2016 Legislative Session: Fifth Session, 40th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Wednesday, April 6, 2016

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 36, Number

ISSN 0709-1281 (Print)

ISSN 1499-2175 (Online)

CONTENTS

Page

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Tributes

Sarah Beckett

M. Karagianis

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

Bill M212 — Animal Liability Act, 2016

A. Weaver

Bill M213 — Campaign Finance Reform Act, 2016

J. Horgan

Hon. M. de Jong

Bill M214 — Local Government Amendment Act, 2016

A. Weaver

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

History of Vancouver

S. Sullivan

Arts and culture in Burnaby

K. Corrigan

Caber the trauma dog

S. Hamilton

Terrorist attacks in Pakistan

S. Hammell

Speech-language pathologists and audiologists

D. Bing

Walk Away From Racism event in Campbell River

C. Trevena

Oral Questions

Staffing levels in seniors care facilities

J. Horgan

Hon. C. Clark

J. Darcy

Seniors advocate access to information on serious incidents in seniors care facilities

S. Robinson

Hon. T. Lake

Human rights hearing and government action on missing and murdered aboriginal women

M. Mark

Hon. S. Anton

Gun violence in Surrey

S. Hammell

Hon. C. Clark

Point of Privilege

(Reservation of Right)

B. Ralston

Orders of the Day

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 19 — Greenhouse Gas Industrial Reporting and Control Amendment Act, 2016 (continued)

L. Reimer

D. Eby

L. Throness

S. Hammell

J. Thornthwaite

M. Mark

Hon. M. Morris

G. Holman

Hon. T. Lake

A. Weaver

Point of Privilege

(Reservation of Right)

Hon. T. Lake

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 19 — Greenhouse Gas Industrial Reporting and Control Amendment Act, 2016 (continued)

L. Krog

R. Fleming

L. Popham

K. Corrigan

Hon. M. Polak

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Energy and Mines

Hon. B. Bennett

N. Macdonald

C. Trevena

D. Donaldson

B. Routley

[ Page 11845 ]

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 6, 2016

The House met at 1:35 p.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

Introductions by Members

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: I’d like to welcome my friends here today from Barrier-Free B.C.. Barrier-Free B.C. is a newly formed advocacy organization working to create a barrier-free province for all people with disabilities.

One of their main goals is to establish a British Columbians with disability act, and earlier today they launched their awareness campaign on the front steps of the Legislature. I had the pleasure to meet with some of the members of Barrier-Free B.C. shortly afterwards to talk about our shared goals.

Last month the federal government announced that they would be launching a cross-Canada consultation on a national disability act. We remain committed on this side of the House with our goal, and we will build on those federal conversations as we look for options on consulting on provincial disability legislation.

I look forward to working with my friends at Barrier-Free B.C. as we move forward to ensure we create the most accessible jurisdiction in all of Canada.

With special guests…. I’d like to introduce the House to the members of Barrier-Free B.C. who are up in the gallery right now. They asked me to share with the House the barriers that they experience because of their different and diverse abilities.

We have Mr. Rob Sleath from Richmond, B.C. He’s the spokesperson for Barrier-Free B.C. He is living with the barriers associated with total sight loss. We have Ms. Lynn Hunter from Victoria, B.C. She’s the chair of the government relations committee with the MS Society of Canada.

Ms. Lynn Malayly is from Victoria. She’s living with the barriers associated with paraplegia. Ms. Jasmine Parr is also from Victoria, representing Power To Be Adventure Therapy and living with the barriers associated with quadriplegia.

Mr. Brent Page is the national manager for community engagement and integrations services for March of Dimes Canada. He is a member of the Barrier-Free B.C. steering committee. And Mr. Reed Poynter — pardon me for probably not pronouncing that correctly — is from Langley, B.C. He’s a director with Access for Sight-Impaired Consumers, a member of the Barrier-Free B.C. steering committee, and he’s living with the barriers associated with total sight loss.

May the House please make them welcome and wish them all the best in their journey to achieve legislation here in British Columbia.

Hon. S. Cadieux: In the House today, now I believe and probably following quite shortly, are two groups of 40 grade 11 students from Southridge School in Surrey-Cloverdale. The teachers accompanying the students today are Darren Jones, Ira Alexander and James Knihniski. I would hope that the House would make these great students very welcome.

[1340]

K. Corrigan: In the precinct today, we have members of the UVic Native Students Union council. The UVic Native Students Union is a student-run collective dedicated to supporting the indigenous student community at the University of Victoria. We have with us Blake Desjarlais, Taylor Carpenter, Grace-Anne Thunder, Jessica Curry, Jackson McDermott, Natashe McKinstry and Richel Donaldson. I hope the House will please make them all very welcome.

Hon. A. Virk: I have the pleasure to introduce a family which is indicative, sort of, of the migration of what makes Canada. I have a family here, and half of them are from Bangkok, Thailand.

We have Pritam and Daljit Singh, who were born in West Punjab, which is now Pakistan, in the ’30s. Then they migrated to Hong Kong. Pritam lived there during the Japanese occupation, 1941 to 1945, went back to India, married Daljit. They then moved back and made a life in Hong Kong, where he eventually became the chief executive officer in the Hong Kong government. He retired after 35 years of service and retired to Canada and became a Canadian.

The next generation is my connection. The next generation is my friend, Bijay, who then migrated from Hong Kong to Canada as a young SFU student at age 18. I was 18 at one point as well. Bijay came to UBC as

[ Page 11846 ]

Bijay. went on to work in the pharmaceutical industry, worked on a number of continents — in Africa. He’s worked in Asia, he was a general manager for China and a regional head for Africa for Novartis. He currently lives in Bangkok, Thailand, and works as a vice president of business development for DKSH, the largest market expansion service for health care companies in Asia.

The story of migration continues. Bijay is married to Angelique, who was born in Basra, Iraq, educated in Kuwait and India and then, finally, the U.K. They met in New York and married and have three children who are Canadian citizens. Currently two of them are at U of T, and the other one lives with them in Bangkok, Thailand.

Quite a complicated story, isn’t it? Of course, Amrita, Daljit and Pritam’s daughter, was born in Hong Kong, migrated to Canada, married a Canadian, moved all over the world and eventually settled back in Canada.

Would the House please make this worldly family, where multiple languages are spoken…. Would the House please make them feel welcome.

B. Ralston: I’d ask the House to recognize and welcome in the gallery Director General Tom Lee of the Taiwan Economic and Cultural Office, who has joined us here today.

Hon. T. Lake: I have a couple of introductions today. As I was going through the hallways, I met a couple that were here with Barrier-Free B.C., Brent and Sonya. Brent tells me he’s been living with a vision disability from birth and had a question about a policy issue. I asked him to meet with the member from Nanaimo so that we could raise that up. So just to give the member from Nanaimo a heads-up — Brent and Sonya, a wonderful couple. Would the House please make them very welcome.

Also, it’s my pleasure to introduce and welcome to the House the Tribal Chief of the Stó:lō Nation and current chair of the First Nations Health Council, Grand Chief Doug Kelly. Doug, everyone in this House is aware, has done amazing work in the design and transition to First Nations health governance as well as overseeing the delivery of the health action items identified in the tripartite First Nations health plan.

Doug is a tremendous advocate for his people, a tremendous advocate for healthy living. We ran into each other on the street last night. We were comparing athletic injuries until we realized that they weren’t really athletic injuries; they were injuries related to getting old.

Please, everybody, help me welcome Doug Kelly here today.

[1345]

M. Elmore: I am very pleased to welcome…. We have with us today members from Advocis, which is the leading association of insurance and financial advisors. We all know very capable, competent financial advisers in all our communities across British Columbia that provide needed and important financial support and advice to families, small businesses and British Columbians right across our province.

They are here to talk to us about the value of professionalizing the industry, bringing the central principle that guides the success of their businesses’ trust they have with consumers and clients and really raising that to a higher level. Certainly, to benefit all British Columbians, they are passionately undertaking that project as well.

They are talking to us about the value of a commission-based business and the example of the United Kingdom, which has eliminated embedded commissions — not the route to go in terms of ensuring that all British Columbians have access to affordable and accessible financial advice.

I also want to recognize the value, the benefit that they bring to our communities, not only as passionate professionals but also in bringing important financial literacy and providing that important resource to us here in British Columbia.

Please welcome all of the members and thank them for their great service to British Columbia.

Hon. M. Bernier: It gives me great pleasure today to introduce in the House, up on the top to my right here, players from the Spectrum Community School’s football team. As well, they are accompanied by their head coach, Darren Vaux, their principal, Rob House, and former graduate here on the Island, retired NFL kicker Eddie Murray.

They’ve come to the Legislature today to celebrate the NFL’s recognition of Eddie’s contribution to football in his 1994 Super Bowl victory with the Dallas Cowboys. As somebody who actually watches all of the Super Bowls, if memory serves me correctly, in ’94, I think they won by a kick from Eddie right close to the end of the game. Congratulations to him for that.

Eddie began his football career, actually, right here on the Island. He was with the Saanich Hornets in the Lower Island Junior Varsity football league. He was selected in the seventh round of the 1980 NFL draft by the Detroit Lions and went on to serve 20 years in the NFL. Eddie had the honour of being the 1980 Pro Bowl MVP, and retired as the 16th-highest scorer in NFL’s history.

As part of a new football program created in 2013, these students here are excited to be creating history, just like Eddie. I’m very honoured to introduce them in the House. I know that when I was out on the front steps with them earlier today, the excitement they had to learn from the experiences from Eddie but, more importantly, to look at his drive and the excitement of the opportunities we have right here in British Columbia to go on and

[ Page 11847 ]

do great things in sports. I’m hoping the House will make them all very welcome.

J. Horgan: I was at the ophthalmologist today, so I had eye drops. But if I’m not mistaken, up around and beside that pillar is former city councillor and former Member of Parliament, Lynn Hunter, I believe. Yeah, it is. Good. Also, she’s a friend and a resident of James Bay, so there’s truth and proof that people do just meander into the building every now and again to see what’s going on. Would the House please make Lynn very, very welcome.

Following on the minister’s introduction of Eddie Murray, Eddie played soccer before he played football, and he was pretty good at it. But with the great rivalries between my high school of Reynolds and Spectrum, which were fierce during the 1970s, Eddie decided on football because he couldn’t hit the net. He kept kicking the ball over the crossbars.

He ended up going to a great career at Tulane University — yeah, Green Wave, that’s right, Tulane University — before he was drafted by the Detroit Lions. But Eddie did a great service at one time in his life, bringing Reynolds and Spectrum together when he married across city lines to one of the Rogers girls, who was famous at Reynolds as well.

Eddie, I can’t see you. I know you’re here. Would the House please say to Ed Murray: “Way to bring Reynolds and Spectrum together!”

V. Huntington: I’d like to take this opportunity to welcome two grade 5 classes and their teachers from Southpointe Academy in Tsawwassen. I’d like to take this opportunity to thank the Sergeant-at-Arms, who not only graciously escorted them onto the floor of the House but spent a few minutes of his valuable time in talking to them about the traditions of this place. Thank you so much, Sergeant-at-Arms. Please would the House make them feel welcome.

[1350]

Hon. S. Anton: Here with the Advocis group is a constituent of mine, Mr. Rick Lam from Genssante health and life insurance. Rick is a marathoner — in fact, he went out running with some of our colleagues this morning — and he is a longtime member of the Chinatown Revitalization Committee. Those of us from Vancouver and area will know how important an entity that is. May the House please make welcome my constituent from Vancouver-Fraserview, Mr. Rick Lam.

