Third Session, 41st Parliament

(2018) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Tuesday, May 15, 2018

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 138

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Orders of the Day

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 33 — South Coast British Columbia Transportation

Authority Amendment Act, 2018 (continued)

R. Sultan

J. Thornthwaite

R. Coleman

Hon. S. Robinson

Bill 34 — Greenhouse Gas Reduction Targets

Amendment Act, 2018

Hon. G. Heyman

P. Milobar

S. Chandra Herbert

A. Weaver

A. Olsen

Report and Third Reading of Bills

Bill 26 — Child, Family and Community Service

Amendment Act, 2018

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 34 — Greenhouse Gas Reduction Targets

Amendment Act, 2018 (continued)

S. Furstenau

Hon. G. Heyman

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 31 — Cannabis Distribution Act

M. Morris

Hon. M. Farnworth

J. Thornthwaite

I. Paton

A. Olsen

Report and Third Reading of Bills

Bill 28 — Public Interest Disclosure Act

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 31 — Cannabis Distribution Act

(continued)

M. Morris

Hon. M. Farnworth

A. Olsen

Report and Third Reading of Bills

Bill 31 — Cannabis Distribution Act

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 30 — Cannabis Control and Licensing

Act

M. Morris

Hon. M. Farnworth

A. Olsen

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Health (continued)

N. Letnick

Hon. A. Dix

T. Stone

T. Shypitka

D. Ashton

Estimates: Ministry of Finance

Hon. C. James

S. Bond

T. Redies

Proceedings in the Birch Room

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 26 — Child, Family and Community Service

Amendment Act, 2018

L. Throness

Hon. K. Conroy

S. Furstenau

Bill 28 — Public Interest Disclosure Act

M. Lee

Hon. D. Eby

Bill 29 — Voluntary Blood Donations Act

S. Furstenau

Hon. A. Dix

N. Letnick

TUESDAY, MAY 15, 2018

The House met at 1:32 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: I call continued second reading debate on Bill 33, South Coast B.C.

Transportation Authority Act. In Committee A, I call continued debate on the

Ministry of Health estimates. After those are completed, I will be calling the

Ministry of Finance estimates. Then in Committee C, the Birch Room, I’ll be

calling committee stage on Bill 26, Child, Family and Community Service

Act.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 33 — SOUTH COAST

BRITISH COLUMBIA

TRANSPORTATION

AUTHORITY AMENDMENT ACT, 2018

(continued)

R. Sultan: I’m pleased to comment on Bill 33, the South Coast British

Columbia Transportation Authority Amendment Act, 2018.

Deputy Speaker: Member, just a second. Sorry.

Hon. S. Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I move second reading of Bill 33.

Deputy Speaker: Member, now continue.

R. Sultan: This bill will add additional development cost charges pursuant to

bylaws. The sorts of development cost charges will be applied, including

capital costs, including planning, engineering and legal costs directly

related to work for a capital project. The collection may be performed

by municipalities, by Metro Vancouver or by UBC, which is singled out

for special attention in the bill.

The issues raised by this bill are abundant and I’m sure will be

explored in detail at committee stage. So let me just give you an

overview of some issues and concerns.

[1:35 p.m.]

Section 34.21 says that subject to an agreement under

section

34.31, the authority may, by bylaw, for purposes described in subsection

(2), impose development cost charges on every person who obtains, for

example, approval of a subdivision, a building permit, etc., for the

capital costs of eligible projects.

These charges levied by the authority — and let’s remind ourselves

that we’re talking about the South Coast British Columbia Transportation

Authority — must pass muster by an inspector. Who the inspector is, is

rather vaguely defined. We can let our imagination roll as to who might

be given this plum assignment.

I think the core of the concept is one where those of us who

attend meetings around the Lower Mainland, lamenting the congestion we

face and the solution of mass transit, public transit, frequently switch

to a discussion of development corridors and the huge amounts of capital

expended, which may be taxed in what has been up till now, at least — it

remains to see what happens — a buoyant real estate market. So we’ll

just pile on some more development charges, and the development charges

will pay for all of this new public transit infrastructure that we so

desperately need.

That’s the theory, and it is very eloquently explained in great

detail by the academics who tend to show up at these conferences. I’m

sure it provides the intellectual underpinnings of this proposed

legislation.

Let me say upfront I oppose the legislation because I lived

through the last transit referendum. That was a rather clever idea. We

recognized, as the provincial government, that new sources of income

must be realized by TransLink if they’re to fulfil all of our public

transit ambitions. But we felt, in our wisdom of the day, that we should

not levee these taxes unilaterally. We should do it pursuant to a

referendum.

The referendum ran something like this: “Would you like us to

raise your taxes? Yes or no?” Well, it didn’t take even the leader of

the Green Party to realize that maybe this referendum was going to be in

trouble before it even got out of the starting gates. And so it

was.

I think the lesson to be learned from this unfortunate episode is

that not only must more revenue be acquired from some source in order to

have the public transit which the Lower Mainland so desperately needs;

it must be raised in a politically legitimate manner. Legitimacy is

acquired by much more tedious steps than just asking people if they

would mind paying an extra tax, because we know in advance what the

answer is going to be.

Nevertheless, we now have this new government, boldly marching

into the swamp of public transit and legitimacy, saying the authority is

going to make all these decisions to put on development charges. They

will be kept fair and square by somebody called the

inspector.

I can assure you that in the riding I represent, this would not be

a scheme greeted with pizzazz and acclaim. We have suffered for too long

under a governance structure which is heavily weighted by

population.

While we had, for a time, Mayor Richard Walton — a very

well-versed accountant by training, a savvy political leader, the mayor

of North Van district — as chair of the Mayors Council, when push came

to shove, what happened? The mayors of Surrey and Vancouver decided:

“Well, thanks for keeping the seat warm, Richard, but we’re pushing you

out, and we’re going to elect one of our own, because we’ve got the

votes. So if you don’t like it, tough luck.” And that’s what

happened.

[1:40 p.m.]

That, more or less, is the political legitimacy presented to all

of the encircling municipalities in Metro Vancouver today. It is a bad

formula for raising the amounts of capital which are required, and I

think this motion will only perpetuate the bad feeling that the people

who have made these decisions do not represent all of us in a fair

manner.

I might interject, also, that this entire process I see, between

the lines, is suffering from an overdose of what I would call academic

theorizing — that somehow, you could build a little academic model of

how development occurs along public transit routes. Tall condominium

towers are built. There is so much economic rent to be acquired, which

we can bleed off to pay for the development of infrastructure, the mass

transit itself. Everybody’s happy.

Having served as an academic with economic training, myself, for

many years, I recognize the symptoms. I would say they infect not only

the planning proposed for new funding of infrastructure for transit but

the entire seven-point “let’s raise taxes in all directions” program of

this NDP government — seven new taxes being imposed on my constituents.

Count them.

Tracing down the origins, frequently we find that some professor,

either at Simon Fraser or UBC, has come out with a great model that if

only we raise taxes enough, all will be well, and our housing supply

problems will be answered. I have to say: what first-year economics

class did they attend which suggested that supply would be increased of

a commodity upon which you’re going to raise taxes? Nevertheless, that’s

the false advice that they end up giving, and I think, having been

trained with supply-demand curves with price vertically on the left hand

side of the chart, you interfere with price by fiddling with taxes, and

from there, all sorts of mischief flows.

They, unfortunately, lack real-world experience, and I think we

see that, as the realities of some of these taxation schemes now appear.

It would appear to the casual observer, such as myself, that the

government is scrambling, trying to make it all work with patchwork,

in-transit — no pun intended — adjustments.

Back to Bill 33. It is, to give it its due, addressing a real and

urgent problem. We should commend the government for doing its best,

however flawed it might be, with this bill. At least it is trying to

address an issue. The issue is that we need a grander vision for our

public transit system in the big city, as I call Vancouver, and we need

a grander vision for how we’re going to pay for it.

I think that the creaking, aging, somewhat tired structure of

TransLink, as useful as it has been in its day, should be replaced with

something bolder and more attuned with current-day realities. I won’t

bore this assembly by offering my somewhat academically influenced

theories on the subject, but I assure you they’re not going to be

influenced by a supply-and-demand curve.

