British Columbia Hansard — Wednesday, October 29, 2014

20141029pm-Hansard-v16n8

British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)

Th ird Session, 40th Parliament OFFICIAL REPORT OF DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY (HANSARD) THE HONOURABLE LINDA REID, SPEAKER ISSN 0709- 1281 (Print) ISSN 1499-2175 (Online) Wednesday, October 29, 2014 Aft ernoon Sitting Volume 16, Number 8

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CONTENTS Wednesday, October 29, 2014 Aft ernoon Sitting Page Routine Business Introductions by Members ..................................................................................................................................................... 5019 Statements (Standing Order 25B) ......................................................................................................................................... 5020 Cayoose Creek Band economic development J. Tegart Il-Soo Kim and community events by seniors in Burnaby J. Shin John Sutherland S. Gibson Jim Cessford and Delta police services V .

Huntington Premature births Moira Stilwell Cliff ord Bolton and First Nations stone-moving ceremony R. Austin Oral Questions ......................................................................................................................................................................... 5022 Comments by Premier and workers compensation for workers injured in Lakeland Mills explosion J. Horgan Hon. S. Bond D. Donaldson Support for businesses in Likely impacted by tailings pond breach at Mount Polley mine K. Conroy Hon. N. Y amamoto Protection of bee population and Agriculture Ministry staffi ng L.

Popham Hon. N. Letnick Forest industry jobs and log export policy D. Routley Hon. S. Th omson H. Bains Compass card system and transit services G. Heyman Hon. T. Stone Point of Privilege (Reservation of Right) ............................................................................................................................. 5027 J. Horgan Statements ................................................................................................................................................................................ 5027 Message for Gordie Howe Hon.

M. de Jong Orders of the Day Second Reading of Bills .......................................................................................................................................................... 5027 Bill 2 — Greenhouse Gas Industrial Reporting and Control Act (continued) D. Eby M. Elmore J. Darcy B. Ralston J. Rice J. Horgan Hon. M. Polak

Bill 5 — Container Trucking Act Hon. T. Stone C. Trevena Hon. P . Fassbender S. Simpson Hon. A. Virk V . Huntington J. Tegart H. Bains B. Ralston J. Kwan Hon. T. Stone

WEDNESDAY , OCTOBER 29, 2014 Th e House met at 1:33 p.m. [Madame Speaker in the chair.] Routine Business Prayers. Introductions by Members D. Barnett: Today in the House we have a gentleman who is a friend, and he is the president of the Likely and District Chamber of Commerce, working very hard with his community over the disaster that happened at Mount Polley. He is also president of the Likely-Xats’ull com- munity forest. He’s the chair of the Cedar Point Class C Provincial Park, and he’s a self-proclaimed mayor. Would everyone welcome Robin Hood to the House today. [1335] S.

Robinson: Earlier this week we welcomed a group of young people into these chambers. It’s my pleasure to welcome a group of older adults to these chambers. We welcome a number of people from the Korean community, many of whom have never actually been to the Legislature. I’ d like to welcome, from my community, Sang-Bin Seo, Dong-Choon Seo, Heesik Choo, Hong-Kun Y ang, Il-Soon Y ang, Kong-Seon Kang, See-Sung Lee and Y eoun-Sook Lee from Port Coquitlam; Ik-Soo Lee and Jung-Sook Lee from Coquitlam. Would the chamber please make them feel welcome. Hon. C. Oakes: It is truly my honour….

Th e member for Cariboo-Chilcotin introduced Robin Hood. I would like, if I may, to introduce some of his merry men today. We have Bee Hooker from Beaver Valley. He is from the community of Big Lake and the current manager of operations for Imperial Metals. As well, we’re delighted to have Councillor Th omas Phillips of the Soda Creek Indian Band and manager of the Xatśūll business arm of Xatśūll General Partner Ltd. Would the House please make them welcome. A. Weaver: I have three sets of brief introductions to make.

Th e fi rst are two students visiting from Pearson College on their fall project week to help us out in the Legislature with some of our research. Th ey are Sam Unger, from the member for New Westminster’s riding, and Linda Worden, from the member for Penticton’s riding. I did try to take Linda to the member’s offi ce earlier to get some of these very fi ne apples from Penticton there. We’re look- ing forward to meeting the member for Penticton shortly.

Also, I have a student who was so enthralled by ques- tion period yesterday, Lizzie Bomford from Mount Douglas high school — part of the Democracy in Action Y outh Conference — that she is back again today to watch question period. She will also be here. Finally, two dear friends: Rob Dyke, well known in our community as the man who swam around Vancouver Island in support of the Red Cross; and his business col- league, my very dear friend Roger Huang from Taiwan, who is here working together to build partnerships between Taiwan and British Columbia in green trade.

Would the House please make them all very welcome today. Hon. A. Wilkinson: If they’re not here already, they soon will be — 30 grade 11 students from Prince of Wales high school in my riding, along with their hard-working teacher Mr. Andrew Humphries and two long-suff ering parents. Would the House make them welcome. J. Horgan: I just want to follow on my colleague from Oak Bay–Gordon Head, who just introduced Rob Dyke. I know he knows this, and perhaps he was saving it for me.

I made a statement here some years ago, reminding this House that Rob actually swam around Vancouver Island to raise money for the Red Cross. I just want to put that back on the record today for those who weren’t here at that time. S. Chandra Herbert: I, too, would like to join with the member for Vancouver-Quilchena, the minister, in welcoming my alma mater, Prince of Wales Mini School, and head teacher Andrew Humphries and parents to this Legislature as well. I look forward to meeting with them later today. J. Darcy: It’s my great pleasure to welcome a con- stituent of mine, Mr.

Chinuook Kim, who is here as part of the Korean seniors delegation. We have a grow- ing Korean-Canadian community in my community of New Westminster, and it’s wonderful to have them visit this House today. Please join me in welcoming Mr. Kim to the House today. D. Bing: I am pleased to say that my youngest son got married on the weekend, and it was a great event. It’s not very oft en that two young people meet in high school and go on to university and reconnect there, and that’s what they did. I’m pleased to welcome Tamra Weigel into the family, who married my son Graham.

Would the House please congratulate them. [1340] M. Elmore: I’m very happy to welcome our friends the seniors from the Korean community — annyeonghaseyo. Also, I ask everyone to please make them welcome: Mun- Jong Kim, Myung-Ku Kang, Eun-Sook Oh, Nam-Pyo Lee and Hae-Sook Lee. 5019

British Columbia Debates5020 Wednesday, October 29, 2014 A. Weaver: Hon. Speaker, I neglected to add — and I do apologize for this…. In the introduction for Rob Dyke and the subsequent introduction by the member for Juan de Fuca, I would like to have added that Rob Dyke ac- tually has taught swimming to some of the member for Juan de Fuca’s family members. I think we should also recognize that, because he has been a great contributor to the community.

I think the hon. member for Juan de Fuca is very thankful that Rob Dyke has been so help- ful in the training of his children to be prepared for the swimming of tomorrow. J. Shin: My heart is really full with all of my friends from the Korean community. I think that’s half of my campaign team right there. We have in the House Insoon Lee, Han-Su Jung, David Won-Bae Lee, Iris Park, Kun-Ho Cho, Kang-Joo Lee and Mi-Ja Kim,who are also joining us as part of the seniors group that’s joining us. Would the House please make them feel very welcome. B.

Ralston: I, too, have some members of the Korean seniors group that are here to introduce: Ok-Sik Choi and Y oung-Ja Choi from Vancouver; Tiagon Do and Jong-Y en Pak from Surrey; Gae-Nam John from Vancouver; Sang- Une Lee — a very distinguished person. He’s a constitu- ent of mine from Surrey-Whalley, so I think he deserves a special round of applause at the end. Th en Won-Keun Kim and Chan-Ho Gu, one from Richmond and the other from West Vancouver. Could the House join me in making them all welcome, but particularly my constitu- ent from Surrey-Whalley.

Statements (Standing Order 25B) CAYOOSE CREEK BAND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT J. Tegart: I’m pleased to have the opportunity to stand in the House this aft ernoon to recognize the economic development eff orts of the Cayoose Creek band. Th is community is located along the Fraser River just south of Lillooet. It served as a trading place with other nations and has a rich history of toolmaking. Th is community has overcome many hardships and is proud of their his- tory and who they are today.

Under the leadership of Chief Michelle Edwards and the band council, they are building a brighter fu- ture through innovative business ventures which are providing new employment opportunities through their economic development company, Cayoose Creek Development Corporation. One business owned by the corporation is Splitrock Environmental, an award-winning business owned by members of the community and specializing in environ- mental services, ecological restoration and production of native plants. Th e business is proud to be 100 percent aboriginal-owned.

Everyone who is part of the organiza- tion is passionate about preserving our environment, our lands and our natural world. Earlier this summer the Cayoose Creek band acquired the Antares Project Services Ltd., an industry leader in planning, development and execution of construction projects in both public and private sectors. Antares, in partnership with the Seton Lake band, is developing the Seton Portage Hotel, a 40-unit residence using state-of- the-art modular construction processes that will provide comfortable accommodation for B.C. Hydro workers.

Will the House join me today in congratulating Chief Michelle Edwards and the Cayoose Creek band on their economic development eff orts and helping build a brighter future for their community and the region. IL-SOO KIM AND COMMUNITY EVENTS BY SENIORS IN BURNABY J.

Shin: Th is month of October was no diff erent than any other month of the year, packed with generous in- itiatives by the people who pay it forward. [1345] On the second Friday of this month, in the Hannam plaza on North Road in my constituency, a group of women led by Insoon Lee, president of the Korean- Canadian Women’s Society, were pouring hot coff ee and serving delicious sweets at the grand opening of their new social enterprise, Café Espoir, with all the shop’s proceeds going to phone counselling service as well as local projects like Burnaby Task Force on Homelessness.