A. Weaver: It gives me great pleasure to introduce to the House today Denis Canuel. Denis runs a professional gardening business here on southern Vancouver Island, and he’s with us to see the introduction of a bill later this afternoon. Would the House please make him feel very welcome.

E. Foster: I have a rather lengthy introduction, but fortunately, the member for Vancouver-Kensington has probably used most of it. Just to say a very big welcome to the members of Advocis from this side of the House. We met with them this morning. Welcome to the House, and continue your good work.

The other introduction…. Well, it’s not an introduction; it’s an announcement. I just wanted to say thank you to everyone in the chamber and people that work in the building for supporting Lumby in their bid to be Hockeyville 2016 Canada. We were successful.

G. Holman: I wanted to introduce to the House today a constituent of mine, Gerald Kazanowski, a financial adviser working out of Sidney who’s also a member of Advocis. I think I can say, without hesitation, that Gerald is the tallest member at 6 foot 9. Of course, many of you will remember that he was a star player with the University of Victoria and went on to play with Canada’s national basketball team. Would the House please make Gerald feel welcome.

D. McRae: Today in the chamber, in the gallery behind me, I have two friends from the Taipei Economic and Cultural Office joining us here. Director General Tom Lee has been in the province for about two months. He’s joined by the division director for British Columbia, his colleague Jack Pan, who has also been here for about the same amount of time. He and his predecessors have done a great job visiting communities across British Columbia, and I look forward to his two-year station in British Columbia. I ask this House to please make him and his colleague very welcome.

J. Thornthwaite: I’d like to also welcome one of my constituents — actually, two of my constituents — Mr. and Mrs. Michael Thorne. Thank you very much for coming.

L. Krog: If the House will forgive me, I want to also recognize that Mr. Kazanowski is not just a star athlete; he’s from Nanaimo originally.

I’d also like to welcome Paul Tidey and Scott Bickerton, who are here from Nanaimo with Advocis. Would the House please make them welcome.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: In keeping with our welcome to the members of Advocis, I have to point out that a constituent of mine is here, Mr. Bob Cowan. Let this sink into your heads: he began his professional career in 1961.

Tributes

SARAH BECKETT

M. Karagianis: As the House will know, my community and the community of the member for Juan de

[ Page 11848 ]

Fuca are in mourning today. We are mourning the loss of a mother, a partner, a community leader and a proud member of the RCMP.

Const. Sarah Beckett leaves behind two small boys, a husband and a family who loved her dearly. Her West Shore RCMP family adored her as well. Sarah joined the RCMP in 2005. She served in Port McNeill and at the West Shore detachment and was a detective with the Vancouver Island Integrated Crime Unit.

Sarah had just recently returned to duty after maternity leave. She was working the overnight shift yesterday when tragedy struck. This is the first time since 1991 that Vancouver Island has lost a police member on the job. It is very heartbreaking for our communities and for everyone who has been touched by this tragedy.

To help the family in this difficult time, citizens have already started fundraising. A barbecue fundraiser will be held at the Fountain Tire in Langford on April 17. All donations should go through the West Shore RCMP to help the family. The RCMP is also setting up a webpage for Canadians across the country to offer their thoughts, and a book of condolences has been set up in the lobby of the West Shore RCMP detachment.

[1355]

A GoFundMe page called “The Loss of Const. Sarah Beckett” has raised in excess of, I believe, $44,000 at last count in just the last day. I’ve received notice that a candlelight walk will be held this Sunday, April 10, at 8:30 p.m. at Veterans Memorial Park.

When word of Sarah’s death began to spread yesterday morning, citizens started to show up at the West Shore detachment and place flowers around a statue that stands in front of the detachment. It shows a police officer helping a child. In one of the sadly ironic twists of life, Sarah was the model for that statue.

I know that all members will join with me in sending our deepest condolences to those who loved Const. Sarah Beckett: her family, her friends, her extended family at the RCMP. Please know that we are thinking of you and offering our heartfelt appreciation for the great service she has done to our province.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

Madame Speaker: Leader of the Official Opposition.

J. Horgan: Thank you, hon. Speaker….

BILL M212 — ANIMAL LIABILITY ACT, 2016

A. Weaver presented a bill intituled Animal Liability Act, 2016.

A. Weaver: I move introduction of the Animal Liability Act, 2016.

Motion approved.

A. Weaver: I’m pleased to be introducing a bill intituled the Animal Liability Act. Earlier this year a number of vicious dog attacks occurred in the Lower Mainland. Over the years, British Columbians have been calling on B.C. legislators to act.

According to the Canada Safety Council, more than 460,000 dog bites occur in Canada each year. Just last week, there was a case of unprovoked dog attack reported in Saanich, an attack that nearly left an individual without his employment for years to come. In this case, the dog was a repeat offender.

Here in B.C., we do not have adequate laws that ensure owners are liable for the actions of their animals. Indeed, we only have liability being imposed on the basis of scienter doctrine, negligence or, in some cases, the Occupiers Liability Act.

This bill would ensure that owners are liable for any damages resulting from harm that the animals cause to a person or property. This bill, based on similar legislation that exists in Manitoba, is designed to ensure that owners of animals take their ownership seriously and are held responsible for the actions of their pets.

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

Bill M212, Animal Liability Act, 2016, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

BILL M213 — CAMPAIGN FINANCE

REFORM ACT, 2016

J. Horgan presented a bill intituled Campaign Finance Reform Act, 2016.

J. Horgan: I thank the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head.

I move that a bill intituled Campaign Finance Reform Act, 2016, of which notice has been given on the order paper in my name, be read a first time now.

Motion approved.

J. Horgan: The Campaign Finance Reform Act is a bill to take big money out of the politics in British Columbia. While other provinces have instituted strict rules on campaign financing, B.C. has moved in the opposite direction. British Columbians are telling us clearly that this is the wrong direction. They’re tired of the real or perceived influence of organizations with big pockets over the political process in this province.

This bill bans corporate and union donations to political parties and restricts campaign donations to indi-

[ Page 11849 ]

viduals. It calls on the Chief Electoral Officer to review campaign financing and specifically set limits on individual donations.

This will be the fifth time members on this side of the House have introduced this bill. Just days ago I was pleased to see my colleague from Delta South introduce a similar bill in this place.

This is not a partisan issue. This is an issue of public trust, and it goes to the root of the health of our democracy. It’s past time that we in British Columbia, rather than depending on having big money at the heart of our politics, put people back at the centre of our politics.

At this time, I move, pursuant to Standing Order 78A, that this bill be referred to the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services for immediate review.

Madame Speaker: Hon. Members, you have heard the question.

Hon. M. de Jong: Sorry. Excuse me, Madame Speaker. I want to make sure that I understand the question that’s been put.

J. Horgan: The member will have his MacMinn at hand.

[1400]

Pursuant to Standing Order 78A, it is at an opportunity after first reading of a private member’s bill, or any other bill, that it be immediately referred to a committee of the Legislature. As the Select Standing Committee on Finance has been used in this session for the work of the Ombudsperson to create a shield for the activities of the government with respect to health researchers over the past number of years, it seems only appropriate that an important act like this, being brought forward for the fifth time — not just by the official opposition but also by a member of our group of independents — be sent to an appropriate body for immediate review.

Hon. M. de Jong: I do now better understand the motion.

I wonder if this might be an appropriate suggestion, though. The member has tabled the bill, and I’ve not had an opportunity, nor have members of the House had an opportunity…. The bill might be tabled. I believe the standing orders provide for the member to make his motion at a subsequent sitting day of the chamber. Candidly, we’d be in a better position — I’d be in a better position — to render an opinion on his motion if we were to have an opportunity to review the bill.

J. Horgan: The member is a senior member of this House. He’s been here since the 1990s, and he will know this bill

chapter and verse, I would expect, because this is the fifth time he’s had an opportunity to look at it.

It strikes me that this is a matter of urgency. I have reviewed the standing orders. I have discussed this with the Clerks’ table, and I believe this is the appropriate time for immediate action on this file.

Other provinces are taking action right now. This is an opportunity for this Legislature to stand with one voice and say: “It’s time to take the big money out of politics.” I would suggest that the member support that.

Madame Speaker: I appreciate the submissions. There will be no further debate. We’re putting the question under 78A. Shall this be referred to a committee?

Division has been called.

[1405]

Hon. Members, the question is committee referral of the bill introduced by the Leader of the Official Opposition.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Hon. Members, there will be silence for the reciting of the division.

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 31

Hammell

Simpson

Robinson

Horgan

Ralston

Corrigan

Fleming

Popham

Conroy

Chandra Herbert

Fraser

Huntington

Karagianis

Eby

Mungall

Mark

Elmore

Wickens

Shin

Heyman

Darcy

Donaldson

Krog

Trevena

Simons

Macdonald

Weaver

Chouhan

Rice

Holman

B. Routley

NAYS — 41

Lee

Sturdy

Bing

Yamamoto

Michelle Stilwell

Oakes

Wat

Thomson

Virk

Rustad

Wilkinson

Morris

Pimm

Sultan

Hamilton

Reimer

Ashton

Hunt

Sullivan

Cadieux

Lake

Polak

de Jong

Clark

Anton

Bond

Bennett

Letnick

Bernier

Yap

Thornthwaite

McRae

Plecas

Kyllo

Tegart

Throness

Martin

Foster

Dalton

Gibson

Moira Stilwell

[ Page 11850 ]

J. Horgan: I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading in the House at the next sitting of the House after today, which could be tomorrow.

Bill M213, Campaign Finance Reform Act, 2016, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

BILL M214 — LOCAL GOVERNMENT

AMENDMENT ACT, 2016

A. Weaver presented a bill intituled Local Government Amendment Act, 2016.

A. Weaver: I move introduction of the Local Government Amendment Act, 2016.

Motion approved.

A. Weaver: I am pleased to be introducing a bill intituled the Local Government Amendment Act.

In British Columbia, we have a municipality that has no houses, no infrastructure and no people. The Jumbo Glacier Resort is designated as a mountain resort municipality, and despite having neither any people nor any buildings, it is governed by a mayor and two councillors and funded by the province.

For the existence of a municipality to make any sense, it needs people. The Local Government Amendment Act would ensure that this be the case across British Columbia. This bill would close a glaring loophole created in 2012 by this government solely to support a project that has not substantially started. It’s opposed by the Ktunaxa Nation, whose environmental assessment certificate has expired.

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

Bill M214, Local Government Amendment Act, 2016, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

[1410]

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

HISTORY OF VANCOUVER

S. Sullivan: One hundred and thirty years ago today, this parliament passed

an act to create the city of Vancouver. It was the most contentious act of 1886. Twice it was sent back to committee, and when it finally reached the Legislature for a final vote, there was one more attempt to stop it. Supportive politicians got streets named after them. Drake, Davie, Robson, Smythe, Dunsmuir — all are artifacts of that battle.

Many were opposed to the name. There was already a place named Vancouver — Vancouver, Washington. It had been abandoned 24 years earlier. It had been the capital of proto–British Columbia before the border treaty, the largest city on the west coast when the area was governed by the honourable Hudson’s Bay Company, which was the legal government in most of western Canada. The governor, James Douglas, led a caravan from Vancouver up to Victoria, his new capital.

The old Vancouver had been a very multicultural place: 35 ethnic groups lived there; 30 percent were Hawaiian. The aboriginal trade language, Chinook Wawa, fully developed there. Part aboriginal, part non-aboriginal, it was spoken by all the Vancouver children in their mixed-race families. The new Vancouver started as multicultural as the old. The largest employer, the Hastings Mill, operated in Chinook Wawa.