I had one or two other thoughts to offer before I leave the podium

here. For the record, lest we believe that somehow it is the NDP that

has discovered the need for transportation infrastructure, we should

point out that on our watch, a huge expansion of SkyTrain, the South

Fraser Perimeter Road, the immensely successful Sea to Sky Highway and

the Port Mann Bridge were all built, and other structures as

well.

[1:45 p.m.]

We were significantly along on a replacement for the George Massey

Tunnel, and on behalf of the consulting engineering fraternity that I

hang out with from time to time, I should point out that to have the rug

abruptly pulled out from under that project grievously wounded the

balance sheets of the major engineering companies involved, who had put

up about $75 million of their own money to prepare proposals and design

concepts which ultimately led to the structure that was under

construction, before it was cancelled.

One of these firms is world renowned. It is a North Shore

engineering company called COWI, formerly known as Buckland and Taylor.

These people are so renowned that they have been retained to build the

structures replacing the World Trade Center, which was destroyed in that

tragic guerrilla attack by air.

They are eminent. They came up with the unique engineering

approach which saved enormous amounts of capital costs. Now, since the

project is cancelled, the documents seem to have become public property,

including all of their good ideas, for which they are not being

compensated.

To say that some elements of the consulting engineering community

are not amused by the behaviour of this government would be an

understatement because of the huge amounts of money that have somehow

been evaporated on proposals that led nowhere.

The other point I would make is that in devising a suitable

governance structure, we must, again, trust the people whose money we

plan to spend, which means a democratic presence. Although the Mayors

Council is a good attempt, it is curtailed and isn’t really quite the

right answer. Nevertheless, they were on, and are on, the right track. I

think to really leave these decisions up to regulation and to, heaven

forbid, a cabinet in Victoria, staffed and advised by people who do not

endure the daily agony of congestion in the Vancouver area, is not the

way to do it.

Government by regulation, in my opinion, is inherently flawed. It

smacks of dictatorial tendencies and, I think, is bred into Bill 33 to

an unfortunate degree. Therefore, when this bill comes up for further

debate, I will be speaking further against it.

J. Thornthwaite: I would also like to speak to Bill 33, intituled the South Coast

British Columbia Transportation Authority Amendment Act,

First, before going specifically to the…. Oh, somebody wants to do

an announcement. Okay.

J. Routledge: Thank you to the member.

I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

J. Routledge: I have the pleasure of introducing Mrs. Sabina McCloskey and her Holy

Cross Elementary grade 5 class and, I believe, some parents. Please join me

in making them welcome.

Debate Continued

Deputy Speaker: The member for North Vancouver–Seymour will continue.

J. Thornthwaite: Resuming my remarks on the South Coast British Columbia

Transportation Authority Amendment Act. Before I get, specifically, into

the act, I’d like to go through a little bit of history with regards to

all of the investments that our government did with regards to transit

and transportation.

[1:50 p.m.]

To reiterate, we’ve been supportive of the Mayors Council, as was

mentioned by the previous speaker. Our own mayor in the district of

North Vancouver, Richard Walton, has been paramount in working

diligently for the region and also for North Vancouver in his role as

the chair of the Mayors Council, and we support his work.

As the member for Kamloops–South Thompson said earlier, since

2001, the B.C. Liberal government invested more than $18 billion in

transportation infrastructure upgrades. That includes major projects in

the Lower Mainland. Certainly, SkyTrain, the South Perimeter Road, the

Sea to Sky Highway, the Port Mann Bridge everybody knows about.

Personally, I have a favourite — the Highway 1 lower Lynn improvement

project, $198 million to improve all those interchanges, the three

interchanges, four phases. We are expecting that the first phase is

supposed to be finished later on this year. Great. Everybody in the

North Shore is ecstatic about that.

As the members opposite know, I’m still advocating for at least a

consideration by TransLink to investigate the possibility of SkyTrain to

the North Shore and, in the meantime, perhaps a B-line from Phibbs

Exchange back and forth to match and connect us across the Iron Workers

Memorial Bridge to the Millennium Line on the other side. Hopefully that

will be coming. I will certainly be advocating for that.

The last budget prepared on this side of the House set aside $3.2

billion for a three-year plan, which, along with the federal

investments, brought total spending to $4.6 billion. Totally with

transit then…. Since 2001, ridership was up 47 percent, but funding

increased by 132 percent.

Here’s a little bit of trivia that people might not know. B.C.

provides the highest level of provincial contribution towards transit

operating costs in all of Canada, more than two times the national

average.

Since 2001, our government provided over $2.2 billion to

TransLink. Even since 2008, there were significant investments of just

under $1 billion, including the Evergreen Line; many, many bus projects;

obviously, UBC and Surrey; rapid transit; expansion of buses across the

region; expansion of SkyTrains and the West Coast Express; more SkyTrain

cars; fare gates; and a new SeaBus. That is in addition to, with the

Evergreen Line, $1.43 billion invested by the B.C. government and its

partners.

To summarize, then, going ahead towards the last election, the

B.C. Liberal government had matched the federal funding, and it set up

feasibility studies on major new expansion projects, including the east

from Evergreen Line towards Maple Ridge and Mission, into South Surrey,

into Langley, Abbotsford and Chilliwack, west to UBC, across to the

North Shore and up to Squamish.

I wanted to go through this just so that people realize that

despite the rhetoric that’s coming from the other side, there were

significant investments in transportation and TransLink and B.C. Transit

with our government over the years that we….

Yes, as I said, we are very supportive of the transportation

infrastructure programs, but we worry with regards to this bill that any

off-loading of the costs of investment onto the homeowners during a

housing crisis would have a negative effect on housing affordability

here, in Metro Vancouver.

I know that some of my colleagues have already mentioned this, but

I’m going to reiterate it. In fact, when it comes to housing

affordability, one of the key issues that is very, very important for

any government to consider is: if you start tacking on more fees, more

permits, more taxes, etc., that will actually increase the cost of

housing. It’s called development cost charge for high-density new

housing projects.

Yes, the government has made some important exemptions, including

for not-for-profit rental. But the single most important tool to address

is supply, and this government has not done that. That’s encouraging

more supply, densification along transit lines, speeding up the approval

process in municipalities.

[1:55 p.m.]

We are going through those growing pains, actually, in the

district of North Vancouver with regards to trying to balance the

availability of housing that, for instance, the millennials can afford.

Keep them on the North Shore. We all want our children to be able to be

close to home and not have to move very, very far away. The district of

North Vancouver and the city of North Vancouver are in the middle of a

balancing act, trying to increase the diversification of housing.

Obviously, the residents are concerned about density or concerned about

traffic, etc. I know it’s a balancing act.

Something that we have to really, really focus on is the supply

end of the chain in order to provide more options for people at all

levels of affordability. I do worry about the piling on of all these

costs and fees and taxes that might have an unintended consequence. We

have seen during this session that perhaps many initiatives that have

maybe good intentions…. When you look at the details and the range of

people and, say, businesses that are affected, sometimes those negative

consequences kind of come up to bite you in the you know

what.

Anyway, what I was going to say is that the speculation tax, the

so-called speculation tax, which we thought: “Oh, that would be really,

really good because it would stop speculators….” But in fact, it doesn’t

have anything to do with that. It was an extra tax on, say, cabins or

inheritance or wealth.

Then, of course, there’s the famous employers health tax that

actually will increase costs to non-profits, school boards and

municipalities. Of course, many of the municipalities have come out

publicly, and the mayors have claimed that this will not only increase

property taxes but could have a negative effect on staff or a reduction

in services or all three.

The member for Kamloops–South Thompson had mentioned a quote from

the Urban Development Institute that from the year 2008 to 2018 — so in

ten years — with all of the taxes, fees, permits, community amenities

and all of this stuff piled on to increase the cost of actually building

houses, it was a tenfold increase, or 790 percent, over a ten-year

period. So anything that’s going to increase the cost of actually

building houses would be a disadvantage.

In

summary, for me, I definitely want to reiterate the importance

of transit and certainly the investments in our public transit system,

but I worry that these extra costs are going to just pile on extra cost

to housing and negatively affect affordability of housing in Metro

Vancouver. So that will be the reason why I will not be supporting this

bill.

