British Columbia Hansard — Wednesday, November 5, 2014

20141105pm-Hansard-v17n5

British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)

Th ird Session, 40th Parliament OFFICIAL REPORT OF DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY (HANSARD) THE HONOURABLE LINDA REID, SPEAKER ISSN 0709- 1281 (Print) ISSN 1499-2175 (Online) Wednesday, November 5, 2014 Aft ernoon Sitting Volume 17, Number 5

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CONTENTS Wednesday, November 5, 2014 Aft ernoon Sitting Page Routine Business Ministerial Statements ............................................................................................................................................................ 5225 Princess Patricia’s Canadian Light Infantry Hon. M. de Jong J.

Horgan Introductions by Members ..................................................................................................................................................... 5226 Introduction and First Reading of Bills ................................................................................................................................ 5228 Bill M206 — First Nations Heritage Protection and Conservation Act, 2014 M.

Karagianis Statements (Standing Order 25B) ......................................................................................................................................... 5228 Fall fairs and volunteers J. Tegart Dorothy Chambers and Colquitz Creek R. Fleming John Smith and city of Abbotsford S. Gibson St. Paul’s Hospital in Vancouver S. Chandra Herbert B.C. Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals D. Plecas Burnaby Neighbourhood House and community organizations in Burnaby J.

Shin Oral Questions ......................................................................................................................................................................... 5230 Confl ict-of-interest concerns regarding Advanced Education Minister J. Horgan Hon. A. Virk K. Corrigan D. Eby Granting of indemnities in multicultural outreach strategy L. Krog Hon. M. de Jong M. Elmore Hon. S. Anton M. Farnworth Horseshoe Bay–Nanaimo ferry route C. Trevena Hon. M. de Jong Grace Islet development and First Nations concerns G. Holman Hon. S. Th omson D. Donaldson B.C.

Cancer Agency and cancer treatment wait-lists J. Darcy Hon. T. Lake A. Dix Petitions .................................................................................................................................................................................... 5235 J. Kwan G. Holman

Orders of the Day Committee of the Whole House ............................................................................................................................................ 5235 Bill 2 — Greenhouse Gas Industrial Reporting and Control Act (continued) S. Chandra Herbert Hon. M. Polak A. Weaver V . Huntington

WEDNESDAY , NOVEMBER 5, 2014 Th e House met at 1:35 p.m. [Madame Speaker in the chair.] Routine Business Prayers. Ministerial Statements PRINCESS PATRICIA ’S CANADIAN LIGHT INFANTRY Hon. M. de Jong: Anyone, any member who has en- tered these buildings from the rear entrance by the library, will have noticed the engraved words on the parliament- ary library cornerstone, unveiled by His Royal Highness the Duke of Connaught in the early part of this century.

I mention that because today we are celebrating the achievements of another foundational institution in our nation’s history, for which the Duke of Connaught can claim a small but not insignifi cant contribution. It was a century ago when the guns of August erupted across Europe, when Montreal businessman Hamilton Gault deposited the princely sum, in those days, of $100,000 with the ministry of defence and was author- ized to raise an infantry regiment for war service.

He approached the then Governor General, the Duke of Connaught, and sought permission for the new regi- ment to bear the name of the Governor General’s daugh- ter. Th us was born the Princess Patricia’s Canadian Light Infantry. Within weeks the original complement of nearly 1,100 volunteers was aboard the Royal George, sailing for camp on Salisbury Plain in England. On this day 100 years ago the regiment was inspected by King George V before be- ing posted to France and becoming the only Canadian infantry regiment to serve in the European theatre in 1914.

It would not be the last time that the Pats would receive the attention of a grateful sovereign. What has followed is a century-long tale of duty, gallantry and sacrifi ce. Ypres, Arleux, Passchendaele, Mount Sorrel, Amiens, Flers- Courcelette, Canal du Nord, Vimy — all World War I battles where the Princess Pats carried their regimental fl ag into action and spilled their blood. When the guns mercifully fell silent on November 11, 1918, the Pats returned home to Canada.

A rifl e company was posted to Work Point barracks here in Esquimalt, marking the beginning of a PPCLI presence in Esquimalt that would last for 52 years, until 1993. When the world was again consumed by the destruc- tive fl ames of war, the Princess Pats were again called into action at places like Monte Cassino; San Fortunato, Rimini. In 1945 it was the Princess Pats who led the march into northern Holland — Apeldoorn, Amsterdam — and rescued a starving population whose hunger for basic nourishment was exceeded only by their thirst for freedom and liberation from fi ve years of Nazi oppres- sion.

Only a few years later, when the free world united in the cause of preserving the peace, Canada again called upon the Princess Pats to stand in harm’s way. In Korea they stood shoulder to shoulder with an army of peace- keepers from around the world.

At the Battle of Kapyong in April 1951, the second battalion became the only Canadian unit to receive from the U.S. the Presidential Distinguished Unit Citation for gallantry in the fi eld. [1340] Israel, Golan, Egypt, Lebanon, Kuwait, Iraq, Congo, Vietnam, Central America, Angola, Somalia, Rwanda, Korea, Croatia, Bosnia, Cyprus — all places where the savagery of war and confl ict has descended upon popu- lations and wrought destruction and death — all places where the men and women of the Princess Pats have been called upon to restore and maintain the peace.

Most recently, in Afghanistan, Kabul, Kandahar and the province of Paktia, the Pats confronted a new enemy, the Taliban and al-Qaeda, every bit as bent on the denial of freedom and fundamental human rights as any previ- ous enemy and every bit as deadly. Today we enjoy in this House the honour of being joined by those who have carved out the remarkable leg- acy that is the Princess Patricia’s Canadian Light Infantry. I’ d like to introduce them individually, sitting on the fl oor, to the chamber. Lt. Col.

John Bishop, aged 83, a Korea veteran with the Battle of Kapyong, where, as I mentioned, the presiden- tial distinction was bestowed. Maj. Chick Goodman, aged 88, a World War II and Korea veteran who was awarded the Knight of the French National Order of the Legion of Honour by the French government for his participation at Normandy. Maj. Murray Edwards, aged 94, a World War II veter- an and also a veteran of the Battle of Kapyong in Korea. Lt. Col. George Wilkinson, aged 96. Joined the PPCLI at Work Point barracks in Victoria in 1935.

MWO David Shultz, regular force veteran of Afghan- istan and the recipient of the Star of Valour for bravery in action while in Afghanistan. Capt. Robert Dodds, regular force veteran of Afghan- istan. Capt. Wayne Sauve, a regular force veteran of Afghan- istan. Capt. Dougall Salmon, president of the Victoria branch of the association. WO Ed Widenmaier, vice-president of the Victoria branch of the association. MCpl. Jim MacMillan-Murphy, secretary of the Victoria branch of the association. 5225

British Columbia Debates5226 Wednesday, November 5, 2014 Sgt. Bruce Dickey of the Victoria branch of the asso- ciation. MCpl. Chuck Gibson from the Victoria branch. Capt. Madeline Doll, former commanding officer of 2483 Princess Patricia’s Canadian Light Infantry Regiments Cadet Corps at Work Point barracks. Cadet MWO Nick Stefan, Cadet Corps at Work Point barracks. If the fabric of a national character is woven over many years, then the men and women of the PPCLI represent our strongest fi bres. Th ey have carved out a legacy that we as Canadians will be eternally proud and eternally grateful for.

But they have paid a terrible price. Th rough the bat- tles that I have mentioned, and others, 1,886 have fall- en, and many more wounded. Th ese veterans represent them, and we can say to them and through them, to the colleagues and comrades that did not return, we’ll never forget, and thank you. [Applause.] J. Horgan: It is a privilege to stand on behalf of the offi cial opposition and recognize and acknowledge the history of the Princess Patricia’s Canadian Light Infantry here today in the Legislature.

It’s rare that I follow the Finance Minister and the Government House Leader, and I’m at a loss for words at his eloquence today. I want to commend him for the heartfelt comments that he’s just made. Although I have two degrees in history, I won’t add to the story he told of the events of the hundred years that have gone by, but I will advise members of the House of the element that was left out of the history books in terms of days and events, and what happened at Ypres, what happened at Vimy, what happened at Normandy. [1345] It was the PPCLI that created Canada.

Although it happened on July 1, 1867, we were a colonial dominion in all intents and purposes. Anyone who studies history will understand that. It was the contribution of Canadian Forces in the First World War that made Canada a country. It’s renowned and it’s acknowledged across this country that it was the work and the tireless sacrifi ce of individuals in the fi rst war and again in the second — and, of course, in Korea and in peacekeeping missions since then and most re- cently in Afghanistan — that Canada became a country.

I want to commend the individuals that are here with us today and those who could not be with us for their sacrifi ce and contribution to that nationality, that na- tionhood that we all have the privilege and pride to be a part of. I also have the good fortune to be married to a Dutch woman. I’ve been to Holland, I’ve been to Normandy, and I’ve been through France. I’ve been through where many of the individuals in this House tread many years ago. And I tell you. Th ere’s nothing better than being a Canadian when you’re in the Netherlands — nothing better than that.

Also, if you have the good fortune to marry a Dutch woman and you are a Canadian, there’s not much that can go wrong aft er that, even if you’re an Irish ancestor. When you proposed to that woman, they thought you were a doctor, not a spin doctor. Th at was a bit of a dis- appointment for them as well. It was the work and the passion of our Armed Forces and, particularly, the Princess Pats that made Canada what it is today.

Again, I cannot add to the eloquence of the Government House Leader other than to say thank you from the bottom of our hearts on this side of the House, not just to those who are here but to the two members of the Sergeant-at-Arms staff who are PPCLI representatives. I know Noel Stone is one of them. Th e second one’s name was to come to me before I spoke, and it hasn’t yet arrived. But there are two, and I want to thank them both for their work and thank the Speaker for the opportun- ity to say thank you to those who are assembled with us here today.[Applause.] Introductions by Members Hon. S.