On the third Saturday of this month, Burnaby was swinging, myself and the member for Burnaby-Edmonds included, to the ’50s rock ‘n’ roll performed by Dave Myles Band to raise funds for the wonderful non-profi t organ- izations in my community like Burnaby Neighbourhood House and Burnaby Connections. On the fourth Saturday of this month, a hall full of vol- unteers gathered to celebrate the 40th anniversary of the Parent Support Services Society of B.C., and we watched together their new video project called Grandparents Raising Grandchildren.

What all of these incredible activities in our commun- ity have in common is our seniors. In particular, I would like to express my profound gratitude to Mr. Il-Soo Kim, a Korean war veteran. Mr. Kim immigrated to Canada in 1987 and long served as the president of the Korea Veterans Association. But fi rst and foremost, he was a leader, he was a mentor, and he was a friend and a vol- unteer in our community. On October 9 we all bid our fond farewell to Mr. Kim. His last words to me…. Th e two of us held hands just a few days before he passed at the hospice, where he said: “Go on, Jane. Y ou’ve got a lot to do.

So go and change the world. ”

British Columbia DebatesWednesday, October 29, 2014 5021 Today in the gallery we have the honour of 32 seniors that are joining us. So I ask the House to please recognize and thank each and every one of them for empowering me, for empowering all of us and the next generations, like Mr. Kim has. JOHN SUTHERLAND S. Gibson: Th ere are three kinds of people in the world. Th ere are those who wonder what’s happening, there are those who watch what’s happening, and there are those who make what’s happening. In this House we value people who make what’s happening.

Today I want to bring to the attention of this House someone who has definitely made things happen in Abbotsford. He was fi rst elected to the Abbotsford school board way back in 1983. Th at’s the same year the mobile phone, Microsoft Word and CDs were introduced. Who remembers CDs? He was elected ten times over 27 years. I refer to John Sutherland, one of the outstanding educational lead- ers in the Abbotsford area. He is one of the reasons why Abbotsford continues to have a high level of student per- formance that exceeds the provincial average.

John was a key member of the team which initiated programs such as the youth council, StrongStart, New Beginnings and many others. It was a privilege for me to work with John over the years while I served on Abbotsford city council. He was also a highly regarded professor of business at Trinity Western University, where he served as chair, and now he is retiring. John Sutherland will be missed. His con- tributions to the city will be remembered in the lives of the children and the young people that he passionately cared for.

Hundreds of parents, teachers and administra- tors will remember him and thank him for the work that he did and for contributing to educational excellence — in particular, his passion for aboriginal education. Th ank you, John Sutherland, for giving the Abbotsford community 27 years of dedicated service. JIM CESSFORD AND DELTA POLICE SERVICES V . Huntington: Well, I stand today to thank Delta’s police chief, Jim Cessford, for 46 years of extraordin- ary service to the people of Edmonton and Delta. It is with mixed emotion that I congratulate him on his re- tirement next January.

It’s hard to imagine Delta police without him. I was on Delta council when we hired Jim. Chief Cessford came to Delta over 20 years ago, and he quickly led our police force into a new era. He challenged con- ventional models of policing and of fi ghting commun- ity crime. He brought the Delta police back to its roots, adopting principles of community partnership, custom- er service, problem-solving and community ownership. Jim Cessford is celebrated for implementing Delta po- lice’s popular “No call too small” policy. Th e slogan is on every car and every mind.

By focusing police attention on smaller, seemingly minor problems like broken win- dows, Delta police nipped nuisances in the bud before they became serious public policy and safety concerns. [1350] People saw police in their neighbourhoods. A lot of us saw Jim and his colleagues coaching on the ball fi elds, in the hockey rinks and at police summer camp. Th e students saw a police liaison offi cer in every school. For his hard work and accomplishments, Jim has received, among other honours, the Governor General’s Order of Merit of the Police Forces. He was named one of Delta’s citizens of the year.

As we say farewell to our friend and ever-so-popular Chief Jim Cessford, we do so knowing that he leaves Delta police equipped to meet the future with a strong succession plan supported by our local police board. Despite the new challenges facing modern policing — and mental health services come to mind — we know that Jim leaves the Delta police force ready to keep Delta safe and sound in the years ahead. Will the House please join me, and I’m sure, the mem- ber for Delta North, in congratulating Canada’s longest- serving chief of police, Chief Const. Jim Cessford.

PREMATURE BIRTHS Moira Stilwell: Prematurity is one of the most chal- lenging prenatal issues facing families today. A baby born prematurely is at risk of serious birth defects, including respiratory illnesses, brain hemorrhages, hearing im- pairment, developmental disabilities and cerebral palsy. We know now that premature birth is rarely caused by one single reason. Factors that contribute include a woman’s pregnancy history, gestational diabetes, in- fection, lifestyle and pregnancy-induced hypertension.

Premature birth can happen to anyone — or any woman, at least — and many women who give birth prematurely have no known risk factors. When a baby is born preterm, the experience can be frightening and overwhelming for the family. Most par- ents dream of holding their child just moments aft er their birth. But for some, that initial contact can be de- layed by days, even weeks or months. Premature babies require a much longer hospital stay than full-term births. Sometimes these stays can last many months in the new- born intensive care unit.

Next month our province will recognize World Prematurity Day, a campaign that aims to raise awareness of preterm birth and to spread the word that it happens everywhere, regardless of country or race. I encourage everyone to take part, learn, share an experience and help put a face on the problem of premature birth.

British Columbia Debates5022 Wednesday, October 29, 2014 CLIFFORD BOLTON AND FIRST NATIONS STONE-MOVING CEREMONY R. Austin: I recently attended a poignant ceremony called a stone-moving that celebrates the life of a loved one who has died. It takes place at least one year aft er the death and represents not only the end of a period of mourning but also the spirit of that person leaving this world and continuing on to the next. Th is ceremony was to honour the late Cliff ord Bolton, a past chief of the Kitsumkalum Band.

It was led by Harry Nyce Jr., a member of the Gisbutwada, or killer whales, who was knowledgable on the protocol, with some work also done by the Ganhada, or raven clan. It is custom- ary for other clans to step up and contribute when asked. Th e fi nal part of this cultural ceremony will take place November 22, when a settlement feast will be held to complete the circle of his cultural tradition and pass on Cliff ord’s name.

Cliff ord Bolton, or Soō-Natz, his trad- itional Tsimshian name, was an extraordinary man, who was born in Port Essington, near the mouth of the Skeena River, and became a revered master carver later in life. He was also involved in politics and became chief councillor of Kitsumkalum in order to work on revital- izing Tsimshian culture in light of the many years of col- onization that had attempted to take away not only his people’s language but also their cultural ceremonies.

Because of his life’s work, it was fi tting to witness his stone-moving at the home that he built at the confl uence of the Zimmacord and Skeena rivers. Th ese ceremonies are now commonplace in northwest B.C. and are further evidence of the First Nations renewal of cultural practices that nearly became extinct. As Harry Nyce commented to the crowd, it is only through participating and organiz- ing these traditional ceremonies that First Nations people will once again have pride and a sense of belonging to the communities and clans of which they are members.

For us in this Legislature, however, Cliff ord Bolton will forever be connected through two things: fi rstly, his carv- ing in B.C. jade on the Black Rod used by all Lieutenant- Governors on entering this chamber; and secondly, by a visit from Steven Point and Madame Speaker to Cliff ord’s home community of Kitsumkalum, where they brought the Black Rod back to share it with people, many of whom have never seen this chamber but now appreciate that one of their own has a place in B.C. ’s history. G. Holman: I seek leave to make an introduction to the House. [1355] Leave granted. Introductions by Members G.

Holman: I’ d like to introduce Alan Moberg, an award-winning singer-songwriter, a longtime resident of Saltspring Island, who has just written a song called Don’t Build Your House on My Bones regarding the construc- tion of a luxury home on Grace Islet. Would the House please make Alan welcome. Oral Questions COMMENTS BY PREMIER AND WORKERS COMPENSATION FOR WORKERS INJURED IN LAKELAND MILLS EXPLOSION J. Horgan: In April of 2012 a terrifying explosion tore through the Lakeland sawmill in Prince George, killing Al Little and Glen Roche and injuring 22 others. One of those injured was Bruce Germyn.

Two days aft er the incident, the Premier attended the injured workers and said: “We will be there to support you. ” In fact, the Premier made that very pledge to Mr. Germyn at his bedside in intensive care, but since that visit two years ago, Mr. Germyn has twice had his work- ers compensation benefi ts suspended and has had to fi ght to have them reinstated. One of those times was in December of 2013, just before Christmas. My question is to the Premier. Before the election, the Premier attended to the injured and the families of those who were grieving and made a commitment to be there for them.

Can she reaffi rm that commitment to Mr. Germyn and ensure that his workers compensation bene- fi ts are not cut off again? Hon. S. Bond: Th ere are certainly some events that have occurred over the last number of months and years that will be etched in the minds of those of us who live in northern British Columbia, but in the minds of British Columbians as well. Certainly, our commitment to stand beside workers and communities started the night the ex- plosions occurred and has continued.

I can assure the member opposite that we will con- tinue to look through WorkSafe for them to be caring, compassionate and providing the kinds of supports that family, individuals and communities deserve and require. Madame Speaker: The Leader of the Official Opposition on a supplemental. J. Horgan: Cutting off benefi ts to people injured in a horrifi c industrial accident and putting some of the others on surveillance is hardly a sympathetic and com- passionate approach to the incidents that happened in April of 2012. Again, the Premier, before the election, was fi lled with empathy.

Since that time we have not heard a lot more from her. I’ d like to again revisit, particularly, the case of Mr. Germyn. Two years aft er his incident he suff ers from post-traumatic stress, from burns on 40 percent of his body. He was unrecognizable on the evening of the blast. Since that time he has been harassed and pushed off of

British Columbia DebatesWednesday, October 29, 2014 5023 benefi ts by WorkSafe. For the minister to stand and say that "We’re there for you" is not suffi cient at this time. Again, I would put my question to the Premier, who had empathy in the pre-election period. Does she have today a commitment to those workers and those individ- uals to make sure that they’re treated fairly and with re- spect aft er all they’ve done for the community? Hon. S.