R. Coleman: I’m pleased to get up to talk about this particular piece of

legislation. I’ll be focusing on the conversation around the development

cost charges that are going to be applied to density in and around

transit. I want to have that conversation in the context of some

information that I want to share with the House.

First of all, I think what we forgot and have been trying to deal

with for years is what the layered-on cost is before somebody actually

starts to build on any single unit of housing anywhere in British

Columbia. In some places, it’s called a development cost charge. In some

places, it’s called a community amenity charge. Sometimes it’s both.

Sometimes it’s got other intonations.

The challenge with it is this. For instance, the C.D. Howe

Institute’s study that just came out in the last couple of days says

that Vancouver has the highest additional costs put on housing prior to

starting construction, which are community amenity charges and other

charges against the housing, and that it totals $600,000 a unit. So

before you pour any cement, before you buy the land, before you get your

approvals, and before you actually get in the ground, it’s

$600,000.

Now, the average across the Lower Mainland is anywhere from

$250,000 a unit to $150,000 a unit. But it’s not any cheaper anywhere,

and that doesn’t take into account the time. You have to have the money

committed to be able to do a project when it takes four, five or six

years to get in the ground.

It also might be the systemic issue that we face with regards to

the fact there’s over 100,000-some-odd units in process on the Lower

Mainland, in British Columbia, that are not getting built right

now.

[2:00 p.m.]

The other thing that’s happening in the marketplace, something

that people have to understand, is that cost is tough. But the other

cost that’s tough is being able to get a project financed if you want to

build it. Let’s assume you want to build a 100-unit building of condos.

In order to approve the financing for that, you need to get 75 percent

of that building presold. Today, because of the taxes that have been put

in place, presales are actually evaporating.

There are $300 million of construction projects in the city of

Kelowna alone that are on the shelf because of presales. They were

people wanting to have a secondary residence — people from Alberta,

Saskatchewan or even Ontario — who had presales, ready to buy, who said:

“Whoa. I never knew I was going to get an extra tax, so I actually am

going to step out my contract.” Presales evaporated. So those projects

will not get financed and will not get built. Somebody has to finance

it, and there are rules around this with both CMHC and banks as to what

they’ll finance.

I want to give you a couple of other examples where I think some

vision…. I’ve had these conversations with various cities over the years

to try and see how they could move their vision forward, and I think

there’s an opportunity in some of this. In the city of Vancouver now, in

downtown towers that will get built, 20 percent of the units in the

buildings will be for social housing. That means that a developer builds

them and gives them to the city, which then hands them off to a

non-profit to operate them for social housing.

I think they need to come out of their box. This is no new story

for them, because I’ve actually told them this in the past. Think about

that as 20 percent of the building now being rental housing. Who do you

want to have rental housing for, in addition to social housing? One of

the biggest complaints in cities like West Vancouver and in Vancouver

elsewhere is that people who actually do the services in the community —

nurses, teachers, police officers, firemen — can’t afford to live in the

city. I know that, because over 600 police officers alone live in my

riding and serve elsewhere all around the Lower Mainland, including

Vancouver city police, West Vancouver city police and others.

The opportunity is: why don’t you try some affordable home

ownership deals, where you can actually have some caveats put on it to

allow people who work in the city to buy, stay or rent in the city and

actually change that dynamic? You can’t just have it all dedicated to

social housing if you really want to have some affordability in the

marketplace for your people.

Now, we should remember that when that 20 percent is paid for, the

people on the floors above pay for that in the price of retail when they

buy there. They’re paying for the 20 percent, because it’s in the retail

price.

The other thing that concerns me about this particular bill is

that it’s a small development cost structure. When I was in the business

back in the ’80s, it was a small development cost structure. It was

$5,000 to $10,000 per door. In my community, at the time, it was $15,000

a door. Now it’s $60,000 a door. What’s going to happen when it starts

at $300 to $600 per unit in the additional transit development cost

charge? Already people are talking about it going to $1,200. It’ll just

bump, bump, bump, and it’ll go right down to the retail price of the

house and will affect housing affordability.

I want to give you another example. In the city of Burnaby, you

can get 2.5 density. If people don’t understand what that means, you can

take the land base and get a multiplication of square footage going up

into your tower, and that’s what you can build. Now, you can take that

density up for another 750,000 to one million square feet if you want to

go higher.

In Burnaby, in addition to the development cost charges that are

already pushing up around $250,000 per unit, to go bigger and do

density, which I actually support…. You would think that density would

bring more affordability into the marketplace, but not in Burnaby. For

the extra 750,000 to one million square feet that you were allowed, the

development cost community amenity charge is $350 a square foot. Every

thousand-dollar unit has another $350,000 charge on it that goes

directly into the pocket of the city of Burnaby, which still doesn’t

have a contract with its fire department that’s over three years old. It

doesn’t make any sense.

If you want affordability as a local government, you need to

understand that and how it can work. There’s no community that I know of

that’s in the development side that’s got this right.

[2:05 p.m.]

For years we’ve tried to figure out ways that we could actually

reduce that cost, streamline the cost for development, get housing into

the marketplace, but it’s in the control of local government.

As we go through that, let’s remember that what we want in the end

is affordable housing. We want rental housing, which would allow for the

20 percent in Vancouver, which they could be really flexible and very

ingenious with, if they want to be, and do some really creative things.

But we need to do that in the context that it can actually get

built.

Now, on top of $350,000 for an expanded unit in square footage in

Burnaby, add in the $250,000 you’re already paying. All of a sudden,

this new tax, this DCC…. I’ve watched DCCs for 20 years plus. They don’t

go down. They go up.

For the next SkyTrain station along the corridor out to UBC, don’t

be surprised, if this legislation gets passed, that it could be $10,000,

$20,000, $50,000 within a couple years. Because it will be seen as an

opportunity, and nobody understands the trickle-down effect of that

amount of money for the ability for people to live there, buy there,

rent there or find other opportunities in housing. We have to understand

that the input costs in housing are staggering.

Can you imagine? You want to buy a home. Let’s say you want to buy

a very small condo in Vancouver. It’s $1.6 million, because the costs in

Vancouver are very high. Imagine if you figured out that the actual cost

of that condo could be $1 million because $600,000 of your price is

going to local government. It’s not going into the other infrastructure,

because a lot of it’s already in place. In downtown Vancouver, that is

particularly true.

As we go forward with this, let’s remember that today…. That’s why

I just don’t believe another development cost charge is going to give

you one cent of affordability in the future for housing, which is what

you want to accomplish.

I think we should look at how we’re doing that 20 percent in

downtown Vancouver, or the city should, and actually split it up. Have

some that could be co-op; some that could be affordable home ownership;

some that could be pure rental and affordable, below-market rental and

social housing. You can diversify the concern and actually address some

of the things that that city is dealing with.

The other thing is that if we’re going to get there on

affordability, at some point in time we have to recognize the fact that

we need to speed things up. We could speed up the process for rezoning.

But remember on the back end. The more you layer on the front and the

more presale customers you take out of the marketplace…. You can have it

all approved, all 100,000 units approved tomorrow, but you can’t get it

financed if there are no presales, and right now in British Columbia,

we’re killing presales.

That’s what we should keep in mind when we deal with this

bill.

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, the minister to close the

debate.

Hon. S. Robinson: I had a chance to listen to some of the debate here in this

chamber, and I just want to close with a couple of remarks.

I have never met anyone who likes to be in traffic. I think it’s

definitely something that everybody in this House can agree on. I’m

confident that everybody in this chamber gets frustrated by traffic and

by congestion. Making sure that we have a robust transit system, one

that meets the needs of a growing Lower Mainland — remember, we have a

million more people coming to greater Vancouver — is critically

important to reducing congestion.

I do want to say that I know that there was some acknowledgement

of TransLink’s project costs continuing to escalate. It’s continuing to

escalate because the old government, the members on the other side of

the House, refused to work together with the Mayors Council, refused to

work together with TransLink, refused to actually act and make the

projects viable. When you have a failed referendum, which was doomed

from the start — of course it just caused delay. So if people in this

chamber are frustrated by delay, I think it’s because the previous

government caused those significant delays that have resulted in

escalated costs.

The other thing I want to point out. I heard, certainly, a bit of

commentary from the development community and what some of the big

developers have been complaining about, but I also have a developer who

understands the value that transit will bring to their

projects.