For thousands of years, the Coast Salish people called this area their home, and their traditions and respect for people and nature are deeply engrained in Vancouver’s cultural fabric. Vancouver has been transformed by immigrants, traders, entrepreneurs, from humble beginnings as a village around a sawmill to its current status as a cosmopolitan destination with international appeal. It is an economic hub renowned for its natural beauty and cultural diversity.

Today Vancouver is the home of more than 600,000 residents. Vancouver is a bridge between the economies of the world and the rugged natural beauty of B.C., and together its citizens have shaped it into a thriving, dynamic city that is among the best places in the world to live, work and play.

Please join me in wishing the city of Vancouver a happy 130th birthday.

ARTS AND CULTURE IN BURNABY

K. Corrigan: For the creatively inclined, the city of Burnaby offers a full menu of artistic pursuits through its cultural services department. At the beautiful Shadbolt Centre, over 30 shows a year are produced in the James Cowan Theatre. Over 10,000 students attended the centre last year, including thousands enrolled in after-school arts classes. Shadbolt also provides valuable community space for meetings, conferences and special events.

Over 225,000 visitors per year get a taste of frontier life in the early 1900s at the Burnaby Village Museum, which features a vintage 1912 Parker Carousel and a fully restored Interurban tram. Hundreds of volunteers help to ensure the village museum continues to be among the top five tourist attractions in the Lower Mainland.

The Burnaby Art Gallery continues to thrive, hosting eight major exhibitions in 2015, and has strongly

[ Page 11851 ]

attended art programs. The public art program featuring the Playground of the Gods at Burnaby Mountain’s Kushiro Park is also cherished by Burnaby residents and visitors alike.

Burnaby is home to the spectacular summer concert venue at Deer Lake Park, which has hosted memorable shows by the Lumineers, Jack Johnson, Black Eyed Peas and k.d. lang, among others. Canada Day shows at Swangard Stadium are free to the public. In addition, Burnaby’s again free Symphony in the Park at Deer Lake hosts 11,000 classical music lovers in August. Burnaby also hosts, at the same park, the daylong Blues and Roots Festival.

The legendary Hats Off Day community celebration and the Giro di Burnaby annual bike race are just two examples of Burnaby’s special events that each draw over 10,000 attendees every year.

Congratulations to the city of Burnaby and all of the staff and volunteers who ensure wonderful and accessible cultural services in our community.

CABER THE TRAUMA DOG

S. Hamilton: I’m going to guess that the House probably by now knows I’m a bit of a dog person — more specifically, a dogs-with-jobs type of person. We know my wife, Kristen, has been here with Gambit the guide dog on a number of occasions. We’ve hosted the B.C. Guide and Autism Support Dogs, PADS, etc., and the list goes on.

[1415]

In keeping that with tradition, today I rise in the House to recognize an individual that has impacted my community for the past six years, Caber the trauma dog. Caber was introduced to the Delta police victim services department in 2010 after being trained and then kindly donated by the Pacific Assistance Dogs Society, or PADS for short.

Caber was just eight weeks old when he started his training with PADS in their puppy education program. He then went on to advanced training in Calgary before returning to PADS and joining the Delta police victim services at the age of two.

Caber was the first trauma canine in a victim services setting, and it’s his calming, affectionate and docile temperament and nature that makes him an exceptional fit for the work that he does, calming and comforting people experiencing traumatic situations. Caber’s work includes helping to reduce people’s blood pressure, providing a healing and calming touch and promoting communication. He responds to an array of traumatic events including homicides, arson, sudden death and domestic violence.

Other examples of Caber’s work include his support of a family and a group of children and teachers in response to the tragic homicide of 15-year-old Laura Szendrei. Caber attended the victim’s classes for the first full day back at school and elicited a significant emotional response from those in his contact. Caber was there to help soothe a rocked community in a time of need.

In 2013, Caber became Canada’s first courthouse dog and participated in a pilot project that saw him attend pretrial interviews and promote comfort to victims when discussing their testimony. In the same year, Caber even featured in the September edition of Modern Dog . The magazine highlighted how Caber’s use in the police force is as a different type of dog.

Over the years, Caber has provided support for over 500 victims of crime, and he looks set to continue helping many more. When we speak of crime, Caber is a wonderful person to have at your side.

And welcome to Lucca at the Vancouver police department, as of yesterday — same type of dog, same type of support.

TERRORIST ATTACKS IN PAKISTAN

S. Hammell: On Easter Sunday, March 27, 2016, at one of the largest parks in Lahore, Pakistan, an explosion at the entry gates took the lives of 75 people and injured over 340. Families of all religions were spending an evening in the park eating and playing together.

An offshoot of the Pakistan Taliban took responsibility for the suicide attack and declared their intention to continue terrorizing the citizens of Pakistan. Since the beginning of this year alone, there have been seven terrorist attacks in Pakistan, leading to 146 deaths and countless people injured. Innocent mothers and fathers and children have become targets in a war that residents in all corners of Pakistan cannot escape.

Pakistan is and has been at the front of the global war on terror. With a large Pakistani community in my constituency and in this province, I saw the frustration and fear firsthand as many waited after news of the bombing to hear if their friends and families were safe.

Powerful words were spoken by leaders in the community at a candlelight vigil held at Holland Park. I heard messages from a community that rejected the fear and hatred of a twisted religious ideology and heard that what we truly have is a fight for the love and acceptance of all humanity.

With similar attacks happening with increasing frequency in all corners of the globe, a solution to this complex problem must somehow be devised. I’d like all of us to reflect on the lives lost on March 27 in Lahore and support our Pakistani community in their grief and distress.

SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGISTS

AND AUDIOLOGISTS

D. Bing: Next month is Speech and Hearing Month. Before my son Graham married Tamara, a speech-language pathologist, or SLP, I knew very little about the work they do.

[ Page 11852 ]

When most people think about SLPs, they probably think of someone who helps people who stammer or stutter. They may remember the movie The King’s Speech , starring Colin Firth as stammering Prince Albert, who would later become King George VI, and Geoffrey Rush as Australian Lionel Logue, his unorthodox speech therapist.

[1420]

While it is true that they do help with these issues, their scope of practice is a whole lot broader. SLPs are highly educated professionals who have a master’s degree in audiology and speech sciences. SLPs work with people of all ages whose disorders may include delayed speech and language development; neurologically based speech and language impairment; stuttering, voice or swallowing disorders.

My daughter-in-law Tamara specializes in swallowing disorders, and she works in a hospital. In Tamara’s own words: “SLPs and audiologists are communication experts. Our job is to help people to speak, to understand, to hear, to eat and to enjoy life with the people they love. We do the work we do because we want to help people participate in the meaningful activities of their lives to the fullest potential.”

By nature, humans are social creatures, and so much of our identities are built on how we engage with the people around us. SLPs and audiologists want to maximize that with whatever challenges a patient or client faces. Especially during Speech and Hearing Awareness Month in May, let us recognize and thank all speech-language pathologists and audiologists for what they do as health professionals.

WALK AWAY FROM RACISM EVENT

IN CAMPBELL RIVER

C. Trevena: I rise today to talk about an event in Campbell River that proudly marked its 20th anniversary this last month, the annual Walk Away From Racism. Every year, people gather to show their commitment to living and working as a true community, a community in which people’s race is not an issue and diversity is enjoyed and celebrated.

Last month hundreds gathered at the community centre for singing and for speeches ahead of the walk through the Campbell River downtown core. Sliammon elder Elsie Paul spoke movingly about racism and about the need to work and live together. The local band Inclusion played music, and as we walked along the city streets, drummers were walking along with us.

The message that the organizers at the Immigrant Welcome Centre wanted to share was one of living and working together, and to illustrate that, an art installation, part sculpture and part tapestry, was created out of fabric and donated shoes. It symbolizes people walking away from racism and walking together to form that strong future for the community. Real shoes, cardboard cutout shoes, baby booties, you name it, were included in the montage, which became an immediate temporary art installation. That colourful and very creative piece is going to be displayed in different venues around the city to share the message of hope that is carried in it.

Campbell River is a diverse community, with people from many backgrounds calling it home — Vietnamese, Syrians, First Nations, Europeans, to name just a few. It’s a joy to see the annual Walk Away From Racism and a pleasure to work and represent a community so committed to inclusion.

Recognizing the strength that diversity brings is something we celebrate every March at the walk and acknowledge every day in our city.

Oral Questions

STAFFING LEVELS IN

SENIORS CARE FACILITIES

J. Horgan: Over the past two days, the Minister of Health has struggled to come to terms with his attitude towards seniors in this province. When the revolving-door approach to care home operators struck again at Wexford Creek, the second revolving door in two years, the minister said: “Don’t worry. It’ll be fine.”

Unfortunately, at that time, the minister neglected to tell us in this House that Wexford Creek is one of 232 publicly funded care homes that the seniors advocate says do not meet the government’s own staffing guidelines. Eighty percent of the government-funded care homes are understaffed, and seniors are paying the price.

Governing is about choices. My question to the Premier of British Columbia is: can she tell this House why she believes it’s okay that 80 percent of the seniors in care are not getting the care that even the government’s levels prescribe?

Hon. C. Clark: As of September 2015 in B.C., we have almost 32,000 publicly subsidized residential care, family care home beds, assisted living and group home care beds. That’s a 26 percent increase of over 6,500 beds. That’s been the result of historic investments, record investments that our government has made over the years in one of the most durable, best health care systems you’ll find anywhere in the world.

[1425]

In British Columbia, we have the best health care outcomes in Canada. That is because we work hard to spend money wisely. It’s because we work hard to set priorities and stick to our plans. It’s because our staff in health care centres across the province work so incredibly hard with such ethical dedication. It’s because of other innovations like, for example, bringing in the country’s first and only seniors advocate.

This is a challenge all over the world — making sure that as that population of senior citizens grows and as the

[ Page 11853 ]

acuity of that population’s needs grow, we keep up with it. The Minister of Health is making sure we do everything we can, with a plan for seniors, listening and responding to the seniors advocate, which he had the pleasure of bringing to life.

We are making sure that we continue to make those investments because we hope senior citizens in British Columbia will be able to live the longest, healthiest, most fulfilling lives of any senior citizens in Canada.

Madame Speaker: The Leader of the Official Opposition on a supplemental.

J. Horgan: The government’s choice to make an investment in this budget and the last budget was $236 million in tax breaks for the top 2 percent of wage earners. That was the choice she made last year.

What do care facilities do when they lack staff? They prescribe more drugs. At Wexford Creek, 28 percent of the residents there are taking antipsychotics even though they’ve not been diagnosed. Worse still, nearly two-thirds of the residents are taking antidepressants when only one-third of the residents there have been diagnosed. This goes on in care home after care home after care home.

Can the Premier tell this House if she is truly honouring seniors and actually advocating and living up to the commitments that the seniors advocate is making when she’s cutting resources for care homes and forcing them to overprescribe to our seniors?

Hon. C. Clark: Only a New Democrat would call a $3.2 billion increase in health care over the next three years a cut. That is classic NDP math. The member is right that government is about choices. The choices on this side of the House that we’ve made are very clear and starkly different from the choices that that member would make.

We understand that in order to be able to make those historic increases of almost 50 cents on every dollar that citizens send us, to make sure we have the best health care system in the country we need to have revenue to government growing. Now, there are two ways you can grow revenue to government. One of them is to raise taxes, which is exactly what the Leader of the Opposition advocates every day. The other is to grow the economy.

That’s why when he says no to the Port Mann Bridge, when he says no to building the Coquihalla Highway, when he says no to all of the changes that we’ve made, when he says no to the South Fraser Perimeter Road, when he says no to Site C, when he says no to LNG, when he says no to the McKenzie Interchange, what he’s saying no to is jobs.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

Hon. C. Clark: He’s saying no to growing the economy. We understand that we need to grow the economy if we want to look after people. We are looking after people and making those investments so that the senior citizens of British Columbia can have the best lives of any senior citizens in the country.