Bond: To the Leader of the Opposition, I am sure he is well aware of the fact that we are not in a pos- ition to discuss the specifi c details of an injured work- er’s circumstances or the specifi c treatment or supports they’ve been provided. Interjections. Hon. S. Bond: Th e members opposite can groan all they wish. Th e fact of the matter is that in the case of WorkSafe, they are not permitted to share details of the provision of services either, unless injured workers in this province give their permission. Th at is appropriate. Th at is exactly what we expect from ourselves and from WorkSafe.

Th e workers in this case have not given permission for WorkSafe to share the details of the treatment, the sup- port that has been put in place. To suggest that there has been harassment is an outrageous statement by the mem- ber opposite. We should be very clear. Before any surveil- lance is initiated, there is a very high test before WorkSafe even considers that. Injured workers have been cared for. Th ey continue to have services. [1400] If, in the opinion of a worker or their family, they want reconsideration, that process is available to them. Madame Speaker: Leader of the Opposition on a sup- plemental. J.

Horgan: Again, my question is to the Premier. Th e Premier was there when the cameras were on two years ago. Th e cameras are on again today. Th e cameras are on right now. My question is direct and to the Premier: you have let down these individuals. WorkSafe has harassed them, has cut them off . Madame Speaker: Th rough the Chair. J. Horgan: Th rough you, hon. Speaker, will the Premier stand in her place and make the solemn commitment that she did before the election, right now, to ensure that these heroes…? Th e fi reball was so intense that para- medics could not attend.

Th ey dragged each other out of a horrifi c situation, and now their government has abandoned them. Premier, stand and off er some compassion and hope for these people. Hon. S. Bond: Th ere are days when I stand in my place in this House and I wonder if any issue is beyond partisan politics. I can assure the member opposite, the Leader of the Opposition, that there is not a person in this House that doesn’t believe that workers’ safety is a priority. WorkSafe has continued to serve workers in British Columbia. For the Leader of the Opposition to describe to me when…. In fact, this is my backyard.

Th ese are fam- ilies and paramedics and others who actually live in my community. WorkSafe has consistently and aggressively provided supports. Interjections. Madame Speaker: Order. Hon. S. Bond: As I said, when there is, in the opinion of workers or their families, a concern about the provi- sion of their services, there is a process. As I understand it, there are actually appeals underway. I am not in a pos- ition to discuss the specifi cs of the circumstances of those individual workers’ cases. D. Donaldson: Well, it’s my backyard, too, and I per- sonally know workers who were injured in those explo- sions.

What we want on this side is the Premier to answer to the words that she said at that time. John Engstrom sustained major injuries at the Lakeland explosion. He was told by this government that he would have their support. Instead, he was put under video surveillance by WorkSafe B.C., who are now de- manding he repay $24,000 in benefi ts because they have footage of him taking walks. Th ese men went to work to support themselves and their families, expecting this B.C. Liberal government to have them covered when it comes to safety standards.

In Prince George, aft er the explosion, the Premier said in local media: “We will be there to support you. We have your back. ” Why is the Premier leaving these workers blowing in the wind? How is that covering these workers’ backs? Hon. S. Bond: As I said in my earlier question, WorkSafe does not at any time move to initiate surveil- lance without, perhaps, input from individuals, including social workers, potentially doctors. Th ere is a very high test before surveillance is initiated.

As I said to the Leader of the Opposition, the fact of the matter is that at this point workers have not given WorkSafe permission to discuss the specifi cs of their case. I am precluded from doing that as well. [1405] We can articulate the signifi cant eff orts of support that have been provided to families and communities. Th at is right and deserved and appropriate. Within one to three days of the explosion, injured workers who were hospitalized were visited, whether

British Columbia Debates5024 Wednesday, October 29, 2014 they were in Vancouver, Edmonton, Victoria or Prince George. Families were provided with hotel accommoda- tion, meal allowances and transportation. Critical inci- dent response services were established in each of those communities for both injured and non-injured workers. Th e list goes on. None of us here today can understand for a heartbeat what those families, those individuals or those commun- ities have gone through.

But I can assure the member opposite that there have been signifi cant and ongoing services, as one would expect, provided to those indi- viduals and families. Madame Speaker: Th e member for Stikine on a sup- plemental. D. Donaldson: Well, the minister says this govern- ment’s commitment has continued since this explosion. Let’s hear it from the Premier. Th e Premier said, “We have your back, ” but she never met with injured workers to explain how this government failed to prevent this explosion.

Th e Premier said, “We have your back, ” but she never met with injured workers to explain the botched investigation into the explosion. Th e Premier said, “We have your back, ” but she hasn’t met with injured workers so they can explain their grievances with WorkSafe B.C. Th e Premier said: “We have your back. ” Why isn’t the Premier true to her word? Or is it another case of, once again, saying what she thinks people want to hear at the time and then not following through — in this instance with injured millworkers? Hon. S.

Bond: Dedicated case management teams were established to ensure there was a high level of sup- port. For severely injured workers, regular hospital visits were coordinated. For workers with serious psychological injuries, extensive mental health support has been pro- vided for over 2½ years. A number of injured workers remain in regular treatment and will be provided with supportive counselling for as long as there is a clinical benefi t. I would suggest that that is absolutely having those workers’ , those families’ , those communities’ backs.

We will continue to work to ensure that WorkSafe has a cul- ture that changes the investigative process. We made that clear. Th at work is well underway. We will continue to work aggressively to support those individuals who de- serve and require attention. SUPPORT FOR BUSINESSES IN LIKELY IMPACTED BY TAILINGS POND BREACH AT MOUNT POLLEY MINE K. Conroy: Th ere seems to be a common theme here. Th e people of Likely are still waiting for the Premier to live up to her commitments to them too.

Aft er the Mount Polley tailings pond failed, the Premier stood in Likely and held Peggy Zorn’s hand, who owns Ecotours-B.C., and told her: “If there is anything at all I can do for you, let me know. ” It has been nearly three months since the spill, and the people of Likely are still waiting for something mean- ingful to happen — more evidence that the Premier says what she thinks people want to hear and then fails to deliver. Will the Premier tell us: when is she going to live up to the commitment she made to Peggy and other busi- nesses of Likely? Hon. N.

Y amamoto: We do share the concerns of tour- ism operators and small businesses in the area. Th at’s why the hon. member for Cariboo North and her neighbour- ing colleague, the member for Cariboo-Chilcotin, were there in Likely right away. Th ey were there to ensure that every appropriate government resource was there to help the community of Likely.

I can tell you that there are hundreds of workers in Likely — government workers — working tirelessly with local offi cials, working with community members and working with the chamber of commerce. [1410] Unlike the members opposite, this side of the House recognizes and appreciates the members of chambers of commerce in British Columbia. Destination B.C., the provincial marketing association for British Columbia, and the regional destination mar- keting organizations have been working very closely with the tourism operators and the small businesses in Likely.

I can tell you that the businesses in the community and the folks in Likely want the world to know one thing, and that is that they are open for business. Madame Speaker: Th e member for Kootenay West on a supplemental. K. Conroy: Well, that’s not what the small business people and the tourism operators told myself, the Leader of the Opposition and the number of other of my col- leagues who went up there and actually met with them and talked to them and saw what was happening up there.

Here’s what Peggy Zorn and her husband, Gary, and other business owners had to say in a letter that they just sent to the Premier and the Minister of Environment. “Providing $50,000 to hire someone to fi nd out what the community needs is not a solution. We already know what went wrong and what we, as community members and businesses, need. ” She says the Liberals have “lost touch with the reality of British Columbians, especially rural British Columbia. ” Peggy continues, and she says in her letter to the Premier: “Y ou should all be ashamed of yourselves. ”

British Columbia DebatesWednesday, October 29, 2014 5025 Will the Premier actually live up to her commitment, or is this just another example of her promising one thing but then failing to deliver it yet again? Hon. N. Y amamoto: Th is is an interesting line of ques- tioning from a member of the opposition that in every opportunity for economic development and growth, their answer is no. Interjections. Madame Speaker: Th e members will come to order. Hon. N. Y amamoto: As we continue to support the businesses in the Likely area, the members opposite con- tinue their typically negative and destructive manner.

Wouldn’t it be nice, just once, to actually have the mem- bers opposite step up to the plate and support the busi- nesses with a positive message. Th e businesses in Likely want the world to know that they’re open for business. We won’t stand here and listen to the members oppos- ite lecture us on small business. It’s Small Business Month. Th is side of the House supports small business. Th e other side of the House has no respect for the chambers of com- merce and members in their community. PROTECTION OF BEE POPULATION AND AGRICULTURE MINISTRY STAFFING L. Popham: Th e B.C.

Liberals don’t understand how important bees are to our agricultural industry and to our provincial economy. By neglecting this side of agriculture, they continue to put the industry in jeopardy. Th ey haven’t even given the provincial apiarist an appropriate travel budget to do his job. Bees are not being inspected at our provincial borders, allowing disease to enter our province and taking away economic opportunities for farmers in B.C. Will the Minister of Agriculture bring in a real plan to protect the health of our bees? Hon. N. Letnick: Th ank you to the member opposite for the question.

Defi nitely, the government recognizes the critical and vital role that bees play in our environ- ment and to agriculture all throughout British Columbia and, actually, throughout the world. [1415] Honeybees play a major role in agriculture as pollin- ators of crops, contributing an estimated $275 million in the economy in B.C. and over $2 billion in Canada alone. Th at’s why our government has staff available to support beekeepers right here in British Columbia. We are proud to have one of the foremost apiary specialists on staff right here in B.C. Th e individuals provide free support to B.C. beekeepers.