I want to speak, specifically, the words of Jason Turcotte from

Cressey Developments, which is a significant developer in our community.

They’ve come out in support of this, mentioning on News 1130: “If new

development is going to continue to become available as a result of

transit expansion, then new development should help to fund it. I really

think the two things go hand in hand, so it makes sense that you have a

direct correlation.”

[2:10 p.m.]

Now, the other comment I want to make has to do with the concerns

that I heard from the other side around how it’s just going to increase

the cost of housing, therefore making it less affordable. First of all,

this includes a role for the inspector of municipalities, who will play

a significant role to ensure that the rates will not deter development

or discourage the construction of reasonably priced homes. So we’re

pretty clear that that’s here in this legislation.

The other thing I want to point out is that when you have some

fees, because it does cost local governments to move projects along…. If

you were to remove the fees…. Let’s say we said: “Okay. We’re removing

all of those fees.” If anyone in this House believes that suddenly the

house prices are going to reflect that removal…. Remember. This is the

marketplace, and the market determines that.

I’m not worried about what members opposite have been saying in

their comments. We have put some safeguards in there, and this is going

to be an important piece of legislation that gets people out of

congestion in the Lower Mainland.

With that, I move second reading of Bill 33.

[2:15 p.m.]

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Second reading of Bill 33 approved on the following

division:

YEAS — 43

Chouhan

Kahlon

Begg

Brar

Heyman

Donaldson

Mungall

Bains

Chen

Popham

Trevena

Sims

Chow

Kang

Simons

D’Eith

Routley

Elmore

Dean

Routledge

Singh

Leonard

Darcy

Simpson

Robinson

Farnworth

Horgan

James

Eby

Dix

Ralston

Mark

Fleming

Conroy

Fraser

Chandra Herbert

Rice

Krog

Furstenau

Weaver

Olsen

Glumac

NAYS — 38

Cadieux

de Jong

Bond

Polak

Wilkinson

Lee

Stone

Coleman

Wat

Bernier

Thornthwaite

Paton

Ashton

Barnett

Yap

Martin

Sullivan

Isaacs

Morris

Stilwell

Ross

Oakes

Johal

Redies

Rustad

Milobar

Sturdy

Clovechok

Shypitka

Hunt

Throness

Stewart

Sultan

Gibson

Reid

Letnick

Thomson

Larson

Hon. S. Robinson: I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House

to be considered at the next sitting after today.

Bill 33, South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority

Amendment Act, 2018, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the

Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after

today.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I call second reading, Bill 34, Greenhouse Gas Reduction Targets

Amendment Act.

[2:20 p.m.]

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

BILL 34 — GREENHOUSE GAS REDUCTION

TARGETS AMENDMENT

ACT, 2018

Hon. G. Heyman: Hon. Speaker, I move that this bill amending the Greenhouse Gas

Reduction Targets Act be read a second time.

Bill 34 sets the foundation for this government’s climate

strategy. It makes two very significant changes for how we address

climate change in this province.

First, the amendments will revitalize the greenhouse gas reduction

targets to set a clear path to the 2050 legislated targets. These

targets will ensure that we stay on the path to achieve an 80 percent

reduction in emissions below 2007 levels by 2050.

Second, the scope of the act will be expanded to cover how this

province adapts to climate change and how, as a government, we are

accountable for the adaptation measures that we promote and that we

offer to assist communities around the province to do.

Specifically, the amendments make the following changes. The

Greenhouse Gas Reduction Targets Act is renamed the Climate Change

Accountability Act to reflect the expanded scope of this bill to cover

targets, carbon-neutral government and climate risk.

Next, the greenhouse gas emission targets are reset by repealing

the 2020 emission reduction target of 33 percent below 2007 emission

levels, which the previous government, as well as the 2015 climate

leadership team report, said simply could not be met. We are simply too

far away. In fact, in the period of time from 2010 to 2015, under the

previous government, our emissions rose by 4½ percent instead of

continuing to decline.

We will add new targets. We will add a 2030 reduction target of 40

percent below 2007 levels, as recommended by the climate leadership team

of the previous government in 2015, which was not adopted by the

previous government, and add another target on the pathway to 2050: a

2040 reduction target of 60 percent below 2007 levels. Taken together,

these changes will create a clear path for the 2050 target of an 80

percent reduction from 2007 emission levels.

But it takes more than setting a target in legislation. We need to

develop a strategy. That’s exactly what we will be doing over the coming

months. The bill assists that by enabling the minister to set sectoral

targets by order. Sectoral reduction targets were recommended by the

climate leadership team, and they’re typically grouped by emissions

sources. One of them is buildings and homes, another one is

transportation, and another one is the industrial sector.

Sectoral targets provide clear policy direction and enable us to

work with the change-makers, with communities, with entrepreneurs, with

the private sector, as well as with government agencies while we

recognize the unique characteristics of each sector, the capability of

each sector. Where we see greater opportunities in one sector, we can

avail ourselves of those opportunities.

Finally, the amendments will prepare B.C. for managing the risks

of climate change. We know that climate change is already upon us. We

know that even if we stopped emitting today, the impacts of climate

change would continue. Emissions are happening around the world, as well

as in B.C., in Canada.

Those concentrations of greenhouse gases will continue to have

devastating impacts on weather. We see that in wildfires. We see that in

floods. We see that in unpredictability. We see that in changing growing

zones, whether it’s for trees or agriculture. We see that in the

movement of species as they need to find new habitat that will support

them.

Beginning in 2020, the province will be accountable to British

Columbians through reporting on the current and predicted climate risks.

In addition, we’ll report on the plans, actions and progress that have

been taken to mitigate current as well as future climate risks and to

adapt to those risks that are unavoidable.

[2:25 p.m.]

The amendments to the act will also enable regulations that

collect information from public sector organizations, such as school

boards, that relates to how B.C. is preparing for climate change through

both mitigation and adaptation measures. Together, these amendments will

ensure that British Columbia is well positioned to manage the risks

associated with climate change.

Bill 34 and the establishment of revitalized climate targets is

the first step in developing a new climate strategy for British

Columbia. Over the coming months, we will conduct a careful and thorough

consultation with British Columbians to inform our actions.

We will use the newly established Climate Solutions and Clean

Growth Advisory Council, which has already made a number of

recommendations to government which we have made public, to advise us on

the opportunities of taking action to address climate change as well as

impacts and threats to British Columbia’s economy, families, communities

and individuals, which we need to be mindful of as we design policies —

policies that we wish to minimize negative impacts while maximizing

economic opportunity and opportunities for more affordability as well as

for a more comfortable, predictable and stable life for families and

communities.

I will give a small example of some of the things that we already

are planning to do. As part of the increase of the climate tax, the

carbon tax, which began this April with a $5-per-tonne increase, we will

be giving a significant percentage of that incremental tax back to low-

and moderate-income families.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

We will also establish a clean growth incentive fund to assist

large industrial emitters — to assist them in both making changes to

reduce emissions as well as to approach world-leading benchmarks on

emissions so that we remain competitive. We protect jobs in British

Columbia while reducing our emissions.

We will be making a number of announcements over the coming months

about opportunities to reduce emissions, opportunities that will be

examples of how we flesh out a climate strategy plan for British

Columbia. It’s a plan that will continue to be iterated and reiterated

into the future and a plan that, coming this fall, will show British

Columbians that this government is serious about addressing climate

change, serious about making life better for communities, serious about

providing great economic opportunities for families and communities

throughout B.C.

It’s not a choice between climate action or environmental action

and the economy. The truth is that the two are inextricably linked —

today, tomorrow and into the future. By addressing these issues together

and seizing opportunities to build a modern, diverse, low-carbon

economy, cutting carbon pollution, we can show leadership for Canada. We

can show leadership for the world. We can show our determination and

intention to address the greatest challenge of our generation in a way

that seizes the opportunities before us and that encourages others to

join us.

The strategy will set B.C. on a path to ensure that we use less

energy, that we make life more affordable, that we invest in innovation

and new technologies and that we truly build a better British

Columbia.

I’d be happy now to take my chair. I look forward to the

contributions from other members as we will engage with all British

Columbians to build the plan for the future.