Anton: It gives me great pleasure to welcome today my constituent Mr. Kashmir Dhaliwal. Kashmir is the ex-president of the Khalsa Diwan Society, which makes its home in the Ross Street Temple. Th e Khalsa Diwan Society was formed in Vancouver in 1906 and is the oldest non-profi t Sikh society outside of India. He is joined by his friends and guests. Mr. Darshan Khaira is the ex-secretary to the premier of Punjab and the director of the Canadian Institute of Vocational Courses. He is also a farmer, Mr. Minister of Agriculture. He’s the president of the Holstein Association of India. Mr.

Khaira is joined by his daughter, Jatinder Kaur, who is the vice-president of the Canadian Institute of Vocational Courses and also the CEO of the Holstein Association of India. I hope that the House will make these guests very wel- come. M. Karagianis: It gives me great pleasure to introduce some guests here in the House today. Th ey are here to ob- serve the bill that I will be tabling shortly.

I would like to extend a special welcome to Tseycum First Nation Chief Vern Jacks, to Tseycum First Nation Councillor Josephine Joe and — I believe, in the precinct — to Westbank First Nation representative Nancy Bonneau. I hope the House will give them a welcome. It’s great to see them here to witness this bill being presented to- day, and I thank them for coming. Hon. A. Wilkinson: It’s a great pleasure to introduce to the House Mr. Paul Drohan, who serves as president of

British Columbia DebatesWednesday, November 5, 2014 5227 Life Sciences B.C., which is a very eff ective organization. Mr. Drohan does a remarkably good job of promoting life sciences and biotechnology here in British Columbia. Please welcome him. M. Mungall: In the House today we have Steve Atkinson with the Pacifi c Community Resources Society. He’s visiting us today. So may the House please make him a very warm welcome. L. Reimer: It’s my pleasure today to introduce three individuals who serve me and my other MLA colleagues on this side of the House so well.

Would the House please make Derek Robertson, Suneil Karod and Kadagn Klepsch very welcome. [1350] H. Bains: I also would like to join with the Attorney General in welcoming my friend of many, many years, Kashmir Dhaliwal, who was an activist in the IW A with me back in those days. He served on the longest-established Sikh organization outside of India, including being a president of that organization. He’s joined by his guest from India, Mr. Darshan Singh Khairan, and his daugh- ter Jatinder Kaur. Please help me welcome them to this beautiful House. D.

Plecas: Today in the House we have two wonder- ful people from one of our most beloved organizations in B.C., the BCSPCA. We have Erica Mattson, offi cer in charge of government relations, and David Budd, a board member. Please make them feel welcome. M. Elmore: I’m very pleased to welcome my friend, Gina Pinangat, today joining us. She’s a former member of the Armed Forces — originally enlisted in Montreal; served in Ottawa; and transferred to the Canadian Forces Base Esquimalt in 2005, where she worked as a com- munications and info systems technician.

She’s been the military co-chair of the visible minor- ity committee for the Department of National Defence, also volunteered with the Heart and Stroke Foundation, is a board member of the Bayanihan Centre and a member of the temporary foreign worker coalition in Victoria, which recently held a very well-attended forum supporting temporary foreign workers and calling for permanent immigration for all workers coming to B.C. She’s joined by Janet Plete, who’s visiting from Bologna, Italy — fi rst time in Victoria.

She’s a member in Italy of Liwanag, a Philippine women’s organization — she’s the auditor on the board — which is an organization that works for and supports full human rights for women and children in Italy. Th e two of them completed a medical outreach mission in the Philippines with three sessions in Benguet, Mountain Province, Iloilo, Pangasinan, in August. I ask everyone to please give them a very warm welcome. Hon. A. Virk: School district 36 in Surrey off ers its grade 9s an opportunity to accompany their parents to work today.

I’m joined by my favourite daughter, Maansi Virk, today and my wife — my bride of 25 years, fi ve months and two weeks — Jatinder Virk. J. Darcy: It’s a great pleasure today for me to welcome a friend of mine to the House, Susan Quip, now of Victoria, formerly of Mayne Island and of Vancouver, and, I must say, a superb massage therapist. Would the House please join me in welcoming her to this House. S. Hamilton: It’s my pleasure to rise in the House today and actually introduce someone who, to many people in this House, probably needs no introduction.

She joined Delta council, I think in 1971, as the fi rst fe- male alderman, so to speak. She has served her commun- ity for a very, very long time now. She is entering into her sixth term as Delta’s mayor and has, as a matter of fact, scared off all of her competitors. Oft en referred to as the Margaret Th atcher of local politics, I’ d ask the House please make welcome Mayor Lois Jackson. Mayor Jackson is here, accompanied by her chief ad- ministrative offi cer, George Harvie, and her executive assistant, Dona Packer, having discussions with our Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

I’ d ask the House please make the other two guests welcome as well. G. Holman: I would also like to welcome Chief Vern Jacks, who happens to be a constituent of mine. I hope Chief Jacks doesn’t mind me putting it in that way. Welcome to the House, Chief.

Also a number of other constituents are here to observe the reintroduction of a private member’s bill regarding the Heritage Conservation Act, all of whom have been involved in the Grace Islet issue: Donna Martin, Francis Hill, Leanna Boyer, Lori Waters, Christina Unity, Kevin Henry, Adam Olsen, Mark Coulter, Jean Wilkinson, John Waters, John Livingston and Larry Applebee. Would the House please make them feel welcome. [1355] Hon. C. Oakes: I t truly is my pleasure to recog- nize family members of the distinguished veterans and guests here today.

We have Noel Stone, Judy Moss, Hazel Widenmaier, Anne Marshall, Patrick Wilkinson, Kate Goodwin, Nancy Goodwin, Peter Chance, Bob and Amy Emmett, Lorraine Johnson, Jennifer Schultz, Arnie Levoie and Darrell and Marnie Connick. Would the House please help us make them feel welcome. L. Popham: It is my pleasure to introduce James Taylor to the Legislature today. James is Ojibway First Nations. He is originally from Curve Lake First Nations and now calls Saanich his home. James works with school district 63 as a First Nations education assistant. He is a trad-

British Columbia Debates5228 Wednesday, November 5, 2014 itional Ojibway knowledge- and drum-keeper, a story- teller and a medicine person. He is here today in support of the Grace Islet issue. S. Chandra Herbert: It gives me pleasure to welcome three constituents to this Legislature. I welcome Susan, Jules and Sofi a Shank Day. Sofi a is here, a grade 9 student, on Take Our Kids to Work Day. She’s not my kid, but she’s a great kid. I’m working on my kids, hon. Speaker. I do want to say thank you for coming to your Legislature. Please make them very welcome. B.

Routley: It’s a joy today to welcome Diane Hinckley, who’s here representing Cowichan Tribes. She’s here sup- porting the Honouring Grace Islet petition as well as to witness the heritage conservation act. Would the mem- bers please join me in making her feel very welcome. Introduction and First Reading of Bills BILL M206 — FIRST NATIONS HERITAGE PROTECTION AND CONSERV ATION ACT, 2014 M. Karagianis presented a bill intituled First Nations Heritage Protection and Conservation Act, 2014. M.

Karagianis: I move that a bill intituled First Nations Heritage Protection and Conservation Act, 2014, be introduced for a fi rst time now. Motion approved. M. Karagianis: I am pleased to introduce the First Nations Heritage Protection and Conservation Act. Th is represents the sixth time I’ve introduced this bill in this House, and once again I am very hopeful that the gov- ernment will recognize the need for these changes to the heritage act.

I fi rst brought this bill to the House in October 2007 aft er excavation by a contractor unearthed a First Nations heritage site along the shoreline of my constituency in View Royal. I was deeply troubled to discover a lack of provincial legislation to safeguard First Nations heritage objects and sacred sites. This bill will better protect First Nations heritage objects and sacred sites. Th e bill amends the Heritage Conservation Act to include a process by which First Nations can trigger protection acts when heritage and sacred sites and objects or remains are discovered.

I be- lieve that this bill amends the heritage act to better pro- vide a set of guidelines and tools for First Nations, local government, communities and the province in order to implement protection, stewardship and conservation of First Nations heritage and culturally signifi cant areas, their artifacts, their sacred history, as well as to provide for the creation of a program to accomplish that goal. Recent events on the First Nations burial grounds on Grace Islet serve to highlight the urgent need for better protection.

While most communities would be horrifi ed by the concept of building houses on top of cemeteries, First Nations burial sites have frequently been destroyed by highways and housing. It is wrong and unacceptable. I would therefore ask that all members of this House please read this bill and support it.

I would move that this bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House aft er today. [1400] Bill M206, First Nations Heritage Protection and Conservation Act, 2014, introduced, read a fi rst time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second read- ing at the next sitting of the House aft er today. Statements (Standing Order 25B) FALL FAIRS AND VOLUNTEERS J. Tegart: Th e leaves are changing, there’s a chill in the air, ranchers are bringing in their cattle, and farm- ers across the province are wrapping up the harvesting of their crops. Y es, it is fall.

It is that time of year when communities host local fall fairs featuring and celebrating local agri- culture communities. Th ey exhibit livestock, choice B.C.- grown fruits and vegetables, unique arts and craft s from skilled artisans in our communities and, yes, so many delicious treats made from recipes passed down from grandmothers to mothers to daughters. At every fair it’s important to recognize the number of volunteers who work throughout the year to ensure the fair goes off without a hitch. I myself was asked to judge at our local fall fair a number of years ago.

Th inking I might be tasting a product made from local grapes, I was quite excited. Little did I know that in the judging world you start your career off with the pickles — some sweet, some sour — and move on from there. Apparently, it’s a long process to fi nally get to be the wine taster. Y outh is also an important focus of any fall fair, with 4-H clubs across the province giving young people who are passionate about community service and the future of agriculture the chance to showcase their skills and talents at each participating fair.

I’ d like to recognize the Ashcroft Fall Fair and the Princeton and District Fall Fair for their successful seasons. I know that the volunteers are already at work preparing for next year’s event. I encourage all members in the House to visit one of the many fall fairs in our province next year.