Actually, I had the opportunity of meeting with B.C. beekeepers just last month. I even attended one of the beekeeper’s farms, a meadery on Vancouver Island, near Sooke. He told me he had over one million workers on his farm. We had a good chance to go and look. We sup- port them, we support that farmer, and we’ll be there for beekeepers for years to come. Madame Speaker: Member for Saanich South on a supplemental. L. Popham: I was recently at the B.C. Honey Producers AGM, where the provincial apiarists showed a slide not- ing there are four empty inspector positions in this prov- ince.

If you talk to any beekeeper in B.C., they will tell you that fi lling those four empty positions is a bare min- imum that’s needed. My question is to the Minister of Agriculture. Is he going to appoint more inspectors — yes, no and when? Hon. N. Letnick: Th ank you for the question. I think it’s appropriate to remind the members opposite that in the last two years we increased the budget for Agriculture by 20 percent. At the same time, we increased the amount of money for greenhouses, for their carbon tax rebate. We increased the amount of money going to the land com- mission by $4 million. We also….

Interjections. Hon. N. Letnick: What about bees? Madame Speaker: Th rough the Chair. Hon. N. Letnick: Sorry, Madame Speaker. We also had money going for a replant, and we intend to make an an- nouncement on that very soon. What I’ d like to say at the end is we continue to in- vest in British Columbians, in their food, in food secur- ity, including a range of products and a range of services. Th at’s why this side of the House believes in expanding the economy so we can continue to have the money to support agriculture throughout British Columbia. FOREST INDUSTRY JOBS AND LOG EXPORT POLICY D.

Routley: As a result of B.C. Liberal forest policy, 43 percent of forestry manufacturing jobs on the coast have been lost — thousands of family-supporting jobs. Added to the list this month are more than 100 jobs at Western Forest Products’ Nanaimo sawmill. Th is is the same mill where the Premier stood in 2011 and said that the coast- al forest industry is once again thriving. More evidence that the Premier knows what to say, but her actions show she just doesn’t care. While that mill shuts down, logs that could have fed the mill literally go past the mill site to be exported. Will

British Columbia Debates5026 Wednesday, October 29, 2014 the Forests Minister explain why he allows raw logs to be exported at record levels while B.C. mills are shut down? Hon. S. Th omson: On this side of the House, with the forest industry, we recognize that it is one of the foun- dation resource industries in British Columbia. Th at’s why we work with them to build a competitive industry in British Columbia, and that’s why we’ve seen 58,000 people working in the industry — a 13 percent increase since 2009.

Th at’s why we’ve seen export value for the industry in- crease to $11.6 billion, a 53 percent increase since 2009. Th at’s why the forest industry contributes over 33 per- cent of the export value for British Columbia, and that’s why we will continue to work with them to ensure that we have the framework in place that creates and builds a competitive industry in British Columbia, because that’s what creates jobs and economic activity throughout com- munities in the province. [1420] Madame Speaker: Member for Nanaimo–North Cowichan on a supplemental. D.

Routley: The loss of coastal sawmills like this Nanaimo sawmill is putting increased pressure on the pulp and paper sector as well. Th e pulp sector depends on the low-cost residual chips from sawmilling. Harmac pulp mill in my constituency pays $35 million in wages into our local economy each year. Th ese are real jobs right now. Right across from Harmac, on the site of an- other closed sawmill — through a chain-link fence — are mountains of logs stacked for export. More than a chain-link fence separates the workers and their jobs from those logs. B.C.

Liberal forest poli- cies that encourage raw log exports is the real barrier between our resources and our jobs. What’s the minister going to do about it? Hon. S. Th omson: As I said, we’re putting in place a foundation that’s helping to build a competitive, world- leading forest industry here in British Columbia. Th at’s why we just completed a trade mission with over 25 senior representatives from the industry to continue to build those critical markets in China, Japan and Korea. Th at is what is providing economic activity and growth in British Columbia.

Western Forest Products is part of that growth — over $10 million investment at Duke Point. Th ere are steps they are taking to ensure that they can continue to pro- vide those jobs, continue to build that economic activity and consolidating their operations, which will actually result in increased utilization of the logs at their mills, in- crease activity in their mills and ensure the continuation of those good, strong-paying jobs in those communities. We are continuing to work with the industry to build a competitive industry in British Columbia.

It’s one that continues to contribute jobs and economic activity throughout coastal communities and throughout com- munities all across British Columbia. H. Bains: It’s incredible to listen to that side brag about having, in the country, one of the worst job creation…. Th ey are among the worst, and this is not something to be proud of. Th e mill where the Premier stood for a photo op in 2011 is being closed permanently, adding to the tens of thousands of jobs that are already lost in the forest in- dustry. Th at is a direct result of this government’s forest policy.

Th at allows half of all of the logs harvested on the coast to be exported instead of using those logs to create jobs right here in British Columbia. It is devastating for the sawmill industry, no doubt. Th e spinoff eff ect means that the pulp mills are next. My question to the minister: will the minister stand up for the forest jobs in B.C. and ensure that B.C. logs are used to create B.C. jobs? Hon. S. Th omson: Th at’s exactly what we’re doing.

We are standing up for the forest industry in British Columbia to make sure that they are competitive and can compete in a globally competitive market by ensur- ing that we continue to build that diversifi ed market for our companies and for our employees and for our com- munities here in British Columbia. Th at’s why we’ve seen a 13 percent job growth since 2009. Th at’s why we’ve seen 53 percent growth in the export market since 2009. Th ese are investments that work that are ensuring that we build a competitive industry. The export policy…. We’ve had this debate in the House before.

We recognize that a portion of the export value that is needed is part of the economic equation in ensuring that we meet that objective. Less than 10 per- cent of the total harvest in British Columbia is exported, but it is a part of the economic equation, particularly in high-cost operating areas, that ensures that we can con- tinue to be able to provide the lumber to the domestic industry. [1425] COMPASS CARD SYSTEM AND TRANSIT SERVICES G. Heyman: TransLink’s fare gate Compass card sys- tem has been a fi nancial disaster from day one.

Its price tag is almost $200 million — 14 percent over budget on another failed Liberal plan. Today we hear that a key component, the tap out, is being abandoned because Cubic can’t or won’t make it work. Th en Transportation Minister Kevin Falcon forced this costly system on TransLink aft er Ken Dobell lobbied on Cubic’s behalf. Th at would be the same Ken Dobell, the

British Columbia DebatesWednesday, October 29, 2014 5027 former deputy minister to Premier Gordon Campbell, who forgot to legally register as a lobbyist. Th e government was happy to listen to insiders about Cubic’s Compass card, but they haven’t been so keen to listen to commuters in the Lower Mainland who can’t even get one extra bus to take the strain off overloaded routes in Vancouver and Surrey. To the minister: when will this government stop wast- ing money on failed insider deals and act on the Lower Mainland’s real transit needs? Hon. T. Stone: I want to thank the member for his question.

Certainly, upon learning of these latest chal- lenges at TransLink specifi c to the Compass program, I did call the board chair, and I expressed the disappoint- ment and the frustration of government. Th e Compass card program, just again to remind all members of the House, is all about safety. It’s about saving money. And it’s, indeed, about reducing…. Interjections. Madame Speaker: Order. Hon. T. Stone: Th e program is all about safety. It’s about saving money. And it’s about reducing fare eva- sion. British Columbians are rightfully outraged at fare evasion, which continues to take place at TransLink.

Now, I know that there may be members opposite who may be a bit sensitive about the whole fare evasion question, but that’s what this program is all about. For the program to be successful, TransLink does need to get its act together. TransLink needs to be accountable, and it needs to fi x this problem. I’ve communicated that very clearly to the chair of TransLink. [End of question period.] Point of Privilege (Reservation of Right) J. Horgan: I’ d like to reserve my right to raise a point of personal privilege with respect to the comments made by the Minister of Tourism during question period today. Hon. N.

Letnick: I seek leave to make an introduction. Leave granted. Introductions by Members Hon. N. Letnick: Today in the Legislature is an old friend of mine from Banff days. Some of the MLAs around here might have had contact with him because he was the CEO of Banff Executive Leadership, the Banff School of Management. Would everyone please welcome Doug Macnamara to the House. Statements MESSAGE FOR GORDIE HOWE Hon. M. de Jong: Madame Speaker, I neglected, dur- ing the appropriate time, to ask all members of the House and you to send best wishes to an individual that every- one in Canada knows. He is an icon.

He suff ered a stroke. Gordie Howe has still got his elbows up high. He is, we are told, in good spirits. But to the guy who patrolled arenas longer than any other, from this arena I know all members will want to join in and say: “Gordie, go get ‘em. We’re with you all the way. ” Orders of the Day Hon. M. de Jong: Calling second reading debate on Bill 2. [1430] Second Reading of Bills BILL 2 — GREENHOUSE GAS INDUSTRIAL REPORTING AND CONTROL ACT (continued) [D. Horne in the chair.] D. Eby: It’s a pleasure to resume my remarks from yesterday. Just before I begin, I did want to correct one matter.

I misspoke yesterday when I suggested that the member for Chilliwack-Hope had been the only B.C. Liberal who wasn’t a cabinet minister who spoke to the bill. Th ere were two others. I want to be clear about that and correct that before I start. Interjection. D. Eby: Well, I do have to say that I may have been distracted by the content of the member for Chilliwack- Hope’s remarks that prevented me from noticing there were two other brief sets of remarks from B.C. Liberal backbenchers.

I think that one of the most useful measures of this bill, of whether it achieves the goals that the government sets out for it, is to evaluate it against the remarks of the Minister of Environment when she introduced this bill in this House for second reading. It’s that test that applies to the entirety of the bill, which I intend to go through in what remains of my remarks’ time today. When a cabinet minister, like the Minister of Environment, rises to speak to a bill and tell the pub- lic what is in the bill and what the intention of the bill is, it’s more than just a

summary of the bill. It’s the measure by…. I mean, for most people, if they pay attention to the Legislature at all, they understand that those remarks re- fl ect the content of the bill.