P. Milobar: It gives me pleasure to rise and speak to Bill 34. I think the

minister and I might have a different

interpretation of words and

language — what, specifically, the word “significant” means. We heard

the minister say that this bill creates significant changes to the

Greenhouse Gas Reduction Targets Amendment Act of 2018. I would suggest

to you that the most significant change in this bill is actually the

name changing to the Climate Change Accountability Act.

[2:30 p.m.]

I would like to address a few of the changes in this bill and

further explain why this really does not pose any significant changes

whatsoever to the original Greenhouse Gas Reduction TargetsAct from

2007, when you go through and read. In fact, it’s almost word for word

the same except for a few changes.

When you look at the

section 2 amendments, at first blush it

sounds very impressive that we are removing the 33 percent reduction of

2007 levels by 2020 and replacing it with a 40 percent reduction by

2030. However, given that the end point of an 80 percent reduction by

2050 is still the ultimate goal, the only way to get to that 80 percent

is to have a 40 percent reduction from the original plan by 2030

anyways.

All this plan has done is put in writing what was already the

preset trajectory for greenhouse gas reductions over the course of time.

In fact, this was confirmed by the minister’s staff during a briefing on

this as well — that the trajectory of emission reductions has not

changed, with this bill, from the 2007 bill at all. What we see is an

updating of dates, the natural percentage number that would go with that

date. But according to the ministry staff, that’s the exact same number

that would have been in place from the 2007 plan — hardly a significant

change to the plan of how we’re going to tackle greenhouse gas

reduction.

We hear the scope has been expanded. Well, the only scope of any

change to this plan, based on what we’re reading today, is that now, by

regulation, instead of coming to this House to make these sectoral

changes in targets, the minister is empowering himself to be able to

make those sectoral targets.

That makes one pause, I think, to consider the implications that

has, as we embark — getting closer and closer to a final investment

decision — on LNG plants in this province. When you consider that the

government is on record as saying that LNG will not be subject to carbon

tax and we now see the only change — other than the name change in this

bill — being the minister granting himself the ability, by regulation,

to make sectoral targets, it does connect, I guess, when you consider

the possible investment decision on LNG.

Now, I fully support a final investment decision for LNG. I think

it’s safe to say our caucus has been very clear that they support the

LNG industry. But I find it interesting that we are now establishing, by

ministerial regulation — instead of needing to come back and update in

this House, through this type of a process — what those targets will

be.

There are no new targets in this bill. As I say, the targets for

2050, as the minister acknowledged, are still 80 percent of 2007 levels

by 2050. That’s what was in the original bill in 2007. In the original

bill in 2007, the target for 2030 would have been a 40 percent reduction

of 2007 levels. What we see here today is a reduction in 2030 by 40

percent of 2007 levels. Again, identical to what was presented in 2007.

In fact, one would be hard pressed to find any changes of any

significance, to use the minister’s language.

Now, I think it’s safe to say that everyone is quite interested in

what techniques, tactics and incentives will be used moving forward to

try to get to these targets — because, as has been proven, it’s not from

lack of trying that we’re not able, at this point, to chart to 2020.

There has been a great amount of work done. There has certainly been a

lot of work done when you want to talk about building codes, when you

want to talk about transit corridors, when you want to talk about areas

of government buildings and municipal buildings and the streamlining of

those operations to try to reduce emissions in those sectors. There

absolutely has been a lot of work done in there.

[2:35 p.m.]

But this is a tough nut to crack. It has been a tough nut to crack

everywhere around the world. It doesn’t mean we shouldn’t keep trying.

It doesn’t mean we shouldn’t keep redoubling our efforts, and it doesn’t

mean we shouldn’t have targets, but I think we should make it clear to

the public that the fundamental targets haven’t changed. This bill does

not change those targets. The real question will be, moving forward into

the fall: what types of regulation, what types of incentives for heavy

emitters within the industrial sector, come forward?

What types of changes may people have to see to their home

environment, in terms of potential legislated rules around energy

efficiency and older housing stock, energy efficiency in newer housing

stock? I know, when you talk with the building associations, there gets

to be a tipping point where you’re investing a lot of money to save an

extra 1 percent or 2 percent on a home. That’s going to have to get

taken into account. Unfortunately, we don’t see any of that

today.

Although I can appreciate that we’re reaffirming the original

targets set out by the previous government in 2007, until we get more

detail, until we see the true impact, until we see how the yearly

increase to the carbon tax, which is no longer revenue-neutral, will be

implemented for a path forward, there is no clear path, as the minister

has said this bill provides.

This bill does not provide that clear path. This bill reaffirms a

very clear target that was set, back in 2007. It doesn’t increase that

target. It’s certainly not a bill that you would consider the proverbial

moon shot bill to try to accelerate a reduction in climate action. In

fact, even some of the finer-point details, like an every-two-year

update on even-numbered years, is the exact same language.

All of those, I think, are necessary, but let’s not kid ourselves.

This is fundamentally the exact same bill as the original, which is:

“The title of the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Targets Act, S.B.C. 2007, c.

42, is repealed and the following substituted: CLIMATE CHANGE

ACCOUNTABILITY ACT.” That is the only true change in terms of outcome in

this bill, other than the minister, by way of regulation — not by way of

legislation, not by needing to come back to this House — providing

himself the authority to set greenhouse gas emission targets for

individual sectors.

One can only assume the reason this bill, with so little change in

it, needs to be dealt with now, instead of in the fall, as part of a

comprehensive package — when the other changes would be being brought

forward from the great work the committee is doing for the minister — is

because of the concern that there may be a final investment decision for

LNG sometime this summer. If that’s the case, the minister would clearly

need to have the ability to make sure that they had peace of mind and

comfort that they would be, indeed, exempt from carbon taxation with

that final investment decision.

Again, we support LNG. I don’t want to try to confuse that part of

the discussion. But that’s the only reason I can see, with so little

change in this bill, for this bill to need to come forward right now: to

ensure that that happens.

Although this side of the House has always firmly supported LNG,

and the government has now warmed up to the concept of LNG, obviously we

will be supporting this bill. I know others in this House have made very

clear statements around their support, or lack thereof, for LNG and the

seriousness of what happens if LNG is courted. I look forward to hearing

comments from other members of this chamber around (b)(4), in terms of

the minister establishing greenhouse gas emission targets for individual

sectors, by regulation.

[2:40 p.m.]

Certainly, this bill, although it does make very clear what a 2030

target was…. Again, that target was the exact same as was laid out 11

years ago now, in 2007.

We will look forward to seeing what the true changes in the fall

will actually be and what the clear direction coming out of the other

work and the update work in terms of targets and what people can expect

for impacts and for the provision around increased carbon taxation — no

longer revenue neutrality — and what that actually means to people in

their daily lives, to industry in their daily operations, and in any

serious, tangible way whatsoever to seeing any targets being met. Again,

they’re the exact same targets as we saw in 2007.

Thank you for the time on this bill. I look forward to further

questions in the committee stage.

S. Chandra Herbert: Well, it gives me pleasure and some hope to speak in support of

Bill 34, the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Targets Amendment Act, which

should it pass, will be renamed, I understand, the Climate Change

Accountability Act.

Now, I think that’s important — accountability. I know that the

speaker before me is a big fan of accountability. He says he is and

really wants to hold people accountable in his job as the official

opposition. In order to do that, I think he needs to understand the

history of his own previous government, the party he ran with, which

from 2010 to 2015, jacked up emissions when every known scientist that’s

credible and anybody who cares about climate change would know that we

have to be bringing emissions down, not increasing them.

Unfortunately, under the B.C. Liberals for the last, I guess,

seven years, really, from 2010 onwards, their trajectory was to send

emissions up. I understand the member spoke a lot about how, in this

bill, the targets are the same, so really there was no point to change

them, that it’s all fine. They were all going in that direction

anyways.

Well, they weren’t, unfortunately. The reason that 2020 has been

abandoned — 33 percent emission reduction below the 2007 levels in 2020,

which we should have made, which we should have done…. Morally, it would

have been the thing that I think any one of us would agree is the right

thing to do when you consider the impact of climate change.