Madame Speaker: The Leader of the Official Opposition on a supplemental.

J. Horgan: Well, I think that evidence…. For those who’ve just arrived here today for the first time, the only party that said no today was that party over there when we said: “Let’s get big money out of politics.” When it comes to growing the coffers at B.C. Liberal HQ, steady as she goes….

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members, this House will come to order.

Please continue.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Minister.

Please continue.

J. Horgan: All politics is local. I know that the Premier sometimes visits Kelowna. So I’ll let her know that in her own constituency, the David Lloyd Jones facility, Lakeview Lodge and Three Links Manor are all underfunded according to the standards set by this government.

[1430]

The seniors advocate has raised some very serious concerns about the way that the B.C. Liberals are managing seniors care in this province, and the Premier’s response is to talk about the Coquihalla Highway — absolutely extraordinary.

I would like, if at all possible, to see if the Premier could alight down here on planet Earth and talk to the people of British Columbia directly, right now, about seniors care. What are you going to do to make it better?

Hon. C. Clark: I always get the feeling that the Leader of the Opposition gets a little bit antsy when we start to talk about the economy in this chamber. Here we were today talking about Site C, for example, which the member has opposed. We’ve been talking about LNG, which would create 100,000 jobs.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members. Nelson-Creston. Vancouver–Point Grey.

Please continue.

[ Page 11854 ]

Hon. C. Clark: No to Site C. No to LNG. And he talks about saying no.

Here we are in this Legislature voting openly, making our views known on the issues. Meanwhile, this Leader of the Opposition sends a secret letter to the federal government to outline his….

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members. Members, this House will come to order.

Hon. C. Clark: He sends a letter — he won’t put it out publicly; he won’t talk about it publicly — to the federal government telling them that he wants to put a stop to LNG, to put a stop to the 100,000 jobs that that would offer to the people of this province. Rather than deciding to build this province, that member doesn’t have the courage to stand up and say yes. He doesn’t have the courage to stand up for the things he used to say he believed in. Instead, what does he do? He runs and hides.

He opposes economic development all across British Columbia. He says: “It is clear to us that for the purposes of the CEAA review, the Pacific NorthWest LNG proposal before you does not meet the condition of concern…. Until and unless these deficiencies are addressed, we urge you to withhold final recommendation for approval.”

If this House needed any proof that that member does not stand up for yes, does not stand up for jobs and does not stand up for working people, all they need to do is go dig their way through the CEAA website and find out what this member really stands for.

J. Darcy: Let’s talk for a minute about building this province. It is those seniors in care who built this province and who sacrificed. They deserve dignity and respect from this government and not a Premier who says no to improving seniors care for the most vulnerable in this province.

Yesterday the Minister of Health tried to justify, as the Premier is, why 80 percent of care homes in B.C. don’t have enough staff to provide the most basic level of care — including, often, one bath a week. The Minister of Health said: “Seniors are not widgets. They need individualized care plans.” Lofty words yesterday but very far from the reality that faces most seniors in many care homes in B.C.

[1435]

Why isn’t the Premier asking the question: why are so many seniors in care on antipsychotics? The answer is that when many seniors with dementia are disruptive or aggressive and there aren’t enough staff to care for them, too often they are sedated instead. It’s called chemical restraint, and it’s an inhumane way to treat our seniors.

My question again is to the Premier. Seniors deserve to be dealt with and treated with dignity and with respect. Will she commit today to say yes to increasing staffing levels in care homes so that vulnerable seniors are not drugged in order to restrain them?

Hon. C. Clark: We absolutely need to make sure that the care homes and the places where seniors are looked after are up to the highest possible standard. That is one of the reasons that we’ve added $3.2 billion to the health care budget over the next three years. That’s one of the reasons that the Minister of Health has been working so hard to make sure that a health care plan for seniors is implemented and executed according to plan in our province. That’s one of the reasons that we’ve appointed a seniors advocate — the first one, the only one in Canada — who can make sure that we’re on top of these issues.

The member is right. Seniors did build this province, and we owe seniors a lot. Seniors built the hydro infrastructure that we depend on today. They built the mines and the forestry infrastructure. They built the communities that we all live in and that we all depend on. We owe senior citizens a lot.

One of the things we owe them is the best health care in the world. And another thing we owe them is to make sure that we don’t fritter away their economic legacy, that we build on what they left us rather than tearing it down, that we make sure that they know the future for their kids and their grandkids and the kids who come after them is one that they can be just as proud of as the one that they left for us.

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

J. Darcy: Let’s really talk about our parents and our grandparents and our loved ones in care. When they move into residential care, it becomes their home.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

Please continue.

J. Darcy: When our vulnerable seniors move into residential care, it becomes their home — their last home — and the staff who care for them provide for their most intimate care needs day in and day out. They also share their laughter and their pain. They share their joy, and they share their tears. And it is often the care staff who are with them at the end of their lives, and they want nothing more than to be able to sit with them and hold their hands and comfort them in their moment of loneliness and fear.

Yet even when residents are dying, they still only have the 20 minutes of care…

Madame Speaker: Please pose your question.

[ Page 11855 ]

J. Darcy: …to help put people to bed. That is wrong. It is terribly wrong.

When will this Premier finally take action and give our seniors in care the dignified care that they deserve?

Hon. C. Clark: I think that senior citizens — whether or not they are in care in this province — and their families deserve better than what we’ve heard from that member of the opposition today. Because what she’s saying is just not accurate.

For those of us who have lived with a family member living with dementia, for example, who have worked hard to find them care, who have given a good portion of our lives to make sure that they are looked after and loved…. We understand how vulnerable people are when they’re in that position — the senior citizens themselves and all of the people around them who are trying to provide them with that support.

So it’s really important that all of those people, all of whom are in a time of crisis and who are vulnerable, have the right information — not information the member makes up on the spot because the theatre of question period is convenient for her. They deserve better than that.

[1440]

Our Minister of Health and our government is dedicating $3.2 billion over the next three years for our health care system. A large portion of that goes to make sure that seniors get the care that they need.

We do need to do more. That’s why we have a plan for hospice and palliative care. That’s why we have a plan for seniors care and are working on a plan for dementia care. That’s why we have a seniors advocate — so that people can get the right information and have the right supports.

For those of us like me who have lived through this, the worst thing in the world is to be the recipient of the kind of inaccurate information that the member is talking about today. People need facts. They need to know where the opportunities are for them to find care for the people that they love. They deserve better than what that member has offered today.

The Minister of Health, I have absolute confidence, is going to make sure we do absolutely the best that we can to make sure that this is the best place in Canada for seniors to live out their lives.

SENIORS ADVOCATE ACCESS

TO INFORMATION ON SERIOUS INCIDENTS

IN SENIORS CARE FACILITIES

S. Robinson: Perhaps we need to remind the Premier that everything that is being said on this side of the House comes from her own seniors advocate report. Everything.

On Monday, the Minister of Health said….

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members. Members, the Chair will hear the question.

Please continue.

S. Robinson: On Monday, the Minister of Health said in this House that the seniors advocate was doing great work.

Today, just two days later, we learn that the advocate can’t even get the information she needs to do her work. Vancouver Coastal Health has decided not to provide the seniors advocate with information about serious infractions in government care facilities. The seniors advocate believes it’s important that families know about serious incidents involving residents living in government care facilities when they consider where to put their loved one.

Can the minister explain why his staff is withholding important information on serious incidents from the advocate and, ultimately, the families who have to make this most difficult decision?

Hon. T. Lake: Seniors in our province did build this province, which is why it’s so ironic to hear from members opposite who are absolutely opposed to building this province. Every time there’s an opportunity to build this province, to grow the economy and to support social programs, they say no.

The seniors advocate provides great information. This website that the office of the seniors advocate has created was a result of the Ombudsperson’s report, a recommendation that came to life in this website. We act on recommendations of the seniors advocate, as the members are aware, with legislation before us this session on assisted living.

We take the recommendations of the seniors advocate seriously. We will continue to do that and, as the Premier said, continue to build this province and continue to reward the people that went before us and ensure they have the very best seniors care in all of Canada.

Madame Speaker: Coquitlam-Maillardville on a supplemental.

S. Robinson: Well, not only have staff at Vancouver Coastal Health decided not to provide the seniors advocate with information about serious infractions in their care facilities, but they are also telling families not to pay too much attention to the advocate’s report when deciding how to choose a place for their loved one to live and to be cared for.

Can the minister tell this House why his staff is keeping this information about serious incidents in care homes from the advocate and from British Columbians? What’s this minister hiding?

Hon. T. Lake: The members opposite represent a party that between 1994 and 1999 saw the number of public long-term beds fall by 18 percent, and the number of pa-

[ Page 11856 ]

tients receiving home support fell by 19 percent. That’s the shameful record of the members opposite.

Since 2001, 32,000 beds in the province of British Columbia….

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members on both sides.

Please continue.

[1445]

Hon. T. Lake: Today, with the number of additions — 7,400 new publicly subsidized residential care assisted-living group home beds — we don’t have lineups at MLA constituency offices any more of people begging MLAs to find a placement for their parents. We have created a system of care that makes sure that seniors are well looked after, and we will continue to work with the seniors advocate and with our Parliamentary Secretary for Seniors to ensure that we lead the country in looking after seniors.

HUMAN RIGHTS HEARING

AND GOVERNMENT ACTION ON MISSING

AND MURDERED ABORIGINAL WOMEN

M. Mark: To the Minister of Justice, tomorrow in Washington, D.C., there will be a hearing of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. The subject of these proceedings will be a follow-up on the commission’s 2015 report into B.C.’s treatment of missing and murdered indigenous women and girls, a report that clearly states how this government has been failing to meet its international obligations to protect and remedy violence against First Nations women. This is two years after the completion of the Oppal Inquiry.

Will the Justice Minister inform this House whether she or any other minister is attending the hearing of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights?

Hon. S. Anton: We will not be attending the hearing, but I will assure this House that the issue of the missing and murdered indigenous women and girls is one that has been supported by our Premier, that has been supported by this government and now, indeed, is supported by the federal government. An inquiry is happening.

We have been participating actively in consultation with our partners in First Nations and with our partners in the community to give our advice to the inquiry as to how it might be formulated — the federal government, indeed, has been seeking that advice across the country — and, at the same time, speaking of our experience. British Columbia did do a Missing Women’s Inquiry with the dreadful time that came out of the missing and murdered women in the Downtown Eastside.

We are very active participants in this debate, in this discussion. We want to see that inquiry succeed, and we are working actively and vigorously to make sure that that happens.

Madame Speaker: The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant on a supplemental.

M. Mark: The Inter-American Commission reports over a dozen recommendations on how B.C. can meet its obligations to indigenous women, including a real provision of legal assistance, which would mean fixing this government’s broken legal aid system, and full and substantive compliance with the recommendations made in the Oppal Inquiry.

A national inquiry won’t help this government from being held accountable for B.C.’s insufficient response to missing and murdered indigenous women, a response that has included deleting emails that documented its indifference towards the Highway of Tears.

In the absence of attending, has the minister prepared at least a written submission for tomorrow’s hearing, and will she table it today in this Legislature?

Hon. S. Anton: To the suggestion that we have not taken this matter extremely seriously, I reject that suggestion. We received 63 recommendations from the Missing Women Inquiry, and we have pursued all of the themes in the report that was given to us.

We have given compensation to all the….

