately, bring that certainty to both Crown and private land owners.

B. Routley: Thank you for that. I guess that also leads to the question of rights and obligations.

I’m not a lawyer, but it’s pretty standard that where there are rights, there ought to be some obligations as well. If the railway had inherited certain rights from historic railways and not applied them or asserted them for

[ Page 4895 ]

a long period of time…. I just wonder: had the government received any legal advice on a question like that? I mean, we’re talking a long, long period of time. Or were there, more recent than the last 50 or 100 years, actions taken — other than what I’ve heard anecdotally, about some people paying for rights and some people not paying for rights? All of that

part is very confusing.

If you could somehow comment on: how could the government find itself in a position of owing somebody $19 million for rights that they hadn’t asserted along the way?

Hon. S. Thomson: The member opposite indicated that he’s not a lawyer; neither am I. I just want to make that comment as I work through to respond with the complexity of all this.

The basic principle, and I think the basic principle in law, is that, fundamentally, private property rights don’t go away, even though they may not have been asserted or exercised over a certain period of time.

When the awareness came around this, it is something that we looked at. We looked at whether or not there could be an argument around the fact that it hadn’t been asserted for that long period of time and whether, from a legal perspective, that was an argument that could be advanced. The advice was no, it wasn’t. The fundamental principle of those rights remaining over that private property, because they were there, would remain, and we would be facing that principle.

[1600]

The legal advice was to work towards negotiating the resolution of the fact that those reservations were still in place.

V. Huntington: Just in response to the minister’s comment. In its response to the claim, the province stated that not all conveyances by CPR included reservations and that the railway timber reservations didn’t include timber that wasn’t commercially viable at that time and that those species passed to the purchasers of the land. B.C. also said that the railways only had the right to timber needed for railway purposes.

Well, if that’s part of the claim, perhaps the minister could discuss with us what parts of CP’s claim that B.C. is then acceding to. B.C.’s claim itself was pretty thorough, I thought, and yet you’re suggesting that your advice was that parts of that claim didn’t make legal sense.

Hon. S. Thomson: The member opposite is correct in terms of the legal arguments that were being advanced or put forward in the process and would have been the arguments that would have carried through if it had gone through to the court process. In considering — as we looked at the options and things and considered whether to continue that process — whether to settle and look at, on balance, what was gained by settling this in a settlement agreement as opposed to a court process and the potential risks and potential cost to the province coming out of a court process, we settled.

We agreed. On balance, the view was that the legal argument was probably stronger — that the timber that was on the land at the time the reservations were made and provided to the historic railways and then taken over by CP — and would have prevailed. It is not an insignificant amount of timber that was in that amount on all of those properties.

On balance, it was one of the considerations that was made in working through to a settlement process, as opposed to going to litigation. If we couldn’t have settled and we ended up in litigation, those would have been the arguments we made. But whether we would have been as successful or not — the court processes would have determined that.

[1605]

Based on everything else that we gained out of the process, we felt settlement was the most prudent option here for what was gained by settling, rather than going through that costly court process with an outcome that was not fully known.

V. Huntington: Can the minister tell the House what estimates the province made if they were to have lost the case had they proceeded? How does the $19 million compensation package measure against what the cost of a settlement would have been if it had been made by the courts?

Hon. S. Thomson: CP’s claim in the process was around $40 million, or in that range, in the process. We would have also faced, if it had gone the full court process, a number of millions of dollars of court costs. If we had not been successful in that process, we would likely have also faced reimbursement or coverage of some of their costs in the process. So somewhere in the range of $40 million or more was the claim.

Again, based on the assessment of the case and the legal arguments and avoiding that potential liability to the province, avoiding all of those costs, the view was that settlement was a much preferable option at less cost to the province. That was the result of those settlement discussions.

L. Krog: I’ve had a chance to review the notice of claim and the response to the civil claim filed, and the proceeding which is referenced in the definition

section is that “‘current action’ means Action No. S134003 in the Vancouver Registry of the Supreme Court.”

The minister mentioned in his opening explanation that discussions around this matter occurred in the early 2000s. I just want to confirm. CP raised those issues in the early 2000s. Can the minister be more specific as to when the claim was raised?

[ Page 4896 ]

What I’m going to be driving at, just so there are no surprises, is that I wonder about the issue of limitation periods that might apply in these circumstances and what the view of the ministry was with respect to those limitation periods if this claim was in fact raised in the early 2000s.

I note reference to an agreement to waive all defences based on the passage of time in the notice of claim that was referred to in paragraph 23. I’m just wondering if the minister can explain the relationship there. In other words, when they raised this, was there some serious issue that they were out of time? Does the limitation period apply in these circumstances? And if so, what consideration was given to that?

[1610]

Hon. S. Thomson: My advice is that the limitation period, the limitation provisions, did not apply here. These were reservations that were on both private and Crown land that didn’t expire, hadn’t been extinguished, and that they, through the process, owned those reservations, both for the trees and stone.

There was an intensive period of engagement with them in 2006 when we applied to have all of the action or all of the process dismissed. That was put into abeyance. Without-prejudice discussions were launched in order to, as I pointed out, reach the settlement.

When that did not result in success, then CP launched their legal action against us. Then, following from that, we could have gone through the process of the legal process. But on balance, we determined that looking to a negotiated settlement on this was the best for all parties — including the province but in particular both Crown and the particular private land