We didn’t get there because his government, under Christy Clark,

abandoned any pretence of trying to act on climate change, claiming:

“Well, you know, we’re acting.” Well, they were acting by increasing

emissions. I know that for generations ahead of us…. They will be

looking back at governments of this time and wondering what the heck we

were doing when we knew the problem was there, when we saw the problems

staring us in the face of climate change.

Burning gas. Burning carbon. Sending it up into the atmosphere.

Burning methane, sending it up in the atmosphere. Doing all of those

things that make climate change worse — make flooding worse, make forest

fires worse, make the challenge to our species much worse. This is

sending people fleeing from their countries as refugees because of

climate change and is drowning islands in the South Pacific and whole

nations because of climate change.

Well, we knew that, and many of us in this House were trying to

raise the alarm. My friends who are, thankfully, now on the opposition

side did not do anything about it at the time. They made emissions

worse.

That’s accountability, I would say to the hon. member, that he

should reflect on — that his party made climate change worse over the

last seven years, not better.

I speak today about the Climate Change Account­ability Act because

I want the government of B.C. to get back on the right track to reducing

emissions — to following our obligation to our fellow citizens and

preachers around this planet, to this planet Earth that we all rely

on.

Today is my birthday, and I mention that because, well, I love

birthdays. But I mention that because we all have an obligation to this

earth, I believe, through being born onto it. That obligation is to

leave it as a better place for the future, not a worse place, and to

reflect on our children and our children’s children and on into the

future. We need to be bringing climate change emissions down and

fighting greenhouse gas emissions now, and not doing the

opposite.

By setting a target of 40 percent below 2007 levels by 2030, that

sets us a new benchmark. I’ve got to admit I’ve given the minister a few

words, and I’ve certainly shared that with the former Environment

Minister as well. We need to find a way to hold politicians accountable

for these promises around climate change targets. I know that certainly

voters do. The argument is that they will, and some would say that’s why

the Liberals lost a number of seats last time. Others will say that

didn’t reflect at all.

[2:45 p.m.]

I think that there are other things that we need to think about.

I’m hoping, through this legislation, that the idea of having the

minister put out, every two years, a report on the risks to B.C. from

climate change and what they’re doing to meet those risks would help to

create an accountability loop that we could connect to.

I know there’s a time lag between when the emissions go up into

the atmosphere, when the planet gets hotter and when the politician

might be held accountable for that. You create emissions today, and the

heat may not be felt for a while. We’re dealing with a lot of the impact

from the burning of coal and so on, years ago now, because of the time

lag between the actions we take now and when they impact the

planet.

It would be hard in some ways to hold an individual responsible

for climate change, because of course we all are. But we really do, I

think, need to reflect on: how do we make sure our governments are

responsible in taking that into account? We do that for budgets. If

somebody doesn’t meet their budget, their salary is reduced a

bit.

I jokingly asked: “Well, maybe we should do that for ministers

too.” They might take it a bit more seriously if they saw their salaries

shaved if they didn’t meet climate change targets — the challenge, of

course, being the time lag. Maybe a minister would be held responsible

for something they had no hand in doing. I suppose the argument would

be: if we followed the 2020 target and we didn’t meet it because the

B.C. Liberal government didn’t do anything to fight climate change and

an NDP cabinet minister got their salary cut…. I could see why some

people would have a challenge with that.

I’m hoping that we start broadening and that the Auditor General

broadens their scope around what we audit. We often audit the books. You

look at the numbers, the finance, the dollars, the cents. Do they add

up? Do they track? Was it value for money?

I hope that we keep just as firm an eye — and we take a closer

eye, I would argue — on carbon emissions, climate change emissions, and

that we really track those as well, because you can’t act if you don’t

have the data. For a while, we’ve been lacking data to see how much the

emissions increased under the former government. I know the minister

said that from 2010 to 2015, they went up 4.5 percent.

It doesn’t sound like a lot, but it does sound like a lot when we

understand that emissions didn’t go down that much in 2008 to 2010 after

the bringing in of a carbon tax and a major recession. Emissions did go

down but not by a huge amount, and then they just bumped right back

up.

We only have a steeper hill to climb from here on out if we’re

going to reduce emissions by 40 percent below 2007 levels by 2030.

That’s 12 years from now. A 40 percent reduction of our climate change

emissions in 12 years — we shouldn’t kid ourselves. That is a very

difficult thing to meet, because of course, many people…. How did they

get to this building today? They might have driven a

fossil-fuel-combusting car to get here. They might have taken the bus,

which in many cases uses fossil fuels.

How did they heat the water for coffee they had this morning?

Well, maybe it was with an electric kettle; maybe it was on a stove

burning gas. I know, depending on what part of the province you are,

there are different prevalence levels of that. Maybe they heat their

home with gas to stay a little bit warmer. That’s a fossil

fuel.

If we’re going to cut 40 percent of our emissions by 2030, all of

those issues need to be acted on now, and that takes a while. I’ve

talked to many apartment owners, strata condo owners and others in my

constituency. In some cases, their boilers come up, and they go: “We

need to buy a gas-burning boiler to heat the water that people want for

their hot shower in the morning.” In some cases, solar can supplement if

not outright replace that, and certainly, the costs are looking a lot

more affordable to do that. But many people don’t think about

it.

Gas prices are low right now, so they say: “Well, they’ll always

be low.” They don’t factor in the climate cost of burning the gas and so

may not make that transition. Well, if in 12 years we need to cut our

emissions, by 2040, a whole lot of us are going to be needing to make

those kinds of transitions — moving to the electric car if possible,

moving to walking, biking, as many of us do. I think Bike to Work Week

is upon us. Certainly, that’s how I choose to get around most of the

time.

There’s a lot of change we need to make, and I’m glad that we’re

started on that path. I look forward to seeing the plan to get us to

these target levels because a target is just a target unless you

actually act on it. We’ve seen what happens when you don’t act to meet

your target: you miss it, and you miss it by a long shot. You burn gas,

and you make the climate problem worse.

I’m hopeful that we can actually meet the target and then some,

because I think there are generations — my generation, the generation

behind me, younger than me, and so on…. All we’ve seen is political

parties make promises about fighting climate change and then break

them.

[2:50 p.m.]

I think the federal government, through the ’90s, made all sorts

of talk about meeting the Kyoto protocol and did barely anything to

actually meet it and blew past those numbers. We saw that under the

Christy Clark government. We saw it under the Stephen Harper government.

They made grand plans and then did nothing to actually meet

them.

I’m committed to working my butt off to make sure that we actually

meet the targets, because I think it’s important for my generation, for

the generations to come, for our elders, for our planet, for the very

thing that gives us life, the Earth. If we don’t do it, we as a species

are facing incredible calamity. If we do take action, we’re already

facing real, real challenges because of the inaction of previous

governments and previous generations.

It’s my pleasure to speak in support of this bill and of continued

action to actually fight climate change. It’s our obligation. We must do

it.

A. Weaver: I rise to speak in favour and support of Bill 34, Greenhouse Gas

Reduction Targets Amendment Act, 2018. This act is putting forward a

number of amendments to the original Greenhouse Gas Reduction Targets

Act, which was assented to on November 29, 2007. That act has three

parts to it: one with respect to future greenhouse gas emission targets,

one with respect to a carbon-neutral public sector and one that had some

general provisions.

It is on the first part that the amendments are being put forward

today, under three main areas. The first, of course, is that new targets

are being added for 2030 and for 2040. The government is proposing a 40

percent reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by 2030, relative to 2000

levels, and a 60 percent reduction, relative to 2000 levels, by

In addition, we know that there are sections being added here to

give the minister executive power, through the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-council, to provide sectoral reduction targets as

we move forward.

In addition, and in direct response to the federal Auditor

General’s report, the government is proposing to have, starting in 2020

and reporting every two years after that…. A report will be introduced

that will discuss the determination of the risks that could be expected

from changing climate, the progress that has been made toward addressing

those risks, the actions that have been taken to achieve that progress

and the plans to continue that progress.

I’d like to go back to the original act in 2007 that’s being

amended. To me, that was a very important time in my life, because 2007

was the year in which the IPCC — that’s the Intergovernmental Panel on

Climate Change — released its Fourth Assessment Report: Climate

Change . In that year, they also received the Nobel Peace

Prize.