British Columbia DebatesWednesday, November 5, 2014 5229 DOROTHY CHAMBERS AND COLQUITZ CREEK R. Fleming: I’ d like to take this opportunity to recog- nize an outstanding constituent of mine, Mrs. Dorothy Chambers. Dorothy is a longtime Gorge-Tillicum resi- dent, renowned across Saanich for her boundless energy and enthusiasm for environmental conservation. She has for many years been advocating for the precious wildlife that we have in the Gorge-Tillicum area and the need to care for that. Dorothy has helped establish a fi sh- counting fence on the Colquitz Creek in Cuthbert Holmes Park.

She has created education programs for school kids to learn about the ecological diversity within our urban boundaries, and she’s put countless time and energy into helping recover what was once in Saanich the largest great blue heron rookery on all of Vancouver Island. Dorothy’s eff orts have been eff ective for a couple of reasons. One is that she knows how to get attention. She also knows how to build partnerships.

In 2006 — dur- ing one of the many unfortunate recent oil spills that we’ve had in the Colquitz River — Dorothy realized, as she was helping to remediate birding habitat for cleanup, that there were volunteers who were compiling data on the rivers, counting salmon — salmon that no one else seemed to know about. So she teamed up with community activists Chris Bos and Barry Goodwin that year, and they started an edu- cation society to teach the community, young and old, about the value of this unknown and neglected spawn- ing ground. Yo u o ft en see Dorothy spending her days and evenings down at Colquitz Creek.

She can tell you anything about this hidden treasure — where the beavers build their dams, where the great horned owl has most recently been seen. While she’s nearing retirement as a nurse, Dorothy is busier than ever. I know I speak for a lot of people in saying how thankful we are for her leadership role to im- prove her community through her devotion to environ- mental protection. Her work is unsung. It is not done for recognition or rewards, although it deserves both.

It is my pleasure to have her here in the Legislature — to recognize her in some fashion and potentially embar- rass her a little bit here today — to sincerely pass on my thanks to Dorothy Chambers, to the wildlife and fi sh- ery organizations that she works alongside to make sure that the Colquitz waterway continues to be beautiful and abundant for future generations. JOHN SMITH AND CITY OF ABBOTSFORD S. Gibson: I was in a major stationery store the other day, and at the back of the store there was a simulated business card over the printing department.

It read: “John Smith, Anytown, B.C. ” Well, I want to introduce to this House today the real John Smith, the authentic John Smith of Abbotsford, B.C. John may have a common name, but he made an un- common contribution to the community which he called home for so many years. His command of the English language was legion and enhanced dramatically by his charming Downton Abbey accent. [1405] John served on school board from 1981 to 2005, in- cluding 12 years as chair. He later found an aff ection for civic government and served for three terms on Abbotsford council.

As a colleague, I always appreciated his strong com- mand of the issues and his money management skills. John was a banker and rose to a senior regional position with HSBC. As well as school board and council, he served on numerous boards and committees, Abbotsford parks and rec, the career technical centre, the Fraser Valley regional district, the chamber of commerce, the Agricultural Advisory Committee and many others. John is retiring to spend more time gardening with his wife, Judy, on his beautiful Sumas Prairie acreage. His service will be missed by hundreds, indeed, thousands of our residents.

A big thank you to John Smith for your signifi cant con- tribution to the life of Abbotsford. It’s been a privilege to work with you, and I am proud to call you a friend. ST. PAUL ’S HOSPITAL IN V ANCOUVER S. Chandra Herbert: When Canadians are asked what one of their proudest achievements is for our country, many will say public universal health care, and indeed, in the West End it’s no diff erent. We are proud of St. Paul’s Hospital and especially of the world-class, world-leading health care that is provided there.

We are proud that it’s not the size of your bank account that matters but just that you need health care, to get it. Many in this House and, indeed, across B.C. will not know, though, that St. Paul’s Hospital in many ways is B.C. ’s hospital, with 40 percent of the patients treated there coming from across this province. Indeed, many if not all of your constituents have been served at one time, I should say, at St. Paul’s Hospital. Th at’s why I speak about helping St. Paul’s today.

Our hospital facilities are, admittedly, old, with two-thirds of the buildings facing severe or extreme risk of fail- ure should we have an earthquake. Th e hospital needs revitalization. Together, as MLAs, we must make that happen. But while our community continues to call for revitalization, they haven’t backed down from improv- ing it today. I speak of constituents like Dean Th ulner, who through his brilliant fundraiser brings together the fashion indus- try, stylists and more to raise over $300,000 every year to help support mental health. I speak of the St.

Paul’s Hospital Foundation, which last year raised nearly $23 million for the hospital and whose Lights of Hope cam-

British Columbia Debates5230 Wednesday, November 5, 2014 paign, which goes live November 27, aims to raise $2.4 million with that event alone. Th e volunteers who donate countless hours and, of course, the staff , who with hard work and perseverance, push those obstacles away to en- sure that patients get good-quality health care. St. Paul’s Hospital. It’s an incredible place, but it needs our help. Th ank you to all who make it one of the best hospitals despite it being one of B.C. ’s oldest. Now we must work together to make it even better. B.C. SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS D.

Plecas: I rise in the House today to speak about the B.C. SPCA and the important work they do to protect animals from abuse and cruelty. As we all know, British Columbians are passionate about animals. Th ey love their pets. In fact, some of you might want to know that there is research to show that people love their pets more than they do their spouses. I know that doesn’t apply to the spouses in this House, but at the very least it speaks to the reason why the SPCA is so important to us. Th anks to the work that they do to investigate reports of animal cruelty and enforce animal cruelty legislation, the B.C.

SPCA is able to assist tens of thousands of ani- mals in distress each year, and this includes the adoption of nearly one quarter of a million animals over the last ten years, put into new homes. But the SPCA is about far more than protecting our furry friends at home. Th ey are also recognized across the country for their work in farm animal welfare and wildlife expertise. Th e SPCA animal rehabilitation centre, Wild ARC, located in Metchosin, provides direct care to over 2,000 injured wildlife each year. [1410] Th e B.C.

SPCA also developed national farm animal care standards to improve the quality of life to more than a million farm animals raised in B.C. each year. Remarkably, all of this happens through the funding from some 80,000 donors each year here in B.C. Let us add to that by being supportive in any way we can, and let us encourage all British Columbians to sup- port this great organization and the important work that they do. BURNABY NEIGHBOURHOOD HOUSE AND COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS IN BURNABY J. Shin: Last month Burnaby Neighbourhood House threw a party because it fi nally has the space to host one.

Aft er 15 years of operating out a of tiny warren of run- down rooms, they moved to 8,500-square-foot digs in the brand-new Metrotown Community Resource Centre, developed by Intracorp as part of the city of Burnaby’s bonus-density program.

In this new community amenity space, which you can now see right across from the SkyTrain station, you will fi nd a dedicated classroom for computer and language training; a generous area for children’s care programs, like the very popular parent-child drop-in; a comfortable lounge for youth and seniors to use; meeting alcoves for one-on-one counselling and tutoring; and even a stretch along the hallway for stroller parking. It’s not just the happy faces at Burnaby Neighbourhood House that you’ll see in Metrotown Community Resource Centre.

Th e National Congress of Black Women, the YMCA child care resource centre and the B.C. Centre for Ability have also been awarded occupation, all with ac- cess to an expansive banquet hall with a fully equipped commercial kitchen to serve 140 seated guests for com- munity fundraisers and celebrations.

All of this just a few months after the opening of the new Brentwood Community Resource Centre in Burnaby North for organizations like MOSAIC, Burnaby Community Services, Burnaby Meals on Wheels, the YMCA of Greater Vancouver and, of course, the open- ing of the new Edmonds Community Centre in Burnaby- Edmonds last year. It’s one good-news aft er another in three out of the four corners in Burnaby.

I can’t wait to see, personally, the redevelopment of the Lougheed Mall area in my con- stituency, in the city’s partnership with Shea Properties, to bring even more good news for our community in Burnaby, because our incredible volunteers so deserve safe and comfortable environments to continue their valuable work. I would like to thank the city of Burnaby once again for another good job well done and for their continued com- mitment to the vital social programs and services that our residents depend on.

Of course, a big congratulations to all the organizations who have found their deserving home at the three new community centres in Burnaby. Y ou’ll look forward to all the wonderful activities and projects to come in serving our community together. Oral Questions CONFLICT-OF-INTEREST CONCERNS REGARDING ADV ANCED EDUCATION MINISTER J. Horgan: Y esterday in this House we raised issues around a freedom-of-information request that we had obtained — information with respect to the Minister of Advanced Education requesting from his former board- appointed university, Kwantlen College, an indemnity. Now, I know B.C.

Liberals are familiar with indemni- ties, but not all people watching today will know what those are. Th at’s a taxpayer-funded lawyer. We have the curious case of the Minister of Advanced Education, aft er he has left the board of Kwantlen College, requesting

British Columbia DebatesWednesday, November 5, 2014 5231 from Kwantlen College the costs of a lawyer to protect him from some lawsuit not yet named. My question to the Minister of Advanced Education is: does he believe that the students at Kwantlen College are getting best value for their money for their post-secondary education by fi nding him a good lawyer? Hon. A. Virk: Well, the Leader of the Opposition is correct, in one way, that I was a member of a university board and was also informed that that university was involved in a civil case.

Indeed, I did inquire about in- demnifi cation, but I think the member of the opposition needs to know that I have not received any compensation. In fact, I have paid my own legal costs. In fact, since the summer 2013 I have been in contact with the Confl ict of Interest Commissioner and have kept them apprised of these matters. In fact, I have also asked the Confl ict of Interest Commissioner for clarifi cation on the payment of legal costs. Madame Speaker: Leader of the Offi cial Opposition on a supplemental. [1415] J. Horgan: Again, I’m curious.

Th e minister, who is now responsible for overseeing Kwantlen College, re- quested from Kwantlen College an indemnity. Now, that is a pretty glaring confl ict of interest, and I’m anxious to have the minister table any correspondence he has from the Confl ict of Interest Commissioner in this regard. We’re aware of it now that he’s mentioned it in this House. Maybe he could show us the money when it comes to what exactly the confl ict commissioner has said. Let’s go back to some of the other issues at play here, hon. Speaker.