British Columbia Debates5028 Wednesday, October 29, 2014 Unfortunately, these remarks do not refl ect the actual content of the bill and its implementation. Th e Minister of Environment started by saying: “I rise to speak to the Greenhouse Gas Industrial Reporting and Control Act. Th is bill will enact a performance standard for liquefi ed natural gas facilities and certainty for industry. ” Th at “certainty for industry” piece is very important. I would suggest that not only does industry need certainty but so do the residents of British Columbia and so do the members of this House.

Does this bill create a performance standard for lique- fi ed natural gas facilities that provides certainty for any- one — let alone, as the minister suggests, for industry, for the members of the B.C. public and those concerned about climate change, among whom I do not include the member for Chilliwack-Hope? It does not. Th is bill does not legislate a performance standard for liquefi ed natural gas facilities. It leaves it to the regula- tions — regulations that can be changed with a stroke of the pen by this government without bringing it back to this House.

Th ere is not certainty for industry or for members of the public or for this House in passing this bill that the government expects us to pass.

The next sentence that the minister used to intro- duce this bill was an interesting one to me because I had missed it in the original reading, and when I went back to Hansard, there it was. “Th e intent of the new act is to enable a performance standard for prescribed facilities under the scope of the act, initially liquefi ed natural gas and coal-fi red electricity generation opportunities. ” Coal-fi red electricity generation opportunities — this was a very interesting piece of information from the min- ister in introducing this bill. [1435] I’m very curious about coal-fi red electricity opportun- ities in this province.

Coal-fi red electricity, of course, is not a manner of generating electricity in this province that minimizes carbon pollution — in fact, a notorious form of carbon pollution across the world. Th e Liberals suggest that the LNG project will reduce emissions internationally exactly because it will displace coal-fi red electricity. Y et in the introduction of this bill, we’re told that it is to enable coal-fi red electricity oppor- tunities in British Columbia. So I ask: which communities? Which projects?

How exactly will introducing coal-fi red electricity in British Columbia result in achieving the stated goal of this bill of controlling greenhouse gas emissions in this province? Th e minister continued with her remarks, listing that this bill enables regulated operations to meet the bench- mark “by adopting energy-effi cient technology or using clean energy to power the operation. ” Th ey can comply with the benchmark “by purchasing off sets, purchasing earned credits or purchasing funded units that invest in clean technology research and development for long- term emission reductions.

A registry is used to help the government track compliance. ” Well, there are some notable omissions from the bill if that’s the case. In particular, how will the off sets work? What is the mechanism by which off sets will be regulated and approved? In fact, they are not in this bill. Th ey are going to be separate from this process. Th ey’re going to be done through regulation, rather than through a pro- cess of debate and approval in this House. I note the technology fund that the government talks about.

Th ey suggest that industry would pay $25 a tonne to contribute to this fund, when off sets are available in the open market for $9 a tonne. Why on earth would any industry contribute to a technology fund if they had the option to buy off sets for only $9? An Hon. Member: To leave those jobs in B.C. D. Eby: Th ey wouldn’t, is the answer. Th ey wouldn’t. Th e idea of a technology fund is much like the ideas of the elimination of the sales tax as a result of this industry in B.C. It’s but a fi ction, hon. Speaker.

The minister continued: “The standards for high- quality off sets and processes to create off sets will be pre- scribed by regulation. ” Interjection. D. Eby: Well, that’s right. But the problem with that is this government’s record on off sets and in doing this kind of thing behind closed doors rather than in the open air of the Legislature. We saw the Pacifi c Carbon Trust. We saw the failures of the Pacifi c Carbon Trust, where money from schools and hospitals and universities was transferred to indus- try in a thinly disguised shell game that was absolutely savaged by the Auditor General.

We also saw this government’s reaction to that, which was to close the Pacifi c Carbon Trust and dismantle it. Y et here in the bill we see the suggestion: “Oh, we’re go- ing to do off sets again. We’re also going to do it outside of the bill. We’re going to do it through regulation rather than in this House. ” Well, this government has not earned the trust of the public on off sets and off set regulation. Th e public should not be reassured that that information is not in this bill that is in front of this House and available for debate.

We’re also told — it’s not in the bill, but you can wait — from the minister: “Th ere will be a positive list of proto- cols issued by the director to provide certainty on how to quantify emission reductions and removals. ” On one hand, we have a bill that is here, ostensibly, to provide certainty. On the other hand, the protocols issued by the director to provide certainty are not avail- able to this House in debating this bill. So we don’t know how the government intends to quantify emission reduc- tions and removals. Th ey’re not in the legislation before

British Columbia DebatesWednesday, October 29, 2014 5029 us, yet this government expects that we should vote for this legislation. Again from the Minister of Environment: “Earned credits may be generated where a regulated operation performs below the emissions limit applicable to that operation. Th e money from the funded units is collected by the Ministry of Environment to put into a technology fund or to directly fund clean technology opportunities. ” [1440] In a briefi ng with ministry staff they called this tech- nology fund “a backstop. ” Th ey suggested it’s a long way off from having any shape or form.

Th ey said that off sets on the open market — the price diff erence; it’s not just my opinion but the opinion of ministry staff — are much cheaper than $25 a tonne, which is the expected contri- bution to the technology fund. So the likelihood of any- one purchasing these off sets is very low, yet here it is in the introduction to the bill as a reason why members of the public should support this legislation — something that doesn’t even exist yet.

Th e conclusion of the minister’s brief remarks at intro- duction to second reading: “Th ese are the provisions of the bill which, if approved by the Legislature, will set a performance benchmark for liquefi ed natural gas facili- ties in B.C. to be the cleanest in the world. ” Actually, this is a bill that was introduced apparently to take advantage of coal-fi red electricity generation oppor- tunities in British Columbia. Th ese are not provisions of the bill, in many cases. Th ese are provisions of regulations which have yet to be written. Th ese are not provisions of the bill.

Th ese are provisions of a technology fund which is completely economically impossible. Not only that, the shape of it does not even exist yet. In reviewing these introductory remarks, one has to ask: what has been brought in front of us today to pass? I can tell you exactly that what’s been brought in front of us to pass is basically a clear slate for the government to pass the actual rules, the actual laws, outside of this chamber through regulation.

Ten pages of the 40-page act were “given over to grant- ing the cabinet open-ended powers to make regulations at its convenience at a later date, ” according to the media. So 25 percent of the bill in total relates to provisions to be named later. This government wants a broad and generous op- portunity to write this legislation in private, and that is unacceptable on an issue as important as restricting greenhouse gas emissions in British Columbia.

Many people might look at the title of this bill, Greenhouse Gas Control Act, and believe that somehow this act will be controlling greenhouse gas emissions in British Columbia, but the legislation doesn’t actually re- quire any actual greenhouse gas reductions. It provides fl exibility for companies — that’s the word of the govern- ment, “fl exibility” — to emit as much carbon pollution as they choose as long as they’re willing to pay for it. In addition to that, this legislation doesn’t cover 70 percent of the emissions in the process of generating li- quid natural gas from the well to the ship.

It does not cover…. I’ve heard it mentioned many times by my col- leagues, and I’m going to mention it again because it’s so important, and this bill’s omission of it is notorious and conspicuous. Th e upstream emissions are not covered by this legislation. So here we have, ostensibly, a bill about controlling greenhouse gas emissions that has no upper limit. In addition, it doesn’t cover 70 percent of the carbon pollu- tion expected from this new industry. Th is bill, if we hit the government’s target of fi ve new liquid natural gas plants…. B. Ralston: I thought it was seven. D. Eby: Or seven. Or 21.

I lose track because it chan- ges all the time. Interjections. D. Eby: Well, there was another provider today who put their plans on hold. It changes constantly. But regardless, if we did hit this government’s targets and we look at this legislation and we do the math, it’s very clear that we cannot hit our greenhouse gas emis- sions targets, our legislated greenhouse gas emissions tar- gets. It’s impossible, unless B.C. households reduce their emissions by 33 percent by 2020. All by itself, LNG would account for about 20 percent of provincial emissions — 62 million tonnes. So which is it?

Is the government frankly admitting that they aren’t going to hit their target number of plants? Or is the gov- ernment frankly admitting that they have no intention of following their own legislated greenhouse gas emis- sions law? [1445] I heard much talk from various members of this House, on the other side of the House, about the cap-and-trade act, which this legislation actually repeals. It repeals it while other jurisdictions, in particular California and Quebec, are full speed ahead on this. At one point cap and trade was very popular with the government, and now we’re going the other direction.

Washington and Oregon and a couple of New England states are also ex- pressing interest in participating. Well, we’re well past that; we’re going the other direction. But more concerning, I heard a lot about the carbon tax. Th is law gives the government the power to exempt companies from the carbon tax. Oh, we heard from the Minister of Health in his speech how important the car- bon tax was, how other jurisdictions are following us on the carbon tax, and how dare we question the carbon tax and hold the government accountable on the carbon tax. Y et in this legislation itself, the government is back-

British Columbia Debates5030 Wednesday, October 29, 2014 ing away from its own initiative, exempting companies from the carbon tax. Th is bill’s title is not accurate. Th e introduction by the Minister of Environment shows clearly that this bill does not achieve what it is intended to. It asks for very broad powers behind closed doors about an industry that this government says is critically important, the opportun- ity of a lifetime, yet we can’t debate it here openly in the House — how to make sure that it doesn’t pollute the en- vironment for our children and children’s children.

If it’s not apparent, I will be voting against this bill. I’m very disappointed that given all the time that the gov- ernment took to put this together, this was the best they could bring to this House — legislation where 25 percent of it has yet to be written and so much of it is not even formed yet. What is already here does not hit the stan- dards that the government prescribed. Th ank you very much, hon. Speaker, for the opportun- ity to speak to this bill. M. Elmore: I’m very pleased to be rising and speak- ing on Bill 2, Greenhouse Gas Industrial Reporting and Control Act.