I remember that year very, very well. I remember that year because

of the fact that the B.C. government at the time, under the leader,

Gordon Campbell, decided that this was an opportunity that B.C. could

not afford to miss out on. Gordon Campbell, the Premier at the time,

recognized, as did his Environment Minister, Barry Penner, that having a

climate change and greenhouse gas reduction strategy is essential to

having a vision. It’s, essentially, exactly the same as having a vision

for a renewable, clean 21st century economy that brings prosperity not

only for the present generation but also for future generations

thereafter.

He recognized that the very first piece of legislation that needed

to be introduced prior to bringing in steps to actually mitigate

greenhouse gases was setting a goal. That goal, in 2007, in the act that

received royal assent on November 27, was greenhouse gas reduction

targets.

I sat in the audience proudly watching that day when the bill was

read here. I see young children from a school here. I sat where they sit

that day and listened to the minister at the time, Barry Penner, bring

in this legislation. I felt proud to be a British Columbian. I told my

colleagues around the world to look at the jurisdiction we had. I’ll

come to that in a second.

It was not just about the goal, the target that was put in. It was

the subsequent legislation that was brought through in a diversity of

arrays.

[2:55 p.m.]

In 2007, something happened. Mr. Campbell, the Premier, recognized

that what we need to do is we need to send a signal to the market in

British Columbia that we are going to be leaders in the new economy. We

see the emergence of a clean tech sector, we see the emergence of a

renewable energy sector, and we see the emergence of investments by

companies in reducing greenhouse gases. A lot of that was done by the

subsequent measures that were brought in place.

I talked about the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Targets Act. That was

a goal that subsequently was buttressed by a number of measures brought

in through, for example, the Carbon Tax Act, which was assented to on

May 29, 2008; the Greenhouse Gas Reduction (Cap and Trade) Act, which

was assented to on May 29, 2008; the Greenhouse Gas Reduction (Emissions

Standards) Statutes Amendment Act, which was assented to on May 29,

2008; the Greenhouse Gas Reduction (Renewable and Low Carbon Fuel

Requirements) Act, which was assented to on May 1, 2008; the Utilities

Commission Amendment Act, which was assented to on May 1, 2008; the

Local Government (Green Communities) Statutes Amendment Act, which

received royal assent on May 29.

We have the Greenhouse Gas Reduction (Emissions Standards)

Statutes Amendment Act, which I already mentioned, and the Greenhouse

Gas Reduction (Vehicle Emissions Standards) Act, another act assented to

on May 29. Then we have the Utilities Commission Amendment Act. Finally,

we have the Clean Energy Act, brought in on June 3, 2010.

During that time, as British Columbia was leading up to the Winter

Olympics, a very strong signal was being sent to the market. I remember,

as part of the Climate Action Team, the very first climate action team,

the multitude of meetings that we had as we made recommendations to

government about the types of policy measures they might consider. We

were tasked primarily with coming up with interim targets for 2012 and

We came up with targets…. In 2012, we were putting forward targets

that we believed that government should seek to reduce emissions by 6

percent, relative to 2007, by 2012. By 2016, the second target that we

were tasked with providing recommendations for…. We came up with 18

percent by 2016.

Government was on track. In fact, it made its 2012 target, based

on the policy measures that were put in place. We knew, and government

knew at that time, through wedge analysis, that we were not going to

make the target of 33 percent reductions by 2020 with the policy

measures and those bills and statutes on the table. More needed to be

done.

Despite what the member for Kamloops–North Thompson suggests,

there was no plan for 2040. The fake numbers brought up about somehow

this was part of the government’s plan…. I recognize that he wasn’t

there, and he’d probably throw his hands up and say: “What do I know? I

wasn’t there.” However, the reality is that I was there. I was there,

working on the Climate Action Team. I was meeting with the Premier at

the time, Gordon Campbell, and the Minister of Environment numerous

times during that time in an advisory capacity.

As I say, again, I was proud to be a British Columbian. Mr.

Campbell recognized the economic opportunity associated with dealing

with greenhouse gases, associated with being clean instead of

polluting.

All of this came to an end with a switch in leadership. The first

crack in the wall or hole in the dike started in July of 2012 when LNG

was excluded in the Clean Energy Act. Energy would have to be renewable

unless it was being used in the compression of liquefied natural gas.

That was the first act.

It became far more aggressive towards dismantling the policies.

That culminated in 2014, in the Greenhouse Gas Industrial Reporting and

Control Act, wherein we in this Legislature repealed the Greenhouse Gas

Reduction (Cap and Trade) Act, which was assented to on May 29, 2008. We

repealed that act,

an act that business had actually sought. Even today,

in speaking with heavy point source emitters, they wish that we had that

legislation in place. Why, of course, is that we try to meet our

targets.

We have to recognize that in our society there’s a diversity of

emitters. There are large point source emitters, like cement

manufacturers, like Rio Tinto Alcan, like pulp mills or paper mills.

These large point source emitters are subject to the carbon tax, but the

original intention back in the day, back in 2007 and 2008, was

that….

[3:00 p.m.]

A regulatory framework was put in place. That enabling framework

was there, through the cap-and-trade legislation, which would allow for

the inclusion of large, heavy point source emitters while exempting them

from the carbon tax. They’re still covered by emissions pricing, but

it’s internal emissions pricing within heavy industry, which allows the

most efficient investment of money to reduce emissions. They’re still

covered by emissions pricing, but it’s internal emission pricing within

heavy industry that allows the most efficient investment of money to

reduce emissions.

This is the approach California has done with large heavy

emitters. This is the approach Quebec has done. This is not the approach

of some other provinces or certain states, but many jurisdictions around

the world have cap-and-trade legislation or enabling legislation — some

more aggressively so than others.

With the repeal of that legislation, large point source emitters

were left wondering what to do. They were left troubled by the fact that

they’re now going to be incorporated into an emissions pricing, a

straight-up pricing, and that really what we care about is internally

reducing our emissions in British Columbia by spending money on the most

efficient and effective ways of doing that.

The Rio Tintos of this world that have spent billions of dollars

on upgrading their facility to reduce emissions by 50 percent at the

same time would potentially be in trouble if it’s suddenly only a carbon

tax approach, as opposed to a cap-and-trade approach, which would have

given them recognition for early adoption of measures that were

subsequently brought in. That would be allowed and possible within the

cap-and-trade system.

I still hope government, one day, will be bringing in that

legislation. You don’t have to go far to find out where it is, because

it’s right there in the legislation that we repealed in 2014 in the

Greenhouse Gas Industrial Reporting and Control Act. As a little

sidebar, you’ll recall that I proposed an amendment, which didn’t pass,

to rename it the Greenhouse Gas Increase and Industrial Reporting Act

back in the day.

Coming back to the issue of emissions. We now know, in British

Columbia, that we have two new targets set in this bill — 40 percent by

2030 relative to 2007 and 60 percent at 2040 relative to 2007 — and the

existing and old target of 80 percent by 2050.

Now why that 80 percent number is critical is that, while some

might cynically say, “Okay, it means we don’t have to do anything, and

other governments are responsible,” that number sends a signal to

market, a very strong signal to market that government should listen to.

That signal is this: we can no longer spend any more money investing in

fossil fuel intensive infrastructure in the province of British Columbia

today, because we know that we’re not going to tear it down tomorrow.

Instead, we should be transitioning away from fossil fuels to renewables

and the low-carbon economy.

We don’t build a coal-fired electricity plant to tear it down

tomorrow. We don’t build an LNG facility — a two-train, a four-train LNG

facility — in Kitimat to tear it down tomorrow. We build them to last

40, 50 years. We build them to last until 2050. Therein lies the

conundrum that government has if it’s trying to talk on the one hand

about LNG and on the other about meeting climate targets.

The previous government lost all credibility on that file, as they

were talking 23 permits and five big plants. I mean, it was just

outrageous, the rhetoric that was coming from the opposition,

then-government, about wealth and prosperity for one and all from LNG

that clearly didn’t transpire.

I recognize that the present government has taken the giveaway one

step further with reduced electricity rates, exemption of increase in

carbon tax. It has also talked about repealing the LNG income tax, which

I hope my colleagues opposite will not support the repeal of, as we will

not support here in the B.C. Greens. But coming back to

that….