Y ou will know that early in the spring of this year the member for Vancouver–Point Grey posed some questions to the minister responsible for Kwantlen College about executive compensation and full disclo- sure. Th e minister at that time said that was an outra- geous and outlandish suggestion. We know now — because of the good work of the Minister of Finance staff , a government review — that in fact those rules were broken and that in fact the minister responsible now for upholding those rules couldn’t do so when he was in the position of being a board member. My question to him is….

Surely to goodness it was past time in June, when this report was tabled, for you to re- sign. Why don’t you do the right thing today and resign? Hon. A. Virk: Surely the Leader of the Opposition knows that Kwantlen College became Kwantlen Polytechnic University a number of years ago. Nevertheless, in the summer of 2013 I was in contact with the Confl ict of Interest Commissioner and kept him apprised of the civil proceedings. In addition, I have asked the Confl ict of Interest Commissioner for clarifi cation in terms of the aforementioned legal costs as well.

Madame Speaker: The Leader of the Official Opposition on a supplemental. J. Horgan: I guess that the Minister of Advanced Education doesn’t get the gravity of the situation. We have the bizarre reality that the board he used to be a member of is now investigating him. Th e board that he used to be a member of is investigating him while he is responsible for overseeing them. I can appreciate that the Premier doesn’t recognize that that’s a glaring confl ict, but surely to goodness the minis- ter does. Wouldn’t it be the right thing to do to step aside until the air has been cleared?

Y ou raise now confl ict-of- interest allegations that have been put to the member re- sponsible for that. We haven’t seen any of that. Th ere’s a big cloud over your head, Minister. Step down. Madame Speaker: Members will direct their com- ments through the Chair. Hon. A. Virk: Once again the Leader of the Opposition has bundled a number of things together.

Th e Kwantlen Polytechnic University review has been ordered by the president to do an internal examination of their practi- ces, and in fact, the president of Kwantlen Polytechnic University has made it quite public that everything they can make public will be made public. K. Corrigan: Surely the situation the Leader of the Official Opposition raised and which we have been raising in this House several times over the last several months meets the very defi nition of a confl ict of inter- est.

As the minister decides next year’s operating grants to post-secondary institutions, including Kwantlen, the minister expects Kwantlen University to cover his de- fence costs for lawsuits that he anticipates he will be in- volved in. My question is to the Minister of Justice. Has she advised the Premier that the Minister of Advanced Education is in a confl ict of interest? Hon. A. Virk: Th e Confl ict of Interest Commissioner is the competent body to make that ruling, not the mem- ber opposite.

Since the summer of 2013 I have been in contact with the Confl ict of Interest Commissioner and kept him apprised of the legal proceedings occurring at that university, in fact. [1420] I have written him additionally for clarifi cation on the payment of costs as well. Madame Speaker: Th e member for Burnaby–Deer Lake on a supplemental. K. Corrigan: Well, I wonder at what point it comes that the Minister of Justice needs to be involved in this

British Columbia Debates5232 Wednesday, November 5, 2014 case because of the very serious confl ict of interest and the fact that this minister is refusing to step down under these circumstances. Th e Minister of Justice cannot be blind to the fact that keeping this minister in cabinet cre- ates a confl ict of interest in more ways than one. It must be a historical fi rst in B.C. ’s post-secondary sector that the Kwantlen University board is investigat- ing the very member of cabinet responsible for both ap- pointing them and funding them. Th e situation clearly puts the credibility of this investigation at risk.

As government’s chief legal adviser, can the Minister of Justice please explain how a cabinet member who is under investigation by a board he appoints and who ex- pects to be the subject of a lawsuit can continue to exer- cise authority over that institution? Hon. A. Virk: Again, the Conflict of Interest Commissioner is the competent authority to determine the suggestions from the member opposite. I have not received any compensation for legal fees and, in fact, have paid my own fees.

Indeed, as I said before, I have again written to the Conflict of Interest Commissioner for clarifi cation on the payment of legal fees. D. Eby: A very simple question to the Minister of Advanced Education. When did he contact the Confl ict of Interest Commissioner about the indemnity issue? Hon. A. Virk: I know the member opposite certainly has prepared questions. He hasn’t heard what I’ve said. I have not received compensation. I have kept the Confl ict of Interest Commissioner, since the summer of 2013, ap- prised of the legal matters being faced with Kwantlen Polytechnic University.

GRANTING OF INDEMNITIES IN MULTICULTURAL OUTREACH STRATEGY L. Krog: Well, between Mr. Basi, Mr. Virk, Ms. Mentzelopoulos and the Minister of Advanced Education making the inquiries, this is truly becoming a lawyered- up government. Th ey’ve got their hands out to taxpayers, but it doesn’t stop there.

According to the Ministry of Finance’s report on government indemnities for the fi scal year ending March 2013, the Minister of Finance granted “an indem- nity agreement for two individuals with regards to activ- ities surrounding a draft multicultural strategic outreach plan prepared in 2011 and early 2012. ” To the Minister of Justice: two lucky individuals in- volved in the quick-win scandal granted indemnities, their legal bills paid by taxpayers — who are they? Hon. M. de Jong: I think the hon. member knows — in fact, I’m sure he does — that there is a process for the approval and granting of indemnities.

With respect to the specifi c question that he’s posed, I’ll endeavour to get an answer for him. Madame Speaker: Th e member for Nanaimo on a supplemental. L. Krog: Th e Premier is fond of saying that the Dyble report got to the bottom of the quick-win scandal. Clearly, that is not the case, or else these indemnities wouldn’t exist.

According to the government’s own indemnity policy, indemnities should contain both fi nancial and time lim- its to reduce taxpayers’ exposure. [1425] To the Minister of Justice: what time and fi nancial lim- its, if any, were set on the indemnities granted to these two lucky individuals? Hon. M. de Jong: I think the member will understand from my previous response that I’ll take the question on notice and endeavour to get the information. M. Elmore: While you’re looking into those questions, maybe the Minister of Justice can answer these questions.

At the centre of the quick-win scandal were a number of the Premier’s personal friends and leadership campaign supporters, almost all of whom owed their taxpayer- funded jobs to the Premier. We understand that this is uncomfortable for the Premier and her government, but taxpayers deserve to know the truth. To the Minister of Justice: were these indemnities ever acted upon? Hon. S. Anton: We have an indemnity policy, as the members know. Senior staff are entitled to go to the dep- uty minister — my Deputy Attorney General — and seek an indemnity.

Th e terms of the indemnities, the fact of the indemnities — I do not have information on those today. Insofar as they can be public, they are public. But the matters that the member has raised…. I will have to come back with an answer on those. Madame Speaker: The member for Vancouver- Kensington on a supplemental. M. Elmore: Clearly, there is much more to learn about the quick-win scandal, but getting anything from this government will be diffi cult. Let’s try something simple.

To the Minister of Justice: what type of proceedings — criminal, civil, administrative or otherwise — were these two individuals indemnifi ed for? Hon. S. Anton: As I mentioned earlier, this is not a political process. Indemnities are granted, or not, using a set of criteria, by the Deputy Attorney General. Insofar as they can be public, they are made public.

British Columbia DebatesWednesday, November 5, 2014 5233 M. Farnworth: My question is to the Minister of Justice. During the Basi-Virk case, where two individuals were convicted and they received their indemnity, their legal costs were covered. Can the Justice Minister assure this House that that will not be the case if the two indi- viduals covered by this indemnity are, in fact, convicted? Hon. S. Anton: Where indemnities are granted, they are granted on a retainer, which is defi ned. If they are for criminal matters and the person is convicted of that crim- inal matter, then the indemnity is repayable.

HORSESHOE BAY–NANAIMO FERRY ROUTE C. Trevena: On March 27 I asked the Minister of Transportation whether he was considering cutting the ferry service between Horseshoe Bay and Nanaimo, and he replied in this House: “Th ere will continue to be vehicle service between Horseshoe Bay and Nanaimo. I don’t know how much more clearly I can say that. ” [1430] Y esterday we learned that there is a plan which could mean the end of the service. Clearly, the minister knows what to say but then does what he wants. Could this House please be given an explanation why he misled British Columbians who rely on this ferry route?

Hon. M. de Jong: Regrettably — the member may not know this — the Minister of Transportation is at- tending meetings with his colleagues from Alberta and Saskatchewan and the Premiers of those provinces so is not here to answer directly. What I can tell the member, though, is that there are no plans to eliminate the ferry service between Horseshoe Bay and Departure Bay. Th e minister has been clear about that, members of the government have been clear about that, and today I can be clear about that. GRACE ISLET DEVELOPMENT AND FIRST NATIONS CONCERNS G.

Holman: Grace Islet in Ganges Harbour, Saltspring, is a documented First Nations burial island and a sacred site which, by law, the province is obligated to protect. Th e province is allowing the construction of a luxury home on this site over the repeated objections of local First Nations and despite violations of site alteration per- mits issued by the provincial archaeology branch. The minister promised local First Nations that he would stop work on Grace Islet and resolve the situa- tion.

To the minister: will he keep his promise and im- mediately enter into negotiations with the landowner to purchase this site? Hon. S. Th omson: Th ank you to the member opposite for the question. As the members opposite know, and as we know, the Heritage Conservation Act is designed to provide a balance between private property interests and protection of archaeological interests and First Nation in- terests. Th at’s the case here. Th e process on the island was undertaken through site alteration permits. Again, I understand the First Nations’ interest, the sig- nifi cance of the First Nation site.

Th e member opposite well knows that I understand that because we’ve had a number of conversations, and he knows that I am work- ing to fi nd an alternate resolution. We are engaged with First Nations, we’re engaged with the landowner, and we’re engaged with local governments in fi nding that alternate resolution, and the member opposite knows that and understands that. Madame Speaker: Saanich North and the Islands on a supplemental. G.