I want to be very clear that this act is to deal with one aspect of the liquefi ed natural gas industry, and that while I’ll be speaking against this particular bill, Bill 2, I am and the opposition are clearly in favour of our li- quefi ed natural gas industry. Being clear about that, in terms of the broad con- text, we recognize the historic importance and the key role that liquefi ed natural gas has played in our British Columbia economy, not only in terms of development in the north but also powering homes right across the province and supporting our industry here in British Columbia.

When we talk about the opposition and myself being in favour of a liquefi ed natural gas industry, we should be clear that it’s with the understanding that benefi ts from the industry should accrue to British Columbians. Th e primary principle is that this is a resource that is owned by British Columbians here. Fundamentally, the oppos- ition holds the position that British Columbians should also benefi t from the extraction, the processing, refi ning and export of liquefi ed natural gas.

Th at means that in the production of the industry and the construction of facilities, primarily, jobs should go to British Columbians and that British Columbians should be the ones to be building the liquefi ed natural gas in- dustry. Clearly, if there are…. We’ve heard about the talk, really contrasting prom- ises from the Premier before the election, about the great benefi ts that we would see from liquefi ed natural gas. We would see 100,000 jobs, the elimination of debt and a prosperity fund.

Certainly, those are not bearing out today. [1450] My position with respect to the liquefi ed natural gas industry is that jobs have to be delivered for British Columbians. Certainly, if any temporary foreign work- ers are to come into British Columbia…. Th e Premier has signed agreements to bring workers in from India to build and also signed agreements with China to bring temporary foreign workers into British Columbia.

All jobs should be for British Columbians, and any tempor- ary foreign workers coming into our province should have the opportunity to apply for citizenship to become permanent residents and Canadian citizens of our prov- ince. When we talk about the benefi ts of a liquefi ed natural gas industry accruing to British Columbians, it should be in terms of jobs. It should be in terms of revenues, and we’ve seen now promised revenues cut in half just in the span of eight months. We’re also not hearing about the benefi ts coming forward in terms of a prosperity fund.

As well, I think what is missing is the discussion of the role of our First Nations being involved and benefi ting and being included as partners in the industry. And Bill 2 addresses a fundamental principle, that a liquefi ed nat- ural gas industry should be developed and ensures that our air, land and water are protected. Th ese are promises we heard from the Premier, that we would see jobs created. In reality, it’s the bringing in of temporary foreign workers. Th at’s been a promise, and that’s been the record of this government.

My expectation is that British Columbians should have access to those jobs and, as well, that revenues coming forward from the industry should benefi t British Columbians. Looking at the bill, the Greenhouse Gas Industrial Reporting and Control Act, the intent of the bill is to ad- dress the impact particularly on our air quality and con- cerns around greenhouse gas emissions generated from our LNG industry. I want to just lay out some points and follow on remarks that my colleagues have made. In 2014 it would seem, to myself….

I was taken by sur- prise, I think, in a state of shock when I heard remarks coming from the member for Chilliwack-Hope really calling into question the issue of climate change. Indeed, if I quote from the member for Chilliwack-Hope, he was “not naturally inclined to believe in the science of global warming” or convinced of human-caused global warming. He characterized that there’s an ongoing debate within the scientifi c community itself and made reference that there may be regional warming taking place, in reference to some stories we’ve heard.

Many members were talk- ing about, over the years and decades, how being able to skate on local ponds or having snowfalls across British Columbia have declined. Th ere is the reality of climate change. We’ve heard the overwhelming consensus of the scientists and scientifi c experts. Certainly, it would be my expectation that when we discuss the reality of climate change, there’s an under- standing of members in the House, elected representa-

British Columbia DebatesWednesday, October 29, 2014 5031 tives, that this is a prime concern and one of the driving concerns that we face today in our province, in our coun- try and around the world. It’s unbelievable that the mem- ber for Chilliwack-Hope would call that into question, and apparently he’s not alone.

Well, I want to just lay out, when we’re talking about climate change, the impacts and threats — if it comes as a surprise that climate change is transforming life on earth. [1455] We’re seeing seasons shift ing; temperatures have been climbing; sea levels rising; wildlife at risk; melting of glaciers and putting polar bears at risk; increased risk of drought, fi re and fl ood — many examples just across the border; California has been experiencing a drought — and stronger storms and increased storm damage.

We’re seeing these patterns not just in British Columbia — and we can cite local examples — not just in North America but around the world. It is recognized at the United Nations, recognized through many national gov- ernments. And really, I think there’s no shortage of organ- izations that recognize the reality, the challenge and the need to take climate change seriously and to take steps towards reducing human-caused climate change.

When we look at that and understand that, then we have to lay it out for members of the government — the importance and the necessity of taking this issue serious- ly and making a commitment towards reducing green- house gas emissions here in British Columbia, which are under our jurisdiction and our responsibility. Let’s talk about the economic loss and damage through our rising sea temperatures that impact fi sheries in British Columbia, our rising temperatures. We can understand the pine beetle, how has that really ravaged our forests because we do not see cold temperatures in our winters.

Tourism is impacted, ski resorts, with declining snow. Also, the im- pact of drought on agriculture, particularly California, which impacts food security and the rising prices. Th at is the reality of climate change. I hope the member for Chilliwack-Hope can have some conversations with members in his constituency and also this government, driving home the reality of climate change and the ne- cessity to take this issue seriously and make a concerted eff ort towards reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

When we move into realizing that and understanding that Bill 2, the Greenhouse Gas Industrial Reporting and Control Act…. We see that this act falls short in terms of addressing this reality. Th e B.C. target was to cut greenhouse gas emissions by at least 33 percent below 2007 levels by 2020. To meet that, we would have to take serious steps around not only limiting greenhouse gas emissions out of a liquefi ed nat- ural gas industry but also reducing that.

And we see that this bill does not address that necessity and falls short in terms of having any ability to set limits or to impose penalties or to incent the industry to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Th e legislation — one of the main problems in terms of a gap with recognizing the necessity of reducing green- house gas emissions in the context of a liquefi ed natural gas industry is that the bill only talks about downstream emissions.

When we look at greenhouse gas emissions from the entire industry — from the well, from the ex- traction, to the production to the export of liquefi ed natural gas — we miss, and this bill does not apply to, upstream emissions, which account for nearly 70 percent of greenhouse gas emissions. So it does not apply to upstream emissions such as extraction, combustion, fl aring, fugitives and pipelines. According to the Pembina Institute, 70 percent of green- house gas emissions in a liquefi ed natural gas life cycle are not covered by Bill 2. Th at’s one.

It excludes 70 per- cent of the cause of greenhouse gas emissions out of the industry. [1500] Two, we hear the claim that the government is going to adopt the cleanest liquefi ed natural gas industry in the world. Th at certainly is a very strong claim, and on paper we can measure that. Th e greenhouse gas intensi- ty benchmark of 0.16 carbon dioxide per tonne of LNG produced is set on paper, but in actual fact, it excludes these upstream emissions. Th at’s the fi rst problem with the bill that really jumps out at you. [M.

Dalton in the chair.] Additionally, on top of excluding 70 percent of emis- sions from the industry, the bill does not actually require reductions, even from the 30 percent that is covered. Th e problem is that it is not set — a hard cap — to ensure that companies reduce their emissions. It allows for fl exibil- ity for companies to meet the greenhouse gas intensity benchmark, either through off sets or technology fund contributions, and companies are not required to reduce their actual carbon footprint.

Th e 0.16 carbon dioxide per tonne of liquefi ed natural gas is the benchmark, and while it would set the mark on paper, it does not include the fact that in B.C., LNG producers would be burning natural gas to power their process, which would, in addition, add and compound greenhouse gas emissions.

While these facilities would not be clean and would not be required to absolutely reduce their emissions, they would be allowed the fl ex- ibility to purchase off sets or make contributions to the technology fund to meet this benchmark that’s kind of fl oating and is not, certainly, a hard benchmark and not in any way an absolute mark to encourage companies to reduce their emissions. Th at is an additional problem with this legislation. Th e bill excludes 70 percent of greenhouse gas emissions. As well, it does not require a reduction of emissions on the GHG emissions that it does cover.

As well, there is not a penalty. If facilities exceed the 0.16 tonnes of carbon

British Columbia Debates5032 Wednesday, October 29, 2014 dioxide for every tonne of LNG exported, they do not incur a penalty. Additionally, it’s very problematic that we do not have…. Th e bill does not…. It’s missing a lot of details. Th ere are a lot of grey areas, there are a lot of gaps, and it does not explain adequately, for example, the plan for off - sets. How are off sets going to be measured? How are they going to be administered? How is it going to be put into practice? Th is is also another area that is unclear in the bill.

Adding to that, and compounding this problem, is that the record of the Liberal government is not a good one in terms of off sets. We see that the details are missing from the bill, allowing room for, basically, these details to be fi lled in at a later date through regulation, and that we are still waiting to see how the off sets are going to be admin- istered.

We know that there will have to be investment, and there will have to be a program put into place, and there will have to be staff hired to oversee and administer the off sets, but that is not coming forward. [1505] In addition, we see that the plan for the incentive program is not clear. Th is is another area that is lacking in details and also takes the approach of asking British Columbians to just trust the government. I think British Columbians are entitled to be informed, certainly, of the intent and the details around the incentive program. In addition, we hear reference to the technology fund.

This is also another area where details are not forth- coming. Th e incentive program is not clear. Th e details around off sets are lacking. As well, explanations in terms of the technology fund are lacking from this bill, really adding up to a whole series of areas that are not clearly articulated in the bill, leaving signifi cant gaps and rais- ing questions in terms of these big holes in the legisla- tion to adequately address greenhouse gas emissions in the LNG industry.