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

Hon. S. Anton: Through partnership with the federal government and the city of Vancouver, we have provided compensation to all of the children of the missing women who are identified in that report.

We have made fundamental changes to policing to require bias-free policing, to improve police information and cooperation. We have created supports for vulnerable women throughout British Columbia through a variety of ways and very substantial investment every year.

We have made changes to the missing-persons legislation. There’s a missing persons unit at the RCMP and E division. We have, yes, indeed, increased safety along northern highways.

We have taken that report seriously. We take the safety of aboriginal women and girls in British Columbia extremely seriously, and we work closely with our partners to make sure that they are safe and well in their communities.

[1450]

GUN VIOLENCE IN SURREY

S. Hammell: It’s becoming a sad and frightening norm in Surrey. Another day, another shooting.

[ Page 11857 ]

Last night gunshots rang out again, the fourth time in four days, despite assurances from the Solicitor General that everything that can be done is being done.

Yesterday the minister said in this House that covert operations were ongoing, that surveillance teams were following gang members around day and night and that “if they look over one shoulder, they’re going to see a police officer.” I ask the minister: where were those surveillance teams that were looking over the shoulders of the gangsters last night when Surrey marked its 32nd shooting so far this year?

Hon. C. Clark: Although that question was not addressed to me and although it may be the last, the very last moment that the NDP get a chance to ask the question in the Legislature today, I want to make sure I get a chance to address it, because for the people of Surrey, this is a vitally important….

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members. The Chair will hear the answer.

Hon. C. Clark: This is an issue of vital importance for people in Surrey. For mothers and fathers and sisters and brothers to be worried that some of their family members could be at risk, that they may not feel safe going outside, is just wrong, and it’s something our government takes extremely seriously.

We need to address these problems of crime in Surrey. It means that we need to take the time to add to the strategy on guns and gangs which we have deployed over the last several years, which has had a very real impact. But we need to do more, because the people of Surrey need to know that when their daughter or son walks home by themselves from a soccer game, they are going to get home safe.

Surrey is a beautiful, thriving community. But no community is a great place to live when people don’t feel safe in it. Our responsibility as a government is to build on the strategy that we’ve deployed very effectively against guns and gangs. We are doing that. We will do that. So today I want to say to the people of Surrey….

Interjection.

Madame Speaker: Burnaby–Deer Lake, please come to order.

Hon. C. Clark: I think this issue deserves more than the heckles from the opposition. I think this issue is one where, as a Legislature, we can surely come together and talk about what we can do better and how we can do more to protect people in a community that dearly needs our help.

The opposition may decide they want to heckle, but I will say this to the people of Surrey. We are going to do more. We will have their backs, and we will make sure that the families of Surrey know that when they send their children home at night, they will get home safely.

S. Hammell: My community, my neighbours, friends and constituents want real answers. We understand the police are working hard, but we are on an escalating path of violence that is not acceptable, and this rash of gun violence has to stop.

My question is for the Premier. If what you are doing clearly isn’t working…

Madame Speaker: Through the Chair.

S. Hammell: …what effective action are you going to take to keep the public in my community safe?

Hon. C. Clark: I am glad that there is a member on the opposition side who takes this issue seriously, because it deserves to be taken seriously. The people of Surrey need to know that their community is a safe place to live.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Order.

Surrey–Green Timbers.

Hon. C. Clark: Because the member is right.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

Hon. C. Clark: The member is right. The people of Surrey do deserve to know that their kids are going to be able to get home safe. They deserve to know that their community is just as safe as anywhere else in the province. And the member is also right that we do need to build on the strategies that we already have in place, and that means doing more.

[1455]

Now, for people in Surrey, they should know that as of February 1, 25 people have been arrested, 176 charges have been advanced, and $4.5 million in drugs have been seized. At the end of 2015, 6,200 people had been checked, 800 arrests had been made, more than 170 weapons and firearms had been seized.

But more needs to be done. This is not a partisan, not a political issue. It is an issue of people’s sense of safety in one of the best communities in the country. We are going to build on our guns and gangs strategy. We are going to evolve to make sure that we’re keeping up with changes in the gang community as we see them unfolding, and we are going to work with the men and women of law enforce-

[ Page 11858 ]

ment, in Surrey in particular, who put their lives on the line every single day to make sure that the people of Surrey can have the same feeling of security that people have living in any other part of the province of British Columbia.

[End of question period.]

Point of Privilege

(Reservation of Right)

B. Ralston: I rise to reserve my right to raise a question of privilege based on the remarks made by the Premier.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: In

Section A, Committee of Supply, for the information of members, the ongoing estimates of the Ministry of Energy and Mines. In this chamber, second reading debate on Bill 19.

[R. Lee in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 19 — GREENHOUSE GAS

INDUSTRIAL REPORTING AND CONTROL

AMENDMENT ACT, 2016

(continued)

L. Reimer: On behalf of my constituents of Anmore, Belcarra, Port Moody and Coquitlam, I’m pleased to join the debate on Bill 19, the Greenhouse Gas Industrial Reporting and Control Amendment Act.

The purpose of this legislation will give regulated and non-regulated operations more choices and flexibility for a cleaner tomorrow. Bill 19 encourages new and innovative approaches to managing emissions. It also builds on previous legislation that will make B.C.’s LNG industry the cleanest in the world.

In late 2014, the government introduced two critical pieces of legislation to establish the highest standards in the world: the Liquefied Natural Gas Income Tax Act and the Greenhouse Gas Industrial Reporting and Control Act. This legislation will have far-reaching benefits that will extend for generations.

To the Premier, I must congratulate her for her steadfast determination and unprecedented tenacity to launch an entirely new export industry. This is no easy task. Although the natural gas industry has been present in British Columbia for almost 50 years, this is the first time that we have made a concerted effort to seek out and capture the interest of energy companies to design and build LNG facilities for export.

[1500]

There are many critics and naysayers who tell us that we are facing an uphill battle. In the first instance, our critics claim the government is hindering our own efforts to attract investment by insisting on developing the cleanest LNG industry on the planet. Yes, it is true.

It would be an easier path if we were to lower our environmental standards, but that is not going to happen. We are choosing the more difficult path because it is the right thing to do, not only for us in the present but for succeeding generations of British Columbians.

B.C.’s world-leading benchmark will limit GHG emissions to 160,000 tonnes of CO 2 per million tonnes of LNG produced. These are the lowest emissions of any similar facility in the world. The province arrived at this target by surveying leading LNG facilities worldwide and determined that a 0.16 benchmark would surpass the standards of any other jurisdiction.

One day future generations will look back and thank us for choosing to develop the industry properly. If we start out on the correct path, then the technology to extract the gas will only begin to improve each time, over time. That is the nature of innovation.

The legislation we have before us is designed to encourage technological advancement and innovation. The scale of taxation is escalated over time to provide companies the opportunity to invest in better technology — specifically, technological advancement and innovation in waste recovery, carbon capture, cogeneration and the use of natural gas in heavy vehicles out in the field. These types of technology will drive further innovation.

Our critics have also attacked the government’s efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and become a carbon-neutral government. In fact, the official opposition vehemently opposed the carbon tax, saying it would be a disaster for the economy. They said it was impossible to reduce emissions without costing jobs. That was in 2007. By 2012, the government achieved its interim target for GHG emissions, that being 6 percent below 2007 levels. This was an aggressive target, and we achieved it without hurting the economy.

British Columbia is leading by example in terms of setting and meeting our own climate change targets. The fact is that British Columbia is a world leader in the reduction of greenhouse gases.

In fact, we are attracting international attention and literally convincing other jurisdictions to follow our lead. France and Mexico are implementing carbon taxes, the European Union is following a regional program, and Chile announced plans to implement a carbon tax. And through the Pacific Coast Collaborative, which British Columbia belongs to, we know that Oregon and Washington states are also following suit.

It’s also a fact that British Columbia has an abundant supply of natural gas. We have emerging technologies that will continue to drive innovation and more environmental extraction techniques. We have the geographical advantage as Canada’s Pacific Gateway. More specifically, our large reserves of natural gas are close in proximity to

[ Page 11859 ]

proposed facilities. We have a skilled workforce, robust infrastructure and the shortest transport times from North America to key markets in Asia.

It all adds up to the fact that while the price of energy will fluctuate over time, the demand for energy will always increase as countries like India and China grow their middle class. These economies will come to expect the same comforts and enjoyments that we in developed economies have known for many years. This demand will propel B.C.’s LNG for years to come and generate a source of revenue for generations. For example, if just one medium-size plant starts to export LNG, it will generate $800 million per year for taxpayers.

Let’s return to the present. In the energy sector, natural gas is by no means a new industry in British Columbia. Already we are the second-largest producer of natural gas in the country, responsible for 26 percent of Canada’s natural gas. There are already thousands of people who are employed by the production of natural gas. So in addition to being a major source of jobs in the province, LNG is also a major source of public revenue.

Over the past decade, British Columbia collected $8.6 billion in LNG royalties. This is money the private sector pays to the government for harvesting natural gas. This revenue helps pay for services that people cherish, like health care and education. With money derived from natural gas royalties, we’re able to build hospitals and schools. We’re able to invest in the province’s future and make it a more desirable place to do business.

[1505]

That is the commitment of this government — to build on our current success and expand opportunities for the province to grow. The world needs energy, and British Columbia is well positioned to provide it. Alone, our province sits on trillions of cubic feet of natural gas. That is a sufficient supply to satisfy our own domestic use for generations to come and to take advantage of expanding markets.

We have all heard the skeptics. They say that B.C. is behind the competition and that we have somehow missed the boat on LNG expansion. But it is worth reminding ourselves that between the years 2000 and 2010, demand for LNG doubled worldwide. I would also point out that global demand for LNG is expected to increase by another 50 percent by 2020. That’s less than four years away.

It’s also worth noting that in 2014, B.C. produced 1.6 trillion cubic feet in natural gas, or the equivalent of 273 million barrels of oil. In other words, we have the capacity to replace a diminishing world oil supply with natural gas, the cleanest-burning fossil fuel of all.

It’s also reassuring that British Columbia is making a commitment to ensure that B.C.’s LNG production facilities are the cleanest in the world. It’s our intention to promote a clean industry to help preserve the pristine environment that British Columbia is known for around the world.

We also want a fair industry. It is the intention of this government to proceed with a further development of the LNG industry in partnership with First Nations. First Nations want a better future, and they want to be a part of resource development in the regions in which they live. We are therefore committed to work with the private sector and First Nations to ensure LNG-related benefits for aboriginal communities.

Overall, we want to make sure that British Columbians are first in line for all of the jobs created by LNG development. That’s the reason why the hon. Minister for Jobs, Tourism and Skills Training has been working diligently on the blueprint for skills training. It’s a ten-year strategy to realign our secondary and post-secondary systems to make sure that we’re preparing the people for tomorrow’s job market by giving them the opportunity to train for a career that’s close to home and is equally rewarding.

While the focus of our LNG industry is concentrated on developing export markets, it’s also about securing our own energy self-sufficiency. In a world of uncertainty, it is nice to know that British Columbia has its own secure source of energy. Of all the proposed export facilities in British Columbia, several intend to focus on the domestic market that provides fuel for the transportation and heavy equipment industry. That makes for a cleaner fuel for the environment and a more secure source of energy.

As you may be aware, B.C. Ferries is proceeding with plans to convert the largest vessels in the B.C. Ferries fleet, the Spirit class, to run on liquefied natural gas by 2019. This announcement comes in addition to plans to build three smaller vessels that will all run on LNG.

Fuel is B.C. Ferries’ largest expense, and natural gas is 50 percent cheaper than marine diesel. By gradually converting the fleet to run on natural gas, fare prices can be kept under control, rather than be ruled by volatile spikes in the cost of petroleum on world markets.