Holman: I appreciate that response from the min- ister, who I believe is sincere in his intention to resolve this issue in a way that respects the rights of First Nations and the landowner. But the minister has been saying this for months now, while the construction of a luxury home on a First Nation gravesite continues. Th e minister will recall the old saying about the road to Hades being paved with good intentions. Can the minister assure First Nations leaders and their supporters here in the House today that his good inten- tions have the full support of the Premier and this gov- ernment? Hon. S.

Th omson: To the member opposite: thank you for the question. Th e answer is yes. It does have the sup- port. As I said, we’re actively engaged with First Nations, with the landowner, with local governments in fi nding an alternate resolution to the situation. I understand the significance of this site to First Nations. I’ve had those direct discussions with chiefs from south Island First Nations.

We’re actively working to fi nd an alternate resolution to this current situation, and I’m committed to continuing to work to fi nd that resolution as quickly as we can, recognizing that we need to balance private property rights and the First Nations interests on that particular site. D. Donaldson: To the minister: considering your an- swer, will you commit today to stop the construction right now? [1435] Hon. S. Th omson: As I’ve indicated in my responses, this is about a process that respects private property rights and respects First Nations — a signifi cant interest in this particular site.

We are working actively to fi nd an alternate resolution to the current situation. We’re committed to do that, and I am working to fi nd that alternate resolution.

British Columbia Debates5234 Wednesday, November 5, 2014 We are discussing this with First Nations. We’re en- gaged with the landowner. We’re engaged with local gov- ernments, the regional district and Islands Trust in those discussions. As I indicated, we have the support of gov- ernment to fi nd a resolution to that, and my commitment is to fi nd that resolution as quickly as we can. I recognize the importance of the site, and I recognize the timeframe that it has taken to date. B.C. CANCER AGENCY AND CANCER TREATMENT W AIT-LISTS J.

Darcy: Every member of this House has been touched by cancer, and we all understand the critic- al role of research and cancer care to treat this disease and to save lives. So it was deeply concerning to learn that oncologists at the B.C. Cancer Agency and the B.C.

Association of Radiation Oncologists have written to this government about unacceptable wait-times and staff shortages, stating: “It is not possible to continue to provide quality care and research under the existing conditions. ” When the former CEO of the Cancer Agency raised some alarm bells a few weeks ago, the Minister of Health was quick to dismiss his concerns. Will he now acknow- ledge that the situation has deteriorated so much on his watch that oncologists are now saying that treatment and care is compromised? Hon. T.

Lake: I know all members of the House understand the world-leading organization that the B.C. Cancer Agency is and the cutting-edge work that has been done there. We heard from the Terry Fox Research Institute. We heard from Lung Cancer Canada this week about the great work that’s ongoing here in British Columbia. We’ve got personalized oncogenomic medi- cine tailoring treatment to someone’s individual form of a cancer, to reduce side eff ects and increase effi cacy of the treatment. Th at world-leading treatment, that world-leading re- search is happening here in British Columbia.

We are committed to ensuring that that world-leading organiza- tion continues to be strong for the population of British Columbia. Madame Speaker: Member for New Westminster on a supplemental. J. Darcy: Y es, we were all present at some very moving events in the last few days to hear from cancer patients and from some of these leading oncologists. No one is questioning the superb work that takes place at the B.C. Cancer Agency. But surely, something is not working when the number of people waiting over four weeks for treatment has more than doubled in the last seven years.

Th e individuals who wrote this letter represent every doctor who treats cancer patients in the province of British Columbia. Many of us have trusted them with our lives and with the lives of our loved ones. Surely, the minister should trust them enough to stop claiming that everything is just okay. Will the minister commit, personally, that he will sit down and listen to these cancer specialists so that they can get on with doing the work that they want to be doing and we need them to be doing to treat cancer and cure cancer for the thousands of British Columbians who suf- fer from this disease? [1440] Hon. T.

Lake: I know all members do understand the great work that’s going on at the B.C. Cancer Agency. I certainly don’t want to give the impression that we’re not involved in making sure that they can continue to do that great work. As part of our work around the health system, we did a strategic priorities document. One of the fi rst things I did as minister was review the situation and look at the popu- lation of British Columbia, the changing demographics and the needs of British Columbians. Certainly, as the population ages, we know that the incidence of cancer will grow, as it does with age.

We have already started looking at this with the B.C. Cancer Agency and the Provincial Health Services Authority. The letter that the hon. member mentions is from members of a physician workload committee. Th at’s be- cause we are looking at the resources of the B.C. Cancer Agency. We’re looking at what the needs are around the province. Th at work will continue, because I, along with mem- bers opposite, want to make sure that this organization remains a world-leading organization here in B.C. A. Dix: I think it’s incredible that the minister doesn’t answer these very specific questions.

He’s received a very serious letter. It says very signifi cant things about increases in wait times. Th e suggestions of chaos at the agency are being made not by people from the outside but by oncologists. Will the minister respond to what they said? Will he meet with them in the next few days? Will he get to the bottom of an issue that is serious for everybody, not just cancer patients but their families and everybody in British Columbia? Hon. T. Lake: Th e letter was directed at the B.C. Cancer Agency and the Provincial Health Services Authority.

I’ve been in conversation with the CEO of the PHSA and the members of the board. We understand the concerns that some of the oncologists have pointed out. Th ey are work- ing in a committee to address those concerns. We are looking at the needs of British Columbians around the province when it comes to cancer care. We’re

British Columbia DebatesWednesday, November 5, 2014 5235 looking at the distribution of cancer care around the province. We’re looking at using nurse practitioners to assist oncologists around the province and to make sure the patients have proper follow-up care. All of this work is ongoing. Th e members opposite may think that we’re not en- gaged with B.C. Cancer. We are engaged with B.C. Cancer. We’re working hard with the board of PHSA and the or- ganization to make sure that it continues to be the world- class organization that it has been for the last decade.

Madame Speaker: Vancouver-Kingsway on a supple- mental. A. Dix: It’s not business as usual when people who know point to specifi c facts, specifi c increases in wait times, specifi c problems in an agency. I’m asking the Minister of Health of the province of British Columbia whether he will sit down with those doctors, who have made their very specifi c concerns known to the entire province. Will he sit down with them and address their issues in the next week? Hon. T. Lake: Th e Provincial Health Services Authority has an extremely competent board, an extremely compe- tent executive team.

Th ey are engaged with B.C. Cancer on these issues. I am engaged with them to ensure that we make sure this organization continues to be world-leading, continues to provide the kind of care that in this province has the best outcomes for cancer care in all of Canada. Th at will continue to be the case, as we work with B.C. Cancer Agency to resolve the challenges they are now facing. [End of question period.] Madame Speaker: Th e Minister of Social Development seeks leave to make an introduction. Leave granted. Introductions by Members Hon. D. McRae: It was fi ve years ago to the day.

I was sitting in this very chamber, though in a diff erent loca- tion. I was called out of the Legislature. My wife called me. She said: “Get home as quick as you can. ” Th is is the day that I had to go back to Comox Valley to witness the birth of my second child, Chloe McRae. Would the House please wish Chloe a happy birthday. I hope to see her very soon. [1445] Petitions J. Kwan: I rise to table a petition.

I have a petition here from the residents and members of our community call- ing on the government to stop the process in the sale of Stamps Place and instead to engage in a process to de- velop a comprehensive, place-based housing strategy for the property. G.

Holman: I’m pleased to present a petition here to the minister asking him to reverse the decision to allow construction of a home on Grace Islet, to designate it as a heritage site and also to commit to work with First Nations, local, provincial and federally elected offi cials and with community leaders to identify and protect other sacred and burial sites such as Grace Islet — a petition with over 725 signatures. Orders of the Day Hon.

M. de Jong: Committee stage on Bill 2. [1450] Committee of the Whole House BILL 2 — GREENHOUSE GAS INDUSTRIAL REPORTING AND CONTROL ACT (continued) Th e House in Committee of the Whole on Bill 2; M. Dalton in the chair. Th e committee met at 2:52 p.m. On

section 1 (continued). S. Chandra Herbert: When we were discussing sec- tion 1, I asked a number of questions around whether or not the entities would be covered under the Freedom of Information Act, the Auditor General Act and the con- fl ict of interest act. Th e minister had committed to hav- ing those answers for me today. I just wondered if I could request that those be read into the record. Hon. M. Polak: With respect to the Auditor General, yes, we have it confi rmed that the Auditor General would have jurisdiction.

With the respect to the Confl ict of Interest Commissioner, the Confl ict of Interest Commissioner only covers the confl icts of interest that would be related to members so would not have oversight over the technology fund. With respect to freedom of information, I am in receipt of an answer. However, just as I was about to enter here, I wasn’t completely satisfi ed with all the information pro- vided. I’ve asked staff to just seek a clarifi cation for me. I expect that shortly and will deliver it when I receive it. A. Weaver: To start, hon.

Chair, I’ d like to hand another amendment to put on notice for later today through the Clerk to you.

British Columbia Debates5236 Wednesday, November 5, 2014 At the same time, I do have a number of questions. I was quite excited to see that we did not call for a vote on

section 1, because there are so many profound problems and troubles with the defi nitions. It gave me the weekend to contemplate whether or not I had further questions to actually seek elaboration on. In retrospect, I did, but for the sake of time, I thought I would save those, perhaps, for another time. I did have one that I did overlook. It was on my pre- vious list of questions.

It was with respect to the term “compliance obligation. ” It’s important to get this def- inition out a little further now, because it will form the basis down the road of an amendment that I’m proposing. [1455] Under “compliance obligation, ” I’m concerned that….

Given that our province’s contribution to global warm- ing is based upon the net magnitude of emissions re- leased each year as opposed to the emissions intensity, is the minister at all concerned that this defi nition of com- pliance obligation leaves open the opportunity for B.C. ’s emissions to actually increase over time as opposed to decrease over time? Th e defi nition of a compliance obli- gation seems to me to be rather loose. Hon. M. Polak: Th at premise is not limited to the ef- fects of a liquefi ed natural gas industry or indeed the construction of this act.