In addition to these problems and the lack of details around many of the references that are made with respect to the technology fund, the incentive program and the off sets, we see that when we look at the overall purpose and the goal of reducing British Columbians’ greenhouse gas emissions, this bill does not address that. It’s clear that B.C. will be unable to meet the reduction targets. One, it’s clear that targets will not be met — the target that had been laid out to reduce greenhouse gas emis- sions by 33 percent, at the 2007 levels, by 2020. Th ose targets will not be met.

Two, there is not a plan laid out as to how we are going to meet those targets. Th e problem is that it doesn’t set limits. We are not go- ing to meet those targets by 2020. In addition to that, it does not lay out how we are going to meet those targets. So there’s a real lack of…. Th ere is no plan, and there is no direction in terms of how we are going to achieve that mark and reduce — the important goal of taking seriously the need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in British Columbia.

Y ou know, it’s characterized as the biggest challenge that we face in our time — certainly, the challenges of global warming and human causes of global warm- ing. While countries around the world are taking steps, British Columbia…. I’ve heard arguments from members from the other side, from the government, that British Columbia…. Well, we’re not the biggest polluters; we’re not the biggest contributors of greenhouse gas emissions. But I think it misses the point that British Columbia also has to play our part.

We have to contribute towards re- ducing our greenhouse gas emissions part and parcel with provinces across Canada, our neighbours to the south and countries around the world. It will take all jurisdictions seriously working together and setting tar- gets and meeting targets. Th is bill fails to do that. It also leaves open, really, the ability to change and add details through regulation to large numbers and large swaths of the bill.

Clearly, we have it here that nearly 25 percent of the bill allows gov- ernment to change regulations at a later date. [1510] In addition to that, it also repeals the 2008 Greenhouse Gas Reduction Act, which is also referred to as the cap- and-trade act. Not only does this bill not set a target to reduce greenhouse gas emissions; it excludes greenhouse gas emissions from 70 percent of the emissions created in the industry. It also removes and is really a step back- wards in terms of repealing the cap-and-trade act at a time when we’re seeing other jurisdictions move into cap- and-trade. California initiated it.

Quebec recently joined. Our neighbours to the south, Washington and Oregon, as well as several New England states are interested in join- ing a broader cap-and-trade. We’re seeing these measures of other states and prov- inces taking the initiative and moving forward. In British Columbia it’s very disappointing that we are stepping back. We’re not only stepping back but really stepping away from our commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and to ensure that when the liquefi ed natur- al gas industry is developed, there is regulation to en- sure that emissions not only are limited but are reduced.

Th is bill does nothing to address those concerns or help British Columbia to meet our targets in terms of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. We’ve heard concerns from a number of organizations. Th e Pembina Institute has released a report raising con- cerns that 70 percent of emissions are excluded from this bill. We also hear the argument that the development of our LNG industry in British Columbia will help to off - set, globally, greenhouse gas emissions by exporting to China and, therefore, having China replace their coal- fi red energy with a cleaner-burning liquefi ed natural gas.

Th at has been debunked and, I think, is clearly not a strong argument. On the one hand, exporting liquefi ed natural gas to China does not have any impact in terms of our control, in terms of the use or the burning of coal

British Columbia DebatesWednesday, October 29, 2014 5033 either in China or other countries. I think when we look at where we have infl uence, cer- tainly, it has to be within British Columbia. We have to be very clear and take that responsibility seriously by taking steps to ensure that we take responsibility for that, that we take steps to reduce that — greenhouse gas emissions within our jurisdictions, within British Columbia. Th is bill does not address that reality.

Another problem with the bill is that not only does it not set targets or ensure that companies have to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions; it subsidizes companies that exceed the 0.16 GHG intensity, with the understand- ing that government will subsidize the penalty — and up to 100 percent — for plants that have emissions over that level. So those continue to be concerns.

When we look at the development of our liquefi ed natural gas industry, certainly taking seriously the need to limit and reduce our GHG emissions from the indus- try as one of the major contributors in British Columbia, Bill 2 falls far short. [1515] It doesn’t seriously address and it doesn’t have the abil- ity to ensure that companies limit their GHG emissions or even incent companies to lower those emissions. It doesn’t allow us the opportunity to meet our targets with developing our liquefi ed natural gas industry.

When we talk about the LNG industry in British Columbia, we need a bill that not only reduces our car- bon footprint but ensures we get a return from this resource. Th is bill does not ensure or move us in the direction of sending a message to industry to reduce its carbon footprint as an industry, and it also seriously undermines the ability of the province to meet our goals and the targets that were set out. It’s irresponsible. It’s disappointing. I think that it lets down British Columbians, and it is inexcusable. It will not stand, this excuse for a bill, Bill 2, to reduce green- house gas emissions.

It does not meet, I think, on any number of areas, either to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions or to capture the full range of GHG emissions from the industry…. As well, there are huge gaps in terms of details about how various aspects of the bill are going to be implemented. It shows, I think, and reveals a lack of commitment of the government. It abdicates their responsibility to re- ducing greenhouse gas emissions. I think it really does a disservice to British Columbians. I’m going to be speaking against the bill. I’ll be voting against the bill. Certainly, we have to do better in British Columbia.

I think British Columbians expect that. We need to do better in this House. It does not meet those expectations to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions to limit climate change, and I’ll be voting against the bill. J. Darcy: I certainly welcome the opportunity to speak to Bill 2, the Greenhouse Gas Industrial Reporting and Control Act — even though, as I will go on to set out, I think that what is actually contained in the bill falls far short of the title of the bill and the expectations that are created by it.

I think that when our children and our grandchil- dren look back on the debate that’s happening in the Legislature about this bill today, they will ask us about it. Th ey will ask us where they stand. Certainly, my son, our children, our grandchildren, the young people in my community, feel passionately, perhaps more passionately, about this issue than they do about any other issue facing our province, our country and our planet today — be- cause climate change is, indeed, one of the single great- est challenges facing us as a province, as a country and as a planet. When this issue has been discussed….

I’ve had the opportunity in recent weeks to discuss this issue with people in my community, and they’ve asked me a num- ber of questions about it. Th e issue for them and the issue for the offi cial opposition is not whether or not liquefi ed natural gas presents an important economic opportunity for the province, as you’ve heard my colleagues express over and over again. Certainly, it does.

Th e question that people in my community are asking, the question that I believe British Columbians are ask- ing, is: how is it that British Columbia will actually bene- fi t from the way in which this government is proceeding with liquefi ed natural gas, on the issue of jobs, on the issue of fair revenue for British Columbians, on the issue of real partnership with First Nations and on the issue of environmental protection? [1520] Th ey’re asking me, most of all: what is it that we’re do- ing in order to minimize the impact of liquefi ed natural gas on the environment?

What is it we need to do to pro- tect our air, our land and our water? Will this bill, will this government’s actions, ensure that we respect the climate action commitments that have been made previously by this B.C. Liberal government? Last spring, February and March, a group of students from the environment club of the New Westminster Secondary School came to visit me. I know that simi- lar groups visited MLAs’ offices right across British Columbia. Th ey were particularly concerned about talk- ing about climate action targets. We sat down in my offi ce. We met for about 45 minutes.

Th ese were young people, high school students, very in- tense, very engaged, very committed to taking action on climate change. We spoke at length, as I said. At the end of our conversation they asked me to sign a pledge, and that pledge said: “I am committed to British Columbia’s climate action targets. ” I learned a whole lot from those young people. Certainly, it deepened my knowledge and understand- ing of this issue. I was very pleased, of course, to sign that pledge at the end of the conversation that we had.

British Columbia Debates5034 Wednesday, October 29, 2014 I was especially pleased when they took me outside my constituency offi ce on Sixth Street in New Westminster a little bit later to show me the chalk art that they had done on the sidewalk outside of my community offi ce. With many diff erent colours of chalk, they had done some really lovely paintings, some chalk art, which said…. In particular, the centrepiece of it was: “Defend our fu- ture.

Respect the climate action commitments of British Columbia. ” Aft er that time I took the opportunity to go back to take a close look at what those climate action targets were that were set by the B.C. Liberal government, going back seven years now. I was just reviewing them last night. Th en-Premier Gordon Campbell, back in 2007, declared that British Columbia would lead the world in slashing greenhouse gas emissions. Now, I have to say, and I’ve indicated this on many oc- casions in this House and outside, that I didn’t agree with Premier Gordon Campbell about very much.

I had the great honour of representing health care workers for 6½ years in the Hospital Employees Union aft er the Gordon Campbell Liberal government had car- ried out some of its worst attacks on health care workers and on public health care in British Columbia, stripping away collective agreement rights that stood in the way of contracting out and privatization that resulted, ultimately, in the layoff of 9,000 women workers, mainly immigrant workers — the biggest layoff of women workers in this country’s history.

We have spoken at length in this House earlier in this session about the same actions of the Gordon Campbell government and the current Premier, then Education Minister, with Bill 27, which stripped from teachers the right to negotiate about class size and class composition. Th is is an issue that we know was a subject of a recent dispute in the education sector and certainly is an issue that I hear about every single day from my constituents — how really critical that issue is to the ability of every child to reach their maximum learning potential in our schools.

I could go on about what I disagreed with former Premier Gordon Campbell about. But on climate change, he did decide that Canada ought to lead the world. Th is is some of what he had to say back in 2007: “Th e province of British Columbia is now mandating greenhouse gas reduction targets and providing legal tools to implement government strategy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 33 percent below current levels by 2020. ” He reaffi rmed that many times — at the UBCM con- vention and then again in the throne speech. He said: “Our target for 2020 is very aggressive, and it will chal- lenge us all to meet it.

In this coming fall session, ” he said at the time, “we intend to legislate the 2020 target, as well as a target for 2050. Th e bill will also require us to establish legally binding emissions reduction targets for 2012 and 2016. ” [1525] Later he also said: “Th e science is clear. It leaves no room for procrastination. Global warming is real. ” Global warming is real. Well, let’s fast-forward to 2014. Th e offi cial opposition has raised a number of issues in this House.