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

Our customers overseas will also realize that British Columbia will become a reliable source of energy. As a free and open society, we are not subject to political strife or global sanctions that other jurisdictions sometimes have, which can seriously interrupt the flow of a steady and reliable source of energy to a customer.

Thanks to trade missions that the Premier has led across Asia, people overseas know about British Columbia. They know British Columbia stands for clean technology. They know B.C. is reliable. Sure, there’s always some uncertainty moving forward with the development of any in-

[ Page 11860 ]

dustry. But it is the willingness to take a risk that will pay off in the future.

The momentum toward LNG development in British Columbia is unstoppable. Approximately $7 billion has already been invested by industry to acquire natural gas assets that support LNG development. In addition, another $2 billion has been spent in the preparation of LNG infrastructure. We are preparing the province for the LNG industry.

[1510]

One single plant will generate more provincial revenue than the entire forest industry. This is a means to secure our future. LNG will be a source of well-paying and good-quality jobs for generations. My constituents, many of whom rely on the natural resource industry for their occupations….

That’s why, on behalf of all of my constituents, of Anmore, Belcarra, Port Moody and Coquitlam, I am pleased to vote in favour of Bill 19.

D. Eby: If it wasn’t for that last line, I would have forgotten we were debating a bill here in the House that was making proposals around specific amendments to the rules around LNG. I would have thought that we were hearing a two-minute statement about the government’s aspirations.

In any event, let’s talk about the bill. There’s a reason why the member doesn’t want to talk about the bill. There’s a very good reason. It’s because it’s terrible legislation. It’s embarrassing legislation for this government.

This new bill, Bill 19, the bill that’s on the table that the member didn’t want to talk about, amends the old bill that was passed in 2014, which is now law. That law, the Greenhouse Gas Industrial Reporting and Control Act gave a licence to industrial polluters to buy the right to dump as much carbon pollution into our atmosphere as they can afford. It’s now law in B.C. That’s the law. It was a very permissive law.

This law amends it to make those rules even more permissive. Now, in addition to creating, as they did with the old law, a system where the province sells a licence to pollute, it exempted all of the emissions, from the wellhead all the way to the plant — emissions associated with the extraction of the gas, the flaring of the gas at the well, fugitive emissions, venting of the gas, leaks from the pipelines. None of those were counted under the old bill. It’s as if the emissions didn’t exist — except, of course, that they actually do exist.

You know, if you want to pollute in British Columbia, it only costs $25 per tonne of carbon dioxide emitted under the old law that this government brought forward, that the new law amends and makes even more permissive. You can emit as much as you want. In fact, the cost might even be lower, because under the law, you can buy B.C. offsets at “market prices.” Well, there’s no market, so who knows what that means.

Keep in mind that this new law makes it even more permissive. It was February when the Minister of Environment for this province said of the old law — it was only a few months old, really — that it would have the very significant effect of blowing us right past our 2020 targets for greenhouse gas emissions, even if the companies don’t take advantage of this licence to pollute, which the province will sell them cheap.

Now, on February 29 — I’m going to quote the Minister of Environment — she said: “As I’ve said, and as the” — climate leadership — “report outlines, we are not in line to make our 2020 targets. The team, of course, recommends establishing a new 2030 target.”

The team the minister is talking about is B.C.’s climate leadership team. That team recommended a new 2030 target for polluting greenhouse gases. The old bill, which became law, was so weak and the emissions from these proposed plants so huge that we had to rewrite the target for our emissions.

This is the context for this bill that’s in front of us today, which weakens the old bill, which was so weak itself to start with. It wasn’t enough that the law was weak. It wasn’t enough that we had to rewrite the pollution target. More had to be done to let these companies pollute even more.

Two weeks ago the Premier chose a person who, in the time of Galileo, would have been leafletting to say that he should be put in prison for saying that the earth wasn’t the centre of the universe. In the time of Columbus, he would have been worried about Columbus sailing over the edge of the world. The Premier chose a former director of the climate-denying Fraser Institute to implement the new 2030 target.

This is a person who, when he was the editor of the Vancouver Sun, said that coal would be a great way for B.C. to generate electricity. He described global warming in 2008 as follows: “Global warming is the latest weapon in the West’s arsenal to subjugate and impoverish millions of people in the Third World.” Is it?

[1515]

Not satisfied by saying that global leaders who were stepping up to fight climate change were trying to impoverish the Third World, he went on to say: “Western politicians have now grabbed the global warming club to beat up the developing world. By using this moral high ground, saving the planet, they can claim they are just trying to do the right thing and that it has nothing to do with erecting barriers to trade. Then again, the old colonialists justified their racist behavior by arguing that they were just trying to civilize the savages.”

So after comparing leaders taking action on climate change to racists, after recommending dirty coal power for electricity in British Columbia, of all places, Mr. Mihlar was appointed the head of B.C.’s oil and strategic initiatives division, responsible for seeing oil development in B.C. Now where is he? He’s the leader of B.C.’s climate action team.

[ Page 11861 ]

Well, congratulations to him, but what about the rest of us? The Premier put a man who thinks we should burn coal for energy in charge of her climate action team, on top of a bill that sells the right to pollute as much as these companies want — astounding.

We can see how this will turn out, how it’s been designed to turn out. Now we get this bill. That is the context for this bill in front of us in the Legislature.

At least under the old law, the government could argue that polluters had to buy a licence to dump as many greenhouse gases as they wanted into the atmosphere in B.C.: $25 a tonne, or cheaper if it’s market prices. Now, under this new bill, you don’t even have to buy the right to pollute anymore. Polluters get the first 18 months free. Unlimited pollution for 18 months. It’s like a desperate cell phone company, but it’s not. It’s our government. But they certainly are desperate.

They’ve already offered super-deep discounts on the royalties. They’re doing a royalty giveaway. “Hey,” says this government, “hold on. It’s worth it if there’s at least one LNG plant to talk about during the election in May 2017. Give away anything. Dump as much pollution as you want into our atmosphere. Just build one plant, someone, anyone, please. Please.”

Now, some members of this place may remember something called the Pacific Carbon Trust. Remember that? Under that debacle, money was transferred from hospitals and schools to oil and gas companies, supposedly in a bid to make government carbon-neutral. The schools and hospitals could have spent the money putting in insulation, replacing their windows, doing desperately needed retrofits on their own facilities to reduce their emissions. Instead, the government said, “Take the money that’s supposed to be spent on students, on the sick, and send it to Encana,” a highly profitable gas company.

The scam was called a scam by the Auditor General, as it should have been, and the whole thing collapsed on itself in a scandalous outrage, as it should have. Well, here we are in this bill, as if that wasn’t enough, with the return of the Pacific Carbon Trust,

part

Section 6 of the new bill opens this proposed B.C. Carbon Registry to companies and municipalities. In other words, the same discredited model of the Pacific Carbon Trust is haunting us again: new fictional carbon credits, the same government that gave out dubious carbon credits to Encana and this Darkwoods project, things that were already going to be done. Carbon credits were created and then sold to hospitals and schools. This government’s going to allow these fake carbon credits to be sold to LNG companies as a licence to pollute.

I said a couple times that these are fake credits. I don’t say that lightly, because cap-and-trade is a serious thing. There is a cap-and-trade market. California is participating in it. Quebec is participating in it. It’s being explored by Washington and Oregon. We were actually, under legislation, part of that — audited carbon credits that were looked at by a third party to make sure they were real, that they weren’t fake. Bill 2, the old bill, that this government passed into law, specifically repealed our participation in that real system.

Now we have our own system. After failing once, we’re going to do it again: fake credits in, real polluting emissions out. What a debacle.

[1520]

I’ll be voting against this desperate, Hail Mary pass of a government weakening already nonexistent standards around pollution — 18 months of unlimited pollution into our atmosphere; giving away our public resource at record-low rates; putting a man who advocates burning coal for electricity and calls leaders taking action on climate change akin to racists as the head of their climate action team; reconstituting a discredited carbon credits scheme that ended in scandal.

They even want to build an LNG plant right on top of the Eelgrass beds essential for juvenile salmon — wild salmon that are the heritage of First Nations and the right of our children, our children’s children and their children — on the mighty Skeena River. This government will do anything to get at least one plant. Mark my words. They will do anything to get that plant, and this bill is evidence of that.

Why are they so desperate? Because the real economy, not the plants that don’t exist but the real economy — the mills, the mines of these same areas where the plants are proposed — is tanking. This government needs to do something — anything — even if it’s a giveaway, even if it’s a polluting disaster, even if it destroys a precious natural resource.

Let me make a list of just some of the mines and mills closed over the last 18 months. These are closures decimating the economic base of rural B.C. where these plants are proposed: the salmon cannery in Rupert, Wolverine mine, Willow Creek mine. Trend and Roman mines, 380 jobs there. Quintette, 80 jobs. Mount Polley — oh, reopened. Myra Falls, 300 jobs. MAX Moly, 65. Gibraltar, 114. Highland Valley, 80 jobs. Treasure Mountain, 20 jobs. Avino Silver and Gold Mines, 60 jobs. Coal Mountain Phase 2, 100 jobs. Quinsam, 66. Yellow Giant — I don’t know how many people were working there — a lot. Huckleberry, 100 jobs.

HD Mining — now, those are 51 temporary foreign workers, but still…. Canal Flats sawmill, Houston Forest Products sawmill, Elk Falls paper mill, Howe Sound newsprint mill, Chetwynd Mechanical Pulp mill and the partial closure of the Howe Sound Pulp and Paper Corp.

Now, commodity prices are low, but hydro rates, B.C.’s advantage for decades, are up 74 percent from 2001 to 2015. That hurts all of these companies badly, clearly. And while the government, in this bill and in others, has been falling all over itself to get the government of Malaysia over here — and their Crown corporation Petronas — to

[ Page 11862 ]

take our gas for record-low prices, to dump whatever pollution they want into our atmosphere for 18 months for free…. They have been engaging in this conduct while the real occupations, the real jobs, the real mills, the real mines of people of British Columbia are closing. They are desperate, and they are looking for help.

Now, that’s a tough political message in 2017. A politically desperate government is dangerous to the public interest. That’s what we are facing here in this bill — a disaster for the public interest put forward by a desperate government. I’ll be voting against this bill.

L. Throness: It’s a pleasure to stand in my place today and speak to Bill 19, which is the Greenhouse Gas Industrial Reporting and Control Amendment Act. That’s quite a mouthful. It amends the Greenhouse Gas Industrial Reporting and Control Act. It’s a new act,

an act that only came into force on January 1 of this year,

an act that has never before been used — but will be, we trust, soon. That act, as well as the one before us today, the amendment act, is all about clean LNG.

The act enables performance standards to be set for industrial facilities or sectors for the purpose of upholding our province’s commitment to having the cleanest liquefied natural gas operations in the world. I want to talk a bit about how we achieve that.

First, I have been skeptical, and I remain skeptical, about human-caused global warming. I prefer, instead, to think in terms of reducing pollution. I understand and appreciate the value of LNG in reducing pollution around the world. But insofar as it is necessary to deal with greenhouse gas emissions in order for this project and this industry to go forward, I’m happy to take some water with my wine and speak in support of this bill, because I’m looking to the end. I’m looking to the goal. I’m looking to help build, with our caucus, an industry in B.C.

[1525]

I want to point out that China is the largest producer of coal in the world. They have 11,000 coal mines in China, and they’ve announced that they’re shutting some thousands of those coal mines. What are they going to replace that coal with? They’re going to have to replace it with something. We want to replace that fuel, of course, with clean-burning LNG. It only makes sense, for China and for other countries in Asia and for us, to do that.