Th e idea that British Columbia’s emissions will continue to rise if we don’t take addition- al actions…. Th at reality exists whether or not we were discussing a liquefi ed natural gas industry or Bill 2. Th e fact is we must identify new actions that can be taken, including within the liquefi ed natural gas industry, if we are going to see our emissions continue to reduce as op- posed to increasing over time. Th at’s not confi ned to the discussion of liquefi ed nat- ural gas.

Without a liquefi ed natural gas industry begin- ning in British Columbia, we would still be faced with that prospect if we did not seek to take additional actions. A. Weaver: Over the weekend — between us ending on Th ursday and, actually, perhaps in celebration of the minister’s birthday — the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released its synthesis report. Th at was approved on Sunday in fi nal plenary. I would like to quote from

section 3.2 of that, because it’s related to this specifi c defi nition, where it says the fol- lowing: “Without additional mitigation eff orts beyond those in place today, and even with adaptation, warming by the end of the 21st century will lead to high to very high risk of severe, widespread and irreversible impacts globally. ” And that’s with high confi dence. Is the minister not in some sense concerned that this defi nition of a compliance obligation is abdicating its responsibility to future generations in terms of doing its part to reduce emissions? Hon. M.

Polak: I know the member would have lis- tened with interest to my closing remarks with respect to Bill 2 at second reading. Certainly, there is a diffi cult set of choices in front of the entire world. Th ere’s a diffi cult set of choices in front of us here in British Columbia.

Th e choice we have made is to recognize that without signifi cant technological in- novation and without diff erent approaches to the extrac- tion and processing of natural gas, we will continue to see an industry operate in such a way that it does not con- tribute positively to a transition away from more inten- sive carbon products and petroleum fuels. We believe that this is one of many steps that will be needed in order to drive innovation in the industry, in order to make it cleaner and cleaner and cleaner as time goes on.

We believe that this set of incentives, along with the benchmark, is the correct tool with which to accom- plish that. A. Weaver: In the same Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change synthesis report, I would like to quote from

section 3.4, which says the following: “Th ere are multiple mitigation pathways that are likely to limit warming to below 2 degrees relative to pre-industrial lev- els. ” Th at’s important because Canada has internationally committed, along with other nations, to be part of the Copenhagen accord and try to meet that 2 degrees target. [1500] Continuing on with the quote: “Th ese pathways would require substantial emissions reduc- tions over the next few decades, and near zero emissions of CO2 and other long-lived greenhouse gases…by the end of the century.

Implementing such reductions poses substantial technological, economic, social and institutional challenges, which increase with delays in additional mitigation and if key technologies are not available.

Limiting warming to lower or higher levels involves similar challenges but on diff erent time scales. ” Would the minister, then, not be concerned that by enabling an industry which will be in place for decades to come, in fact it is abdicating its responsibility through this defi nition of compliance obligation, not only to this generation but to future generations, because it is imply- ing that there will be continued sources of greenhouse gas emissions, directly in confl ict with Canada’s inter- national obligations under the Copenhagen accord? Hon. M.

Polak: I’m absolutely concerned about the impact that the use of fossil fuels has on climate change and take with great concern the warnings that we’ve heard most recently from the IPCC. Having said that, we cannot pretend that in the absence of British Columbia participating in the development of liquefi ed natural gas, there won’t be other countries, other jurisdictions, that take up that remaining room in the sector. Th ere will be. Th e choice we’ve made is to be the jurisdiction that can set some of the strictest regulations, that can ensure that we create incentives for investment

British Columbia DebatesWednesday, November 5, 2014 5237 into the upstream — which we know is a huge concern with respect to new emissions.

We believe that the most signifi cant, positive impact that we can have, in terms of a sector that will grow with or without our participation, is to be the jurisdiction that drives that change, ensuring that this sector receives the technological advancement from that investment such that the liquefi ed natural gas — which will ultimately be consumed in various places around the world — im- proves in terms of its ability to be looked upon as clean, and will in fact have that result. A.

Weaver: I’m wondering if the minister could please provide evidence as to how she knows that this sector will grow when in fact Mark Carney, the former Bank of Canada governor and now the governor of the Bank of England, has specifi cally talked about “stranded assets. ” Th ose are assets in the oil and gas sector which cannot be combusted if we wish to meet our international targets with respect to greenhouse gas warming.

In particular, Mark Carney has pointed out, as have many others, that the valuations of many of our world’s energy companies are overvalued because of the presence of stranded assets on their books. My question to the minister. Do you not think — again, through this defi nition of a compliance obligation essen- tially allowing an industry to move forward in an area and direction that the rest of the world is not…?

If the minister is unable to provide evidence that this market is going to actually continue to rise, is this not in some sense chasing a falling stock and in some sense mortga- ging our future to chase this falling stock? It strikes me as not good economic policy. Please pro- vide the evidence that was suggested to exist. [1505] Hon. M.

Polak: Leaving aside the question as to whether or not companies will ultimately decide to make fi nal investment decisions in projects in British Columbia, the projections, with respect to increasing dependence and increasing consumption of fossil fuels, namely natural gas, are contained even in the most recent report, which gained much public comment, from PICS through the Pembina Institute.

Th ey cautioned that in fact, although liquefi ed natur- al gas or natural gas can be seen legitimately as a transi- tion fuel, nevertheless, there is a huge challenge facing the globe in that it is apparent to them that demand for natural gas will continue to increase. I have no reason to doubt the projections that they’ve made in their report. A. Weaver: Another defi nition that I missed last time was with respect to industrial operations. Th e question was whether or not the minister could answer whether greenhouse gas emissions w ill be adequately measured and included in this system.

Th is seems to turn on what the defi nition of an “industrial operation” ends up being. Th e question, then, is: are there areas where emissions are likely to be produced that the ministry is expecting to exclude from the calculation? In the actual defi nition of industrial operation, are there areas where the minis- ter believes there might be means and ways of producing greenhouse gas emissions that would be excluded from the calculation? [1510] Hon. M.

Polak: Th is is where we need to recall that this act covers not just GHG emissions from LNG fa- cilities but, indeed, covers broader industrial operations across British Columbia. While the benchmark applies to a liquefi ed natural gas facility, the reporting obligations and the attribution of GHG emissions applies across the piece. For example, in the case of a natural gas extraction facility in the north- east, while they would not be subject to the benchmark, they would nonetheless be subject to the reporting re- quirements, and they would, of course, have to pay ap- plicable taxes, such as the carbon tax.

Is there opportunity for operations such as natural gas wells in the northeast or, indeed, pipeline operations to address their greenhouse gas emissions? Absolutely. It’s one of the motivations behind the incentive model that we propose to put in place. It is also, of course, an incen- tive driven by the payment of the carbon tax, which will also have an impact on those industries in the upstream and along the pipeline corridors. S. Chandra Herbert: In the defi nitions we hear a lot about…. We’ve gone through greenhouse gases. We’ve gone through recognized units.

We’ve had a good discus- sion of how this bill is supposed to work. Of course, we have much more to go. Th e question I have…. While this bill — the minister is correct — is not just focused on LNG, of course, much of the attention has been focused on LNG. Th e minis- ter has said repeatedly that she believes we can meet our 2020 emissions reduction legal requirements, 33 percent of 2007 levels. I’m just curious if the minister is able to share with us, based on the government’s estimation of fi ve LNG terminals, how many tonnes of carbon the min- istry is expecting to be released with fi ve LNG terminals. Hon.

M. Polak: I’m sure the member will appreciate that this is an estimate based on numbers, but I’ll pro- vide those numbers to him. At the benchmark level, if there were fi ve plants, if you estimate a production of 81 million tonnes of LNG per year, then you would see net emissions of 13 million tonnes per year. S. Chandra Herbert: Th at’s with the terminals. Of course, liquefi ed natural gas doesn’t just appear at the terminals. Th ere’s the pipeline and the well that it comes

British Columbia Debates5238 Wednesday, November 5, 2014 from and the processing, compression, etc., that goes along with that. Given that the minister is able to pro- vide an estimate of the terminals themselves, what is the best estimate for where the gas comes from, the carbon emissions for the approximately 70 percent upstream of the actual terminals themselves? [1515] Hon. M. Polak: Th is is why new actions are so very, very important. If you look at the pipeline portion, we es- timate that without any mitigation, the increase would be 4.9 million tonnes per year.

If you look at the production, new production, we believe, would go from 10 million tonnes to 20 million tonnes. Again, that illustrates right there the importance of investment into the upstream and into the pipelines so that we do see reductions in those emissions and new technologies that can achieve that. S. Chandra Herbert: Th is has been a question I’ve asked a number of times, so I appreciate that an answer has been given. Is it possible to share the report where those estimates have been drawn from?

I ask that because so far, the best answer I have gotten out there is that ap- proximately 70 percent of emissions come upstream. If I do the math here, it doesn’t look like the ministry agrees with that fi gure. What percentage of climate change emissions does the ministry estimate would be from the upstream of fi ve LNG plants? Hon. M. Polak: Although I have a history as a math nerd, I’m not going to do all the math on it right now. It’s simply putting those numbers together.

As I’ve said, we believe 13 million tonnes from the projected fi ve plants based on 81 million tonnes a year, 4.9 million from the pipelines and an additional ten million from the up- stream extraction activities. We don’t have a report per se. What I can share and would be happy to share with the member…. Staff can provide the basis upon which we arrived at those calculations. S. Chandra Herbert: Doing the math on that, that’s 28 million if you’re just adding the ten million for the processing for the new emissions for the extraction.

I’m assuming that the ten million the minister is referring to is the current emissions from the natural gas, plus 10. Th at’s 28 million new emissions, new tonnes of green- house gases potentially into the atmosphere given that in B.C., currently we’re at 58 million tonnes of emissions. We have to actually ratchet that down 33 percent, not add 28 million new tonnes. What is the plan to get there? Th is bill, as the minister has said, relates not just to the LNG industry but could in future relate to other industries.

How do we get to a 33 percent reduction of 62 million when we are actually adding 38 million tonnes of new emissions without — so far, to my knowledge — a plan to reduce emissions fur- ther from where we are today? Hon. M. Polak: A challenge that faces not only British Columbia but is being faced all around the world, as the IPCC report points out. Th is is something for which, thankfully, there are eyes being turned to new technolo- gies. We need to employ those technologies. We need to employ research and development.