We’ve raised issues about jobs, the grand promises of 100,000 jobs in British Columbia — which the government is some- times even forced to admit they’re not going to be able to meet — and the issue of ensuring that those jobs go to British Columbians, when the government has also already signed agreements with other countries about temporary foreign workers. Let’s be very clear about the position of the offi cial opposition on temporary foreign workers. Th e issue is not about whether immigrants come to our province and work in this province or work in this country.

My parents immigrated to this country with me as a young child, as did many of the families of the members who sit in this House. Th e issue is whether there’s a path to citizenship for those workers or whether they’re going to be exploited and treated diff erently than workers…. And it’s about whether or not we’re doing the training to ensure that workers in this province have the skills and the training to be able to take advantage of those jobs. Th at’s a critical issue that the offi cial opposition has raised.

We’ve raised the issue of First Nations — that we have to stop paying lip service to respect for First Nations. We have to truly, in this process about attracting liquefi ed natural gas investment, ensure that First Nations are full partners — not just consulted, not just using the word “respect” but full partners — in the process. And we have to absolutely ensure that the LNG industry in this prov- ince protects our land, our air and our water. I’ve spoken about what former Premier Gordon Campbell had to say about greenhouse gas emissions. What does the Premier of the day say? What have the B.C.

Liberal government and the members opposite said repeatedly in this House? Let me quote the Premier. “In terms of greenhouse gas emissions, we can either decide that we want to get to yes, or we are going to throw up barriers in the way of that that will ensure we don’t have a natural gas industry in British Columbia. ” Th e offi cial opposition and a whole lot of other people out there in this province are saying: “Y ou’re not go- ing to be able to meet your own greenhouse gas emis- sion standards with this bill. ” Th at’s about throwing up a barrier? I say it’s about holding this government to ac- count.

It’s about saying: “If you’re going to talk the talk, it’s about time that you walk the walk. ” Th is bill, frankly, doesn’t do that. Several of my colleagues have made mention of, and quoted from, the member for Chilliwack-Hope, who spoke on this issue a couple of days ago. Y ou may ask why we keep coming back to what the member for Chilliwack-

British Columbia DebatesWednesday, October 29, 2014 5035 Hope had to say. Well, fi rst of all, because it was absolutely shocking to anybody sitting in this House and anybody watching it. Also, I think that when we pay careful attention to what the member for Chilliwack-Hope had to say — es- pecially when we move on to some of his comments about how we shouldn’t be so concerned about British Columbia, that we should be concerned about the rest of the world — sadly, we hear echoes of what the mem- ber for Chilliwack-Hope said pretty openly.

We see here echoes of that from other members of the government and members opposite. Let me just revisit for a few minutes what the mem- ber for Chilliwack-Hope had to say. “I’m not naturally inclined to believe in the science of global warming…. Although I’m not convinced of human-caused or so- called anthropogenic global warming, I wouldn’t call myself a denier either.

I’m more of an agnostic on the question. ” But then he goes on to essentially be very clear that he is what is commonly referred to as a climate change denier: “Th e very use of language like ‘skepticism’ and ‘belief ’ and ‘denial’ and ‘agnosticism, ’” he says, “which are widely used around the world, to me is telling. Th ese are words that we use of faith matters rather than settled issues of science.

It suggests to me, ” says the member for Chilliwack-Hope, “that the science is not yet settled. ” [1530] “A ft er all, we don’t really discuss or argue about whether one plus one makes two or whether water is made up of hydrogen and oxygen. Th ose kinds of things are beyond debate. But this, obviously, is not beyond debate, ” said the member for Chilliwack-Hope.

He went on to say — and I fi nd this one of his more troubling comments — “what makes me skeptical about the global warming debate is the passion, the rhetoric, the political pressure, the repression of opposing view- points, the accusations…apocalyptic pronouncements” and so on that “substitute for hard scientifi c data. ” Well, I can tell you that the students at the New Westminster Secondary School who came to see me are indeed passionate about this issue.

As I mentioned earlier in my remarks, they believe absolutely that if we do not take action on climate change, on greenhouse gas emissions, it will have devastating consequences for this province, this country and this planet. Th ey are not alone; 99 percent of scientifi c opinion around the world stands with them. Th e member for Chilliwack-Hope went on to say: “We have conclusions that the Earth has a fever, the seas are rising, and the skies are falling. Every extreme weather event, whether it’s too hot or too cold, is considered to be evidence for global warming. ” Well, that’s right.

Indeed, that is what science says these days, and it is opinion that is…. It’s not opinion; it is widely established by experts around the world. As I said when I first started quoting the member for Chilliwack-Hope, it would be easy to dismiss these comments as individual opinions, individual musings, but there are, in fact, echoes of what the member for Chilliwack-Hope said to be found in other statements from this government. I want to come to this issue of speaking about what we need to do for climate change in this province as opposed to in the rest of the country.

Th e member for Chilliwack- Hope said: “Th e use of more LNG, particularly in China, will result in clean- er air around the world. Th is is a great thing. By getting involved in this industry, we’re going to be doing the entire world a favour by helping China to replace coal with LNG. ” He goes on to say that the rest of the planet will benefi t from our great policy of LNG. Th en he says: “We could stick our heads in the sand and only worry about the impact of greenhouse gases on this province alone.

We could ig- nore the rest of the world, but that would be to hide our eyes from the hundreds of millions of people in the cities of China who live and work in conditions that would be intolerable in this country. ” And further: “To refuse to exploit our resource because it produces green- house gases would be to stifl e an incredibly valuable and useful industry at home while denying the world the benefi t of that industry…. ” Well, it seems to me that we need to do both.

Y es, we absolutely need to do our part to encourage countries like China and others around the world to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. Absolutely, we should. But we also absolutely have to be good to our word. We have to honour the legal commitments that this government has already established going back several years — seven years, in particular — about greenhouse gas emissions and about climate change targets. Let me come to some of the specifi cs of this bill. When the bill was introduced, the Premier said…. Sorry, some time ago. We’ll go back a number of months ago.

Th e Premier said that the greenhouse gas bill, when it was introduced, would capture “the life cycle of LNG” — not just capture greenhouse gas emissions in the plant, in the production facility, but capture greenhouse gas and have the best emission standards in the world during the life cycle of LNG. As we’re all aware, the centrepiece of Bill 2 is the emis- sion intensity standard, the benchmark for LNG facilities. Now, interestingly, what the Premier is saying, what B.C.

Liberals are saying, is these greenhouse gas emissions are “lower than any other LNG facility in the world” — em- phasis: facility. [1535] We’re no longer talking about the LNG life cycle. Now we’re talking about the facility. Th e B.C. Liberals are using this intensity benchmark to say that they’ve achieved the province’s commitment to having the cleanest LNG facili- ties in the world. “Our government promised the clean- est LNG facilities in the world, and that’s exactly what we’re delivering today, ” said the Minister of Environment.

British Columbia Debates5036 Wednesday, October 29, 2014 Again, an important reminder. Th e commitment, the earlier commitment, was to the lowest emissions stan- dards during the entire life cycle of LNG. But the fact of the matter is that Bill 2 does not cover upstream emis- sions, as the members of the offi cial opposition have stated repeatedly, as have very many other experts in this fi eld. Th e greenhouse gas intensity benchmark only includes facility emissions. It does not apply to any upstream emis- sions, including extraction, upstream combustion, fl ar- ing, fugitives and pipelines.

According to the Pembina Institute, upstream emissions account for approximately 70 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in the LNG life cycle, and they are not covered by this legislation. Th e legislation also does not require actual greenhouse gas reductions. It off ers LNG companies fl exibility to meet the GHG intensity benchmark through off sets or technology fund contributions. Companies are not re- quired to actually reduce their carbon footprint. In other words, LNG facilities will not actually be clean themselves.

Th ey’ll be able to purchase off sets and tech- nology fund contributions to meet what I have to call the Liberal’s smoke-and-mirrors approach to this issue. Th is legislation essentially amounts to a greenhouse gas emission free pass. Under the legislation, LNG terminals are allowed to emit 0.16 tonnes of carbon dioxide emis- sions for every tonne of LNG exported without penalty. Th e plan for off sets is not clear, and the B.C. Liberals, quite frankly, have a very poor record on the issue of off sets. We only have to look at the failed and much-criticized and now scrapped Pacifi c Carbon Trust.

Th e government was eventually forced to scrap the Pacifi c Carbon Trust aft er a scathing report by the prov- incial Auditor General found that government agencies were buying off sets from the trust at a cost more than double the amount on the open market. It also found that the trust was purchasing carbon credits from pro- jects that weren’t even eligible. Another issue. Th e plan for the incentive program is not at all clear.

Marc Lee from the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives points out that the subsidy will mean that LNG operators will end up paying very little for their greenhouse gas emission off sets. Th e government will subsidize the penalty, as much as 100 percent of this, for plants with emissions that are just above the standard, dropping on a sliding scale to 50 per- cent of the penalty for plants at 0.23 percent greenhouse gas emissions. Above that there is no subsidy. Th e fact is that the details on the much-touted technol- ogy fund are not available.

Th e reality is that we cannot meet British Columbia’s legislated greenhouse gas emis- sion reduction targets with this plan. Th e reality is that government has no plan on how to reduce greenhouse gas emissions elsewhere in other industries. The government is bound by law to reduce green- house gas emissions to the 2007 levels, by 33 percent, by the year 2020. Th at’s not very far away.

Th e Ministry of Environment has stated publicly that the government will still meet that law but admitted that it won’t be easy and that the province will have to fi nd additional greenhouse gas emission reductions in other sectors. But there is absolutely no plan provided, none what- soever, that sets out how those targets are going to be met in other industries. Th ey won’t be met in the lique- fi ed natural gas industry. No plan for how they’re going to be met elsewhere. [1540] If, suppose, the province succeeds in landing the Premier’s promised fi

Document details

Collection	British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	20141029pm-Hansard-v16n8
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	20141029pm Hansard v16n8
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	39d22f64fb3840c277a64cca352193d35c4a8257

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