To do that, we have set a greenhouse gas emissions benchmark for LNG facilities in B.C. That benchmark is a low one. It’s 0.16 tonnes of CO 2 per tonne of LNG produced. How do we get there? We get to that low level through efficient plant design and through investing in emissions reductions or clean technologies. A producer that meets this goal will have a clear claim as the world’s cleanest LNG facilities.

Now, how do we know that? We in the B.C. government have studied the greenhouse gas emissions of leading LNG facilities around the world. We’ve looked at independent research done around the world, and we’ve established that benchmark, resulting from that information. We know that there is no other LNG facility in the world that will have GHG emissions — the requirements to reduce them — as stringent as we will.

Allow me to talk for a moment just about the benchmark. A benchmark is a regulatory tool. It sets an absolute limit on greenhouse gas emissions for every unit of LNG produced. But at the same time, it allows for the growth and the development of an LNG industry in B.C. We’re not throwing out the industry because it’s not perfect. We’re going to control it instead.

How do we administer that benchmark? Well, LNG companies are required, by regulation attached to the act, to report all of their greenhouse gas emissions for every facility that they operate. That includes emissions from natural gas turbines, of course, used in the liquefaction process, which is an energy-intensive process. It includes emissions from electricity generation, from CO 2 venting, from fugitive GHG emissions and other areas.

We’re making the benchmark as flexible as possible. We’ve already made it as flexible as possible in three ways. First, it allows facility operators to choose between investing in GHG emissions reductions at their facility or elsewhere in B.C. Second, facility operators can lower their GHG emissions by adopting more efficient technologies or using clean energy like electricity. To give an example, the facility proposed in Squamish plans to use B.C. Hydro’s clean electricity to power its plant. That, of course, would lower its GHG emissions by a huge amount.

The third way…. If it’s not economically favourable to immediately reduce facility GHG emissions enough to meet the benchmark, a producer will be able to invest in GHG emission reduction projects, which we call offsets, across the province or purchase funded units that contribute to clean technologies. So we have flexible options — including purchasing compliance units, offset units, earned credits and funded units — under the Greenhouse Gas Industrial Reporting and Control Act.

In these flexible ways, the benchmark provides an economically efficient path — and that’s an important consideration — to meeting the province’s goal of having the cleanest LNG facilities in the world.

That’s the Greenhouse Gas Industrial Reporting and Control Act, but we are amending it. We’ve been consulting with the industry, and we think that there are changes that we can make out of the gate before the industry even begins, to give regulated, as well as non-regulated, operations even more choices and more flexibility in order to meet our targets.

To be clear, this is not about going easy on companies. It’s not about going hard on the environment. This is about innovation. This is about flexibility. This is about meeting a goal. It’s about creating a new industry, so we are encouraging new approaches, innovative approaches, to managing emissions even while we maintain our

[ Page 11863 ]

greenhouse gas emission benchmark that will make B.C.’s LNG the cleanest in the world.

The proposed amendments before us today are the fruit of ongoing negotiations with the LNG sector. They support the commitments the government has made to industry, to First Nations and to the public. Although LNG is not yet a reality in B.C., we need to get it right from the start because of the incredible benefits that can accrue to all British Columbians. I want to point out here, as I’ve done before, that B.C. taxpayers have not risked anything in getting to this point. There’s no reason for us not to pursue this industry with great energy and drive because it can only benefit our province. There’s no downside risk to it; there’s only a benefit to the citizens of B.C.

[1530]

Let’s talk directly about the act for a moment. In particular, the government is proposing three broad amendments. They’re a result of ongoing negotiations to give regulated and non-regulated operations more choices and flexibility. What will the amendments do if they’re passed? This is what we intend to accomplish.

There’s an initial compliance period defined in the law as it stands now. This act will redefine the first compliance period and allow new regulated operations, such as LNG facilities, to apply for a longer initial compliance period to allow for testing and other initial activities that may temporarily produce higher GHG emissions while production of LNG is low.

Second, we’re going to allow non-regulated operations to join the B.C. Carbon Registry to buy, to transfer, to retire offsets. That will help them to fulfil partner commitments and to meet voluntary commitments. So we’re broadening the scope there to make sure that more operations can benefit.

Finally, more of a minor amendment to correct a transitional piece of the Greenhouse Gas Industrial Reporting and Control Act to make sure that government’s carbon-neutral requirements are met.

Let me explain these three amendments in turn and in greater detail. Currently, under the Greenhouse Gas Industrial Reporting and Control Act and its regulations, there are no allowances for new regulated operations such as LNG facilities during start-up when emissions are higher and production is lower than during the full state of production. It takes time to ramp up production. During that period, new LNG facilities may have, temporarily, higher emissions and lower production associated with start-up.

Facilities will now have a longer first compliance period to provide time to normalize production and their emissions. Of course, they will meet the benchmark at the end of this first compliance period. Should the legislation before us pass, new LNG facilities can apply for a longer compliance period of up to 18 months before having to pay compliance costs. It will allow for testing and other initial activities that may, as I said, temporarily produce higher GHG emissions and lower production.

After the first period, I want to emphasize, all facilities would be subject to a regular compliance period to meet the GHG emission intensity benchmark that we have set and that we will hold them to over time.

The second amendment is additional account holders to the B.C. Carbon Registry. The B.C. Carbon Registry was established under the Greenhouse Gas Emission Control Regulation, and it enables the issuance, the transfer and the retirement of compliance units on an electronic trading platform. Currently the act only allows regulated operators, such as LNG operators, to buy and to retire funded units.

If these amendments pass, the B.C. Carbon Registry would be opened up to include non-regulated entities such as companies and municipalities. It would allow companies and municipalities to participate in the carbon market, to buy, transfer and retire offsets and to help fulfil partner commitments. For example, B.C. Hydro is not now under the B.C. Carbon Registry. By being part of the B.C. Carbon Registry, B.C. Hydro would be able to meet its commitment to provide zero-emission electricity, although it’s pretty close to zero now, to LNG producers by purchasing offsets or funded units and transferring those units to LNG producers.

The final amendment is more of a minor one. It’s a transitional provision. It’s a purely technical matter that would correct a transitional piece of the Greenhouse Gas Industrial Reporting and Control Act to make sure that the government’s carbon-neutral requirements are met.

These are the three broad amendments that will be considered under this act. I would certainly encourage all members to vote for them.

I want to talk for a moment about the industry in a broader sense. Natural gas is the cleanest-burning fossil fuel. Natural gas is increasingly a part of our global market and increasingly replacing dirtier oil and coal. Natural gas is part of the answer to a cleaner planet. But the liquefaction of natural gas is an energy-intensive and emissions-intensive process. Herein lies a problem for the opposition.

[1535]

I want to note that in the Globe and Mail yesterday, the headline was: “B.C. NDP Opposes Proposed LNG Plant.” This is what it said, in a headline above the fold in this national newspaper: “In a decision that the B.C. New Democratic Party shared only with federal regulators and its environmental supporters” — not in a press release — “the opposition has officially rejected the proposed Pacific NorthWest LNG plant near Prince Rupert.” They did so in a letter to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency. That letter was dated March 10, several weeks ago. The B.C. NDP leader and his Environment critic signed it and said that, in their view, the project was deficient.

I don’t really understand that. This is not just an off-hand comment by a rogue MLA. This is an official letter on NDP letterhead, signed by their leader and by the

[ Page 11864 ]

Environment critic, that they oppose this project. I’m trying to get inside the heads of the opposition to figure out what’s going on in their minds. I think: “In whose interest is this letter, this decision that the NDP have made?”

Let me go through it. Is it in the interests of the planet? Well, no. If this project doesn’t go ahead, more coal will be burned in China out of their 11,000 coal mines, and elsewhere there are coal mines. The planet will be a dirtier, more polluted place as a result. So it’s not in the interests of general humanity and the environment. It’s certainly not in the interests of 1.4 billion people in China that the LNG industry not go forward in B.C.

Well, then, is it in the interests of Canada, our nation? Well, LNG is as big as the oil sands. It’s possibly as big as the oil sands, and it’s cleaner than the oil sands. LNG would produce billions for federal and provincial coffers. There would be jobs for people all over Canada, opportunity, development, and still, there would be lower emissions than the production of oil. So I would submit that it’s not in the interests of our nation.

Is it in the interests of B.C.? I would argue that it is not. There are thousands of families, perhaps hundreds of thousands of British Columbians, who will be able to enjoy a high standard of living because of LNG. Health care and other social programs would benefit. We’d have lower debt. We’d have more infrastructure. We’d have less poverty. We’d have more housing. All of the things that the opposition loves would be made more possible because of LNG. We’d be able to develop the north more and make it as wealthy as the Lower Mainland. So it’s not in the interests of British Columbia that the NDP would oppose the Petronas deal.

Is it in the interests of the NDP themselves? At one time, they were concerned about the worker in B.C. But it seems that they are now unconcerned about the thousands of jobs, and many of them union jobs, that this project would create. I want to quote again from the Globe and Mail , which quotes Tom Sigurdson, executive director of the B.C. Building Trades Council.

This is what he said: “‘I’m very disappointed. The building trades have been working hard with LNG proponents to try to develop the industry in British Columbia,’ Mr. Sigurdson said in an interview…. The labour leader said he hopes to meet with the NDP MLAs next week to ask where the New Democrats would propose to support job creation in advance of the May 2017 election. ‘We’re going to have that conversation with the NDP caucus.’” Well, I would love to be a fly on the wall in that caucus meeting.

A couple of weeks ago there were pro-LNG rallies in Terrace, in Fort St. John, in Fort Nelson. I can only imagine how those working people who want to work in LNG, who participated in those rallies, would feel now about the NDP, knowing the headline in the Globe and Mail . So I would argue that this decision is not even in the interests of the NDP.

So whose interest is it in? I think it must be in the interest of the narrowest group in society, the hard ideological environmental bean-counters, who insist on hiding their eyes to the actual problems of pollution experienced around the world and narrowing their focus to one tiny jurisdiction in the world — B.C. They would happily ignore the interests of our province and our country and our planet in order to satisfy the purest legalistic dictates of environmental ideologues.

We are doing the most of any country in the world to have the lowest GHG emissions on the planet, and even this is not good enough for the NDP.

I feel very good that on this side of the House we understand the interests of workers and families in B.C. We understand the national interests and the global interests in getting this industry up and running, and we’re going to continue to work hard to seize this enormous opportunity that we have before us. This act is going to help us to get there, and that’s why I will support it.

[1540]

S. Hammell: I rise in the House to join the debate on Bill 19, the Greenhouse Gas Industrial Reporting and Control Amendment Act. This Bill 19 cannot be understood without realizing that it is really an amendment to Bill 2, which was tabled in the past, in 2014.

Just for the benefit of the member for Chilliwack-Hope, we, the opposition — although you may have forgotten, and you’re quite befuddled by it all — did vote against Bill 2. So when you are astonished, and you are confused about the NDP’s position, we actually voted against it in this House. I don’t know whether you weren’t here. Maybe you were somewhere else. But we’re very clear….

What also is a bit astonishing was that I almost heard — though I wouldn’t want to put words in your mouth….

Interjection.

S. Hammell: Oh, hey, settle down, settle down. Shocking, shocking. “You” — five times.

Deputy Speaker: Through the Chair.

S. Hammell: Yes, through the Chair. I can’t say “you.” I have to go through the Chair, right?

An Hon. Member: Third person.

S. Hammell: Third person. So no “you” down there, to the member for Chilliwack-Hope. I go through the Chair. How many is that now? Seven?