Just as there are increases of a signifi cant nature in the upstream, so do the opportunities for reduction increase. For example, the role that electrifi cation of the extraction process could play can be extremely signifi cant. Th ere is no question…. I would be saying nothing diff erent here if there was no liquefi ed natural gas proposed in British Columbia. Th ere is no question that we have to look hard at each and every sector in British Columbia, and not just the industrial sector, if we are going to achieve the aggres- sive targets that we have set for ourselves.

I don’t think at any point in my comments I have ever shied away from outlining just how signifi cant a challenge this is. [1520] Again, it’s one where we believe the correct choice is not to vacate the fi eld and leave it to others. Given our record of innovation, given our record of pushing for change in industrial operations, we believe that we can be the jurisdiction to lead that eff ort. It’s going to have to happen somewhere. It might as well be British Columbia that leads that. S.

Chandra Herbert: Five years to reduce our emis- sions by 33 percent, but we’re talking about adding 28 million new tonnes of emissions, based on the govern- ment’s estimate. It is a big, big challenge — absolutely. I guess it’s hard for me to understand why we wouldn’t ensure that we had the lowest greenhouse gas emissions possible for the upstream side as well, given the govern- ment’s promise to include it in the full life cycle, but then subsequent breaking of that promise to focus it only on the processing. I’ll just ask again.

Given that 28 million new tonnes of emissions could be added and that we actually have to be reducing our emissions, are other industries going to have to make up the diff erence? Is that the government’s plan? Given that it’s not just liquefi ed natural gas in our economy — certainly, it’s a minuscule part of it today — who else will have to make up that diff erence? What are the plans, given we have fi ve years — no more, no less — to actually reduce our emissions by 33 percent, not increase them by 38 million tonnes? Hon. M. Polak: Let’s think about that future and how it’s going to unfold.

Of course, the most signifi cant target we have to hit is the 2050 one. Th e 2020 one, though, will be a signifi cant milestone along that path.

British Columbia DebatesWednesday, November 5, 2014 5239 I know we like to be optimistic about LNG on this side of the House, but it would be extremely optimistic to expect that there would be fi ve fully operational plants by 2020. Th at would be extremely optimistic, especially given that the nature of the industry is that production would begin and then increase over time. Now, that doesn’t take away from the fact that it’s a challenge, but it isn’t as large a challenge all at once as one might perceive if you simply say: “Here are fi ve. It’s 81 million tonnes — boom.

How are you going to get rid of that by 2020?” Th at’s not, realistically, the challenge. In the upstream. I have absolutely no disagreement with the member that there needs to be significant change in the upstream — absolutely. We believe that creating the incentive for industry to invest in that is the best way to accomplish it. We don’t disagree that you need to see signifi cant re- ductions of GHG emissions in the upstream activities. Where we part ways is on the way in which we believe that is most likely be accomplished. It will take a signifi - cant investment to do that. Th at has to come from indus- try.

We believe that creating an incentive for them to do that is the best way to accomplish it. S. Chandra Herbert: Can the minister explain to me why it’s important and why the government believes just an incentive on the upstream is the way to go, yet it’s bringing in limits on the actual plants themselves? What is the philosophical diff erence between upstream tech- nology and upstream emissions and the actual liquefac- tion process itself? What’s the diff erence? [1525] Hon. M. Polak: Y ou will likely recall…. Maybe I’m thinking everybody found my comments more interest- ing than they maybe did.

One of the things I pointed out in my closing remarks is that there are two choices. Y ou can vacate the fi eld — not be in this business — or you can decide to address the path of trying to create change in the industry. I mentioned there, though, that there are two ways you can decide to vacate the fi eld, right? Y ou can decide: “We’re just not in. We’re just not participating. ” Or you can create the kind of regulatory environment that makes it economically not viable, and then that’s another way of vacating the fi eld. We already have an existing natural gas industry in the northeast.

Th ey are already paying carbon tax on the fossil fuels they burn, so they’re already subject to a certain amount of regulation, if you will, on what it is that they do. We’re also aware of the fact that even now, without an incentive program, there is already some investment and some eff ort taking place around things like electrifi cation and in many other areas — in terms of fugitive emissions, for example, and other areas they are looking at.

Based on what we have seen in the northeast in the ex- traction of natural gas in that sector — based on what we see of companies that in many cases are integrated and have ownership of fi elds in the northeast — and based on changes to locations of where they’re going to be drawing that natural gas, we believe that an incentive that creates the opportunity for companies to see an improvement in their bottom line by investment will create the spark that motivates additional investment there and that sees speedier progress toward those goals. A.

Weaver: I do appreciate the clarity and comprehen- sive nature of the minister’s responses. I do have a couple of quick questions on that note. Are there direct measurements being conducted by the ministry as to the magnitude of fugitive, or escaped, emissions in and around the fracking fi elds in northeast B.C. that would allow them to get a handle on the esti- mates of greenhouse gas emissions? Or is the ministry relying on numbers based on some international stan- dard or observations that were done in the U.S.? Hon. M. Polak: Actually, that turns out to be a timely question.

In fact, staff were in the northeast just last week as part of ongoing work that we’ve been doing together with our natural gas working group. We have been driv- ing very hard — with industry cooperation, I must say, but nevertheless, we’ve been driving very hard — to im- prove our knowledge and understanding of fugitive emis- sions, how best to be reporting that. We’ve recently updated the reporting regulations, and we intend to continue pressing for greater accuracy, greater clarity and a better understanding of how we can assess those and account for them.

We expect that to im- prove over time, but we know it’s something we have to continue to drive. [1530] A. Weaver: Oft en that number is reported as a per- centage of overall methane production. Does the min- ister, then, have a kind of rough estimate as to what the percentage number would be? Hon. M. Polak: It’s a number that’s publicly available but not consolidated in the way that the member is ask- ing. But we can certainly fi nd that and provide it to him. A. Weaver: Again, I very much appreciate the an- swer.

One fi nal question on this topic, building upon the very fi ne questions asked by my colleague here from Vancouver–West End with respect to meeting targets and the minister’s very thoughtful responses about the fact that it would be optimistic to think that fi ve LNG plants would be in play by 2020. I buy that. Th at argument is acceptable to me. Now I come back, then, to my earlier question. When

British Columbia Debates5240 Wednesday, November 5, 2014 industry builds infrastructure, invests billions and bil- lions of money into infrastructure, they’re oft en not do- ing so to invest it for a time horizon of two decades. My question, then, is: buried within these defi nitions anywhere, is there actually a defi nition of an industrial operation that has, inherent within it, a sunset clause that will actually turn it off aft er some time?

Th ere is no way, if fi ve LNG plants come on in 2021, that we will get to an 80 percent reduction in emissions by 2050, because these projects are being built with a lifetime horizon of many decades. Hon. M. Polak: It’s not our intention to set an end date. A. Weaver: My fi nal question. I’ve tried to comment throughout this, with my colleague here from Vancouver– West End, that there seem to be some inconsistencies with defi nitions, from my perspective. Th ere have been some circular arguments with defi n- itions — defi nitions defi ned upon themselves.

And there are some other defi nitions that I think are not only sci- entifi cally inaccurate but, frankly, make no sense. Hence, the proposition of the amendment with respect to car- bon dioxide equivalent. Y ou have, in your defi nition here, no time scale attached to it, which doesn’t make sense. [1535] My question, then, is: if the government were to real- ize at some point down the road that there is an error in a defi nition, what is the legislative route to change the defi nitions? Is it through legislation, or is it through regulation? Is it through order-in-cabinet?

I recognize that some of the defi nitions say: “as defi ned in regula- tion. ” But for those like, perhaps, carbon dioxide equiva- lent, which, frankly, is just wrong…. Th ere is no way I can vote in favour of

part 1 when the defi nition is, frankly, wrong. Th ere’s no time scale attached to it. So what is the process for fi xing this? Hon. M. Polak: With respect to process, if we were to change a defi nition in the act, we would have to be back at the Legislature with an amendment proposed for the act. However, it’s also possible to provide greater clar- ity in regulation.

It is our intention, because this is an existing component of the current carbon-neutral gov- ernment reporting regulation, that we would be borrow- ing over from that the following, which is under carbon dioxide equivalent: “means the mass of carbon dioxide that would produce the same global warming impact as a given mass of another gree nhouse gas, as determined using the 100-year time horizon global warming poten- tial set out in column 4 of the schedule. ” Th at is the regulation that currently exists, and it would be our intention to draw that over into regulation sup- porting this act. [1540-1545]

Section 1 approved on the following division: YEAS — 42 Horne Sturdy Bing Hogg Yamamoto McRae Oakes Th omson Virk Rustad Wilkinson Pimm Sultan Hamilton Reimer Ashton Morris Hunt Sullivan Cadieux Lake Polak de Jong Coleman Anton Bond Letnick Barnett Y ap Th ornthwaite Plecas Lee Kyllo Tegart Michelle Stilwell Th roness Larson Foster Bernier Martin Gibson Moira Stilwell NAYS — 32 Hammell Simpson Robinson Farnworth Horgan Dix Ralston Corrigan Fleming Popham Kwan Austin Chandra Herbert Huntington Macdonald Karagianis Eby Mungall Bains Shin Darcy Donaldson Krog Trevena D. Routley Simons Fraser Weaver Chouhan Rice Holman B. Routley On

section 2. S. Chandra Herbert:

Section 2, “Non-reporting oper- ations” .

Section 2(1): “If required by the regulations, for each reporting period, the operator of an industrial operation that was not a reporting oper- ation in the previous reporting period, and would be a reporting operation but for the level of its greenhouse gas emissions, must calculate, in accordance with the regulations, the greenhouse gas emissions of the industrial operation to determine whether it is a reporting operation for the reporting period. ” I wonder if the draft er was paid by the word.

It is a rather obtuse, a rather circuitous legislation discussing regulation, industrial operations, regulations, regula- tions, regulations. It’s confusing, shall we say? With the regulations, in accordance with the regulations, etc., you could change the meaning, potentially, of this legislation in many diff erent forms. I wonder if the minister might try her best to clarify this example of — I don’t know — legislation of confu- sion. How’s that? [1550] Hon. M. Polak: It’s actually not as complicated as

British Columbia DebatesWednesday, November 5, 2014 5241 the legal language makes it sound. Of course, we have a threshold for reporting, right? Th at’s 10,000. Below that threshold we do not ask for industrial operations to re- port to us. However, one might ask — I would: “Well, what stops someone from just pretending that they’re under the threshold, and they just don’t report?” Th rough this, we require them to do the calculation every year and to have that information ready, if we were to require it, in order to inspect their claim that they are below the threshold. S. Chandra Herbert: Well, that was easy.

No, to be serious, I thank the minister for her attempt to clarify it. I guess the question, then, is really, in some ways as well: can the minister give some examples of an oper- ation that might be under 10,000 but still required to re- cord their emissions? Hon. M. Polak: Any industrial operation that is cur- rently covered by our reporting regulation — forestry, mining, what have you — any of those operations that are under 10,000 would still have to do the calculation and, again, be able to provide that to us to provide proof of their claim that they are below the threshold, if we were to ask. S.

Chandra Herbert: Clause (2) in this is: “ An indus- trial operation that is not a reporting operation for a re- porting period must, if required by the regulations, (

a) maintain the prescribed records of the determination under subsection (1) for the prescribed period and pro- duce those records on request…and (

b) provide informa- tion to the director as required by the regulations. ” Why such a focus on the regulations, as opposed to legislation, in this respect? Hon. M. Polak: It’s consistent with the regulations that have been in place for industrial operations and their re- porting in British Columbia. Who’s to say what new industry may develop in 50 or 100 years? When, I’m sure, this act will still be robust and in place. Who’s to say what may occur on the ground in that time? Th is is only to allow for any necessary chan- ges, based on a new industry or maybe new technologies in those industries.

Any manner of things that we can’t imagine now could be addressed in regulation without having to change the bill itself. S. Chandra Herbert: How many times has the ministry required a non-reporting operation to provide the records for their perusal? Have any fi nes or levies been issued, should someone not be able to provide those records? Hon. M. Polak: Now, it’s not information we have readily available, but we’ll endeavour to find out if there have been any incidents where there were non- compliance issues.

Th is was much more important to address in a world anticipating a cap-and-trade system, where there would have been a signifi cant fi nancial incentive for a company to cheat as to their reporting. Nevertheless, it’s still im- portant for us, but it was originally put in place because of the potential for people to skirt the rules in a cap-and- trade environment. [1555] S. Chandra Herbert: What function will these rules have now? What is the purpose of these rules as the min- ister sees them now?

Of course, there are compliance costs for anybody to maintain these sets of numbers of what their emissions are, so one would hope that the min- istry was using this data or requiring this data for a pur- pose, as the government has decided not to participate in the cap-and-trade program that Quebec and California are participating in. What is this supposed to do? What is the function of this requirement? Hon. M. Polak: It’s the means by which we keep track of GHG emissions in British Columbia from industrial operations. S. Chandra Herbert: I must be confused here.

If these are non-reporting, are they still required to report? How do we track if they don’t tell you but they’re required to keep a record? Or am I misinterpreting the term, what “reporting” or “non-reporting” means? Hon. M. Polak: Th ere are many instances in life where there’s a threshold at which you must report. For example, I’m sure the member would never contemplate this, but from time to time people drive across the border, and they buy milk and cheese and God only knows what else. We are trusted to come through and declare what it is that we have purchased.

If it’s below a certain thresh- old, we’re fi ne. We can go through. However, from time to time a border service agent may look at a person and think: “ Ah-ha, something is not right. ” Th ey’ll ask for pro- duction of receipts or what have you. By the same token, if you take a look at what might hap- pen in an industrial scenario where perhaps you have two or three operations of similar size, similar nature…. We note that two of them are reporting to us annually and one of them isn’t.

Th at is when, for example, we would ap- proach them and ask them to supply us with the calcula- tions that they are required to keep in order to show us how it is they’ve determined that they’re not at the threshold. S. Chandra Herbert: I appreciate the answer and the visual demonstration, so to speak. It does help under- stand it. The person with the rather large sweatshirt pulled over a million other clothes certainly would be a red light, and I certainly have heard that from people

British Columbia Debates5242 Wednesday, November 5, 2014 who work at border control. I wonder: how many staff does the government have whose job it is to go out and fi nd that person who wears the extra-large sweatshirt over a million other pieces of clothes as they try to cross the border, so to speak? Of course, I mean that in terms of not reporting GHG emis- sions when they should while others in the same industry are doing what they should do by law. How many staff are there? I don’t need to know how many penalties have been levied, necessarily. Th at would be of interest, but I’m just curious what kind of inspec- tion

schedule there is to ensure that this law means more than just on paper. [R. Chouhan in the chair.] Hon. M. Polak: We don’t operate with a specifi c force of compliance and enforcement offi cers in this particular area. Across the natural resource ministries we have an in- tegrated force of people — involving conservation offi cers, natural resource offi cers, etc. I don’t have those numbers here. We’ve covered them in estimates sometimes.

What would occur, though, is that we do have staff who review the various reports that we receive from all man- ner of industrial activities in British Columbia. [1600] If there was a suspicion of non-compliance with the regulations, then at that time we would ask compliance and enforcement individuals to investigate. Th e number of people deployed or the size of an investigation would, of course, depend on what we believe is the severity of the infraction. S. Chandra Herbert: What are the penalties under the law that an organization that was not in compliance would face? Hon. M.

Polak: As with any compliance legislation, the amount, with respect to administrative penalties, isn’t deter- mined until aft er the act, hopefully, passes. Th en a fee issue paper would be brought through the appropriate process. A. Weaver: I’m wondering if the minister could de- scribe the extent to which these reporting conditions either mirror or are diff erent from the national reporting conditions under the United Nations framework conven- tion on climate change. Hon. M. Polak: Th e diff erence is that ours are based on measured GHGs at facilities,

whereas the national ones are essentially estimates based on what they would call activity factors, so not counting every cow but making some estimates based on what they understand is present in the industrial sector. A. Weaver: Forgive me for not remembering the num- ber. Maybe your staff , hon. Minister — through you, hon. Chair — would remember. Is there a diff erence in the threshold for reporting in British Columbia relative to Canada in terms of tonnes per year? Th ere’s certainly a diff erence provincially with Alberta and British Columbia, but I’m wondering if the same is true with Canada. Hon. M.

Polak: Th eir threshold is 50,000 tonnes per year. A. Weaver: My fi nal question on this

section is with respect to what I perceive to be a lack of clarity with re- spect to the defi nition of industrial operation — which, of course, we’ve dealt with now — so we’re working within the context of what I perceive to be a diffi cult defi nition.

I was wondering if the minister could possibly provide in- formation as to how they’ll ensure that all greenhouse gas emissions that arise from these facilities will be covered. [1605] What I mean by that is that coming back to the defi n- ition, which we’ve now passed, it describes an industrial operation as “one or more facilities, or a prescribed activ- ity” — I’m not sure what that is — “to which greenhouse gas emissions are attributable. ” Th en we go into this cir- cular argument with respect to attributable. In essence, I’m wanting to know what prescribed ac- tivities are.

How do we know that we’re covering them? Is the cement industry, for example, included in this? What is included in this defi nition of industrial activ- ities, as applied to this particular reporting? And what industries presently will be exempt — that perhaps are not exempt now, perhaps could be exempt in the future; industries which are not reporting now, will have to re- port in the future? Are there any changes in the types of industries that actually will have to report or will be excluded or not ex- cluded as a consequence of this new legislation and this new defi nition of industrial reporting?

I hope I’ve been clear in trying to communicate. What I am trying to say here is that the defi nition is diffi cult to understand. Not everything is included in present regu- lations. Are there industries that will now be included, as opposed to not previously being included? And in addi- tion, are there industries that are included now that will no longer be included in reporting? Hon. M. Polak: It is our intent to port the current

schedule into the new act. So the only change would be the addition of liquefi ed natural gas facilities.

Section 2 approved. On

section 3. S. Chandra Herbert: I wondered if the ministry staff was able to get any information on fi nes or penalties that

British Columbia DebatesWednesday, November 5, 2014 5243 may have been given since this legislation came into force — not this particular legislation but, I should say, the ele- ments of this legislation have been brought into force under the previous law that they’ve imported to this law? Has the minister’s staff been able to bring forward any compliance reports or issues where companies maybe undersold the amount of emissions they emitted, only to learn later that they had to provide supplementary information? Is that possible to be shared?

I just fi nd that it’s important to see how the law has acted over the last number of years while debating whether or not we should continue with it in this form. Hon. M. Polak: I will say at the outset that the infor- mation I will describe is also available on our website. Th ere have been investigations. In addition to that, there have also been supplemental reports that have been pro- vided when operations have self-identifi ed that they’ve missed something in a report or have not reported ad- equately.

Th us far, we have not levied any penalties, be- cause when we issued advisory letters, we have seen operations come into compliance and provide us with the appropriate reporting. [1610] A. Weaver: Again, this is a question that comes back to what I perceive to be a lack of clarity with the defi n- itions. In

part 2,

section 3(1)(a), it says: “the greenhouse gas emissions attributable to the operation for the re- porting period. ” So my question is this. Are there any examples of emissions that are not attributable, and if so, what are they? Hon. M. Polak: Probably the best example is what hap- pens when electricity is imported into British Columbia. Th e company importing the electricity, in this case B.C. Hydro…. Let me put it the other way around here. Th ey are not the emitter, right? Nevertheless, we attribute those GHGs to them. Th at would be probably the best example of how “attributable” works in relation to this act. A. Weaver: In terms of s

Document details

Collection	British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	20141105pm-Hansard-v17n5
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	20141105pm Hansard v17n5
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	78fedc280814f3a2cd1ec9f6b0fd7933a2aee4cf

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