To the member for Chilliwack-Hope, through the Chair: Member, you almost sounded like a climate change denier. Is that correct? Through the Speaker, to the member for Chilliwack-Hope, do you…?

I mean, I understand that there are people in the government ranks that actually do not believe there is a thing called climate change, and that 97 percent of the

[ Page 11865 ]

scientists who have now come to agree with that position are all crazy, that really, climate change is not taking place, despite the fact — I think it was yesterday in the Vancouver Sun , or at least in the TNO — there was a description of a scientist who was doing work, flying across the province of British Columbia, and noticed how little snow there was on the mountain caps.

Now, I am sure that the member for Chilliwack-Hope is not a climate denier. I’m sure he really does understand there is peril and danger if we do not actually change our behaviour in terms of how we deal with our environment and the planet we live on, that we are quite capable of fouling the nest that we live in and that we actually have to change our behaviour and do things differently, hon. Speaker, through the Chair to the member, that then turns the way things are going in terms….

I know that I have seen, through the wild world of the video and all that…. I’m sure that all these videos could be phony. But we have actually seen the ice caps slewing off and the fact that the polar ice is reducing. I mean, my goodness, I think I understand that there’s going to be a major cruise ship going through the North Pole this year, the first time ever. Yet we don’t have climate change? There’s not something that we should be concerned about? We, as a province, should not be engaged in being very, very concerned about how much we are responsible for heating up the atmosphere?

It’s almost unbelievable. I digress, but not really too far, because Bill 19 is really allowing pollution from the LNG industry to accelerate. We are giving a greater period of time off in terms of having companies accountable for their pollution. We are allowing an increase in emissions.

[1545]

At this point in our history, particularly after we have seen this amazing conference in Paris, where people and countries from all over the globe were represented…. Unlike Copenhagen or unlike other major climate conferences, people really did understand that we were at the tipping point and that if we didn’t get control of our emissions, we would be in trouble. We, as people on this planet, would get into an acceleration of warming that we, even if we wanted to, could not decelerate.

We not only have allowed an increase in the emissions through this bill, we also have provided, through selling, a licence to pollute. I believe that there are people on the other side of the House that are as concerned about climate change and the warming of the planet as we are. I think you sell your soul when all you care about is getting something in the ground that, in the end, is destructive to our way of life.

We now have Bill 19 that actually weakens the control that we had around Bill 2. Before I leave — and again, referring to the member for Chilliwack-Hope, who I won’t refer to as “you” — there’s some sort of kerfuffle about some letter that went out.

I can actually look at…. The official opposition caucus has said repeatedly that the LNG development project proposed in B.C. must meet four criteria to be acceptable to British Columbians. This has a very strong echo of the pipeline coming from Alberta through British Columbia. I think there were five conditions that the Premier set that that pipeline had to meet. We’re not being quite that high in numbers. We’re only saying four.

One is that the projects must expressly guarantee jobs and training opportunities for British Columbians. I believe that the members opposite will want jobs for British Columbians. They keep saying so and saying so — although I’m not sure there’s any guarantee on Site C that those jobs will go to British Columbians, and I’m not sure what the guarantees are in terms of any potential economic development around the LNG industry in the north or on the coast.

We say, in this letter — that there seems to be some kind of shock at — that projects must guarantee jobs and training opportunities for British Columbians. I have no difficulty at all going to the public with that concern. That is a number one condition. I would think the members on the other side would celebrate that.

Second is that British Columbians must receive a fair return for the resources that belong to them. That means we shouldn’t give them away and get nothing in return. I think that’s been a kind of a shared position from all members on both sides of the House, that when you have the resources that actually belong to the people of the province, you shouldn’t just give them away. You should get a fair return to your province on behalf of those resources.

I’m sure there’s not very much disagreement from that side of the House. I mean, we’ve been very clear about that. I am sure you could find these arguments in the debates in 2014 when we dealt with Bill 2.

The government, as our third condition, must respect and make partners of First Nations and recognize their right to a share of any benefits that flow from the resource. Of course, that is in law now after the Supreme Court decision so this isn’t anything that is mysterious or something that should be worried about by the other side.

[1550]

It seems to me that…. I think we’ve even sort of detailed that a bit more. It says: “In particular, consideration of and decision-making for any project must recognize the aboriginal title and interest of First Nations and the prerequisites of consultation and consent which have been laid out in the Supreme Court of Canada decision.” We know what that means.

This is the law of the land. This is not something mysterious, not something secretive. I’m sure that, again, the members could have recognized some of these points in the debates that we had in 2014 around Bill 2.

Of course, the last and probably very pertinent part of this letter, which seems to have sort of distressed the members opposite: “B.C.’s land, air and water must be

[ Page 11866 ]

protected, and resource development should be as clean as possible.”

To me, these four qualifications or four conditions seem rather simple, rather straightforward. They’re almost like mother pie. I mean, projects must guarantee jobs for B.C. people. Who would be against that? Is there any member on the opposite side who would say, “I’m sorry. All the jobs must go somewhere else”? — the jobs and training opportunities for British Columbians. British Columbians have a fair share of the resources.

Now, we could quibble over what exactly a fair share is, but certainly the words “fair share” shouldn’t have any difficulty being endorsed, and the government must respect and make partners of the First Nations. Four,: “B.C.’s air, land and water must be protected.”

I’m not quite sure what the fuss about the letter is, because our position has been very, very clear. We voted against Bill 2 and for precisely the reasons around some of the issues. Again, I think that this discussion can only be understood if we put it in the context of 2016. We are well beyond wondering whether climate change is really happening. We’ve gone past that moment.

I know — or at least I’ve been told, or I’ve listened carefully — there are climate change deniers on the other side of the House, but I do not believe they are in the majority. I think that the vast majority of the government members believe that we do have a problem, and some of them are probably more than a little bit worried about the direction that the government is taking around the LNG development.

We know that we have climate change. We know we have to deal with it, and we are in a post–Paris talks situation where the target of a 1.5 increase has been accepted by the powers that be in this country. We have a senior government that has committed to 1.5, and we also know that a huge development and the development of the LNG industry will put strain against that commitment. It’s up to us to make sure that all of the conditions around the industry are conditions that ensure the future of British Columbians, their livelihood and their environment.

When the climate conference in Paris was on, we had the Minister of Environment and the Premier there talking up how good British Columbia was in terms of its climate goals, despite the fact that some of the goals and targets of the original plan won’t be met.

[1555]

I will quote the minister. This is February 29, 2016. This is the minister, speaking on behalf of the government. She said: “We recognize that our emissions are going up, and that’s why we need to take action. That’s why we’ve called a leadership team together, and I would thank them for their work.”

Our emissions are going up. I think that would be a concern to everybody, not only on this side of the House but on the other side of the House also. The Minister of the Environment went further, to say: “…we are not in line to make our 2020 targets.” So we have targets for 2020. We are in post-Paris, where we have a senior government that’s committed to a 1.5 percent increase, and we are not in line with our targets that are coming on line, on stream, in 2020.

Of course, what you immediately do, instead of knuckling down and bearing in and trying to rejig the operation so that you do meet your targets, is that you just make new targets for 2030. In essence, what you do is say: “We can’t make our targets. On behalf of the citizens of British Columbia, we cannot make our targets, and we will continue to pollute.” That is a serious, serious issue for all of us.

I’m going to quote the member for Vancouver-Fairview. “We have a government that on the one hand talks about a climate action plan and being a climate leader and, on the other hand, brings in legislation to govern an industry as if that industry would operate in complete and total isolation from the overall provincial climate plan, from commitments made by this government to control and reduce greenhouse gas emissions overall.”

On one hand, you say you’re going to be something. You go to Paris, and you talk about how great you are. On the other hand, you come back here and say you’re not going to meet your targets. You’re going to shoot them out longer, and you’re going to bring in regulations that allow an industry to pollute even more. Then you have some crazy system of dealing with offsets.

I think you can only understand this if you really understand the larger picture of where all of this has come from. I think you have to dial the clock back to 2013, where there were outlandish promises made by a desperate party trying to regain government. And it was successful. I mean, we are the opposition. The government is on the other side of the House, and key to part of its success was to make outrageous promises around the LNG industry, of which, to date, not one has come through. Twenty LNG plants — not one, not two, but 20. Trillions of dollars in economic activity, 100,000 jobs, a prosperity fund and no debt. My gosh. Unicorns and fairy dust.

We are now coming up to the next election, and the fairy dust hasn’t settled. There’s nothing at the end of the rainbow.

In desperation, what you do is you try to force a win, and to force a win, you make it easier and easier for the industry to come in, and there are consequences. Eighteen months before there has to be any measure of emissions. There are no real consequences or incentives for LNG facilities to watch their emissions, as there are amendments that allow the LNG facilities to apply for a longer compliance period of 18 months — 18 months that they do not have to comply with GHG regulations.

[1600]

Both Bill 2, 2014, and Bill 19, 2016, allow for offsets and/or technology fund contributions if LNG propon-

[ Page 11867 ]

ents exceed the emission benchmark. Essentially, the benchmark targets do not actually represent a real-time reduction in GHG, as they can be offset by other means.

The legislation provides LNG proponents with flexibility to meet those benchmarks. If proponents cannot reduce their GHG emissions to 0.16 CO 2 per tonne of LNG produced, they can either invest in B.C.-based offsets at market prices or contribute to a technology fund at a rate of $25 per tonne of CO 2 e.

But listen to this. They have opened the door for LNG proponents to invest these offset funds into companies owned and controlled by themselves. This double-dipping, not paying for excess emissions by spending money on offsets that they then get back into their pockets….

Facilities are permitted to emit as much GHG as they please, so long as they purchase offsets or technology fund contributions. There’s no cap on emissions for facilities. These offsets were estimated by the ministry to be complete in 2015, but to date, there still has been no framework created to see what the complex offset tech funds will look like.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

There are no emission regulations placed on upstream emissions — i.e., extraction, upstream combustion, flaring, fugitives and pipelines, which the Pembina Institute study says accounts for 70 percent of the GHG emissions in the LNG life cycle and are not covered by this legislation. The federal government has now focused on including upstream emissions in their latest energy plan.

There are real problems with this bill. It sits on top of a bill that was passed in 2014. I think that when it’s all said and done, all of us in this House, or most of us…. I really can’t say all of us. But I certainly would believe that most of us are concerned about the economy as well as about the environment in which the economy thrives.

The LNG industry, if it meets the criteria that we talked about in the letter…. I think I don’t need to repeat that. It’s very clear that there are four conditions under which an LNG industry would be welcome by this side of the House, but this particular example is not one that we think meets the test.

In completing my discussion and my

part in this debate, I just know that there are other ways to get to home. I think it is incredibly important that we build a strong economy. But I do not think we can pollute our way to prosperity. With that, I will take my seat, making it very clear that I do oppose Bill 19.

J. Thornthwaite: I am pleased to stand and rise in support of Bill 19, Greenhouse Gas Industrial Reporting and Control Amendment Act, 2016. But first, just to comment on a few of the item remarks that the previous speaker had spoken.

[1605]

B.C. is recognized as a leader in environmental leadership. We are. It’s a fact. We came up with the first revenue-neutral carbon tax. Jurisdictions all across the world are looking at us for how we were able to do that and grow our economy. Certainly, in responses to other bills and our budget and throne speech, many, many speakers talk about our fourth consecutive balanced budget. We were able to do that in addition to having a very progressive revenue-neutral carbon tax. So it’s a fact that British Columbia is a leader.

There was also a mention about Paris. Certainly, our Minister of Environment had told me, at a previous speech that I was preparing for, that in Paris, apparently we, British Columbia, were one of the only 14 jurisdictions in the world that