In 2007 — that is the reference point upon which all future

reductions are measured against — we in British Columbia emitted 64.7

megatonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent.

Now, the carbon dioxide equivalent means that we know that

methane, on a 100-year time scale, is much more powerful, as is nitrous

oxide or certain CFCs or HCFCs. They’re more powerful on a

molecule-to-molecule basis in terms of their absorptive ability on

greenhouse gases. So we convert them, all those other greenhouse gas

emissions, to the carbon dioxide equivalent.

We had 64.7 megatonnes. In 2008, we had 64.7 megatonnes of

emissions again. In 2009, not because of any grandiose immediate policy

— although we recognize that there was a very strong signal at the time

sent to the market that the carbon price was going up, and there was

investment at the time — emissions dropped to 61.1 megatonnes. Part of

that, too, was because of an economic downturn that didn’t really hurt

B.C. but hurt global economies.

[3:05 p.m.]

In 2010, we were down to 60.6 megatonnes, and in 2011, 61.1

megatonnes. In 2012 — and here’s where the policy shift started to

happen — 61.9 megatonnes. In 2013, 62.9 megatonnes; 2014, 62.3

megatonnes; and 2015, 63.3 megatonnes. Every single year since the

change of leadership of the previous government, emissions went

up.

Why did they go up? It was because government sent exactly the

wrong signal to market that you want to send if you want to head towards

decreasing emissions. Government introduced exemptions on the deep-well

royalty credit, not only for deep wells but now for shallow well. Heck,

for any well, royalty credits now exist.

Did you know that ten years ago we used to get $35 or so for every

1,000 cubic metres of natural gas produced in the province of British

Columbia, as a royalty — $35? Now it’s less than $3 as a royalty. It was

more than ten times that just a decade ago. It’s going down still. At

the same time, the production of natural gas has gone up and up. Why

wouldn’t you take it out, if we’re giving it away?

Literally, we give this resource away, this beautiful resource,

for applications that we yet have no idea of, in the future. We know

that these molecules are very useful in the petrochemical industry. We

know they’re very useful in other industries for creating fertilizer and

creating methanol. We know that we can use our natural gas resources in

a diversity of ways. Burning it is one of the most ridiculous ways, and

frankly, generations after us are going to look to our generation and

say: “Why did you squander that resource? Why did you burn it when the

most powerful source of energy, the sun, is free, as is geothermal

energy?”

Let’s come back to the targets, because it’s critical that we do

that. I’ve pointed out that in 2015, now we’re at 63.3 megatonnes.

That’s the last reporting year. For the next little bit, I’ll assume

that we haven’t changed from that — not because that’s correct or wrong,

but because that is the last year we have reporting data officially done

for Canada in the United Nations framework convention on climate

change.

So 63.3 megatonnes of CO 2 equivalent from B.C. in 2015.

Let’s suppose we know that we’re going to add a four-train LNG facility.

Shell Canada talks about a two-train facility right now, but you don’t

build two trains not to build four trains. So let’s suppose we talk

about a four-train facility and that that’s really the direction we’re

heading.

Well, we know, as I’ve mentioned already, that if we start at 64.7

megatonnes…. That’s the 2007 reference value that this legislation is

referring to. We know that our 2030 target of a 40 percent reduction of

that 64.7 megatonnes means we have to go down to 38.8 megatonnes by

2030, to 25.88 megatonnes by 2040, and to 12.9 megatonnes by 2050. So

that 64.7 megatonnes in 2007, under the legislation before us, must drop

to 38.8 in 2030, 25.9 in 2040, and 12.9 in 2050.

Now, if we’re going to add a four-train LNG facility, we’re going

to add 8.6 megatonnes — that’s before some of the recent estimates that

I could talk about shortly, about fugitive emissions — on to that. So

our new reference case is actually…. Well, we’re basically adding 8.6

megatonnes to that 2015 value. The 2015 value was 63.3 megatonnes. We’re

going to add 8.6, and we’re going to come up to 72.9 megatonnes. That

72.9 is our starting point — because we’re adding 8.6 — for

reductions.

Let’s suppose that we know we’re going to put in a four-train LNG

facility. We know that Shell won’t build that today to tear it down

tomorrow. It’s going to last for several decades. They’re not going to

invest billions of dollars just on a whim. It’ll last decades. So what

does this mean for greenhouse gas reductions in every other

sector?

Here are the numbers. We know that if we have a four-train LNG

facility — that’s going to be constant; it’s going to be there; we’re

not going to tear it down — then every other sector in our economy,

other than that facility, must drop its emissions by 52 percent by 2030,

down to 30.2 megatonnes, by 73 percent by 2040 and by a whopping 95

percent by 2050.

[3:10 p.m.]

Now, reflect upon this, hon. Speaker. One four-train LNG facility

in Kitimat will produce 8.6 megatonnes of emissions that aren’t going to

be around just for tomorrow and then we tear it down. That’ll be around

for decades. If we add those four trains and we believe these targets

that we’ve actually put forward, then we need every other sector of our

economy to reduce its emissions by 95 percent. That means telling Rio

Tinto Alcan: “I’m sorry, but you have to shut down.” That means saying

nobody can drive fossil-fuel-combusted vehicles anymore, nowhere in B.C.

That means telling heavy industry left, right and centre they have to

shut down because we’re already at that with things like landfills,

which we have to close down as well.

There’s a staggering disconnect. To be fair to the politicians in

this room, it’s not just here; it’s globally. There’s a staggering

disconnect between science and policy here in B.C., in Canada and

internationally. I’ll come back to that again in a couple of

seconds.

Leaders around the world signed, in 2017, something called the

Paris accord, which committed…. Canada was one of the signatories of it.

Despite the fact that Trump wants to get out of it, he can’t for years

to come. It committed to keep global warming to below 2 degrees relative

to preindustrial levels. They would actually keep it substantially below

2 degrees.

What can science say? It can say this. We know the world has

warmed 1.1 degrees already. We know that 2016 was the hottest year on

record, followed by 2015, 2017, 2014, 2010, 2013, 2005 and

For those people who’ve been following this climate change debate,

like I have, for so many years, you should be asking the question: where

were all those skeptics who said we’re in a cooling period? What

happened to them? Are they finding some other argument now?

Believe it or not, scientific communities understood thermometers

quite well for several centuries, and in fact, the world is warming, and

we can measure it. Forty percent of Republicans in the U.S. don’t

believe there’s solid evidence that the world is warming. Frankly, they

don’t believe in the existence of thermometers. That’s the scale of

that.

Coming back, we know the world has warmed by 1.1 degrees. We know

that if we do no more, if we do nothing but keep existing greenhouse gas

levels fixed at the present-day values, we’re going to warm by another

0.6 degrees. That takes us to 1.7 degrees, and we know that the

permafrost carbon feedback is going to give us another 0.2 to 0.3. We

know that if we do no more than just keep the levels like they are now,

we’re going to warm towards 1.8 or 1.9. Yet emissions continue to go up

year after year in places like Canada and elsewhere.

The disconnect that I mentioned about here in British Columbia

extends globally. It’s particularly in Canada. I’ll come back to this in

a second, but in Canada, Mr. Trudeau signs with a smile that we’re now

part of the global agreement. On the one hand, he says: “We’re going to

actually bring in place a climate plan in Canada to meet our Paris

targets.” It’s actually Harper’s plan, but that’s an aside. I’ll come to

that in a second. He’s done nothing, argues we need to build pipelines

to have a climate plan. It makes no sense, because what Paris says, not

only to Canada or British Columbia but to the world, is that effective

immediately, we must turn the corner and stop investing in new fossil

fuel infrastructure that will continue to be around for decades to

come.

As I say again, we don’t build a coal-fired plant today to tear it

down tomorrow. It’s about making the right choice of investments today

that will affect tomorrow. I’ll come back to some of the ramifications

and the importance of this bill later.

Coming back to federally in this context of meeting our

legislation. Federally, ironically, people like me are beginning to look

quite fondly upon the time of Mr. Harper because he did nothing on the

climate change file — nothing at all — and Mr. Trudeau has done negative

by stumping for pipelines.

It’s remarkable that we have this cognitive dissonance happening

politically, federally, at a time when most of the world is actually

recognizing the seriousness of this. Norway, for example, a nation that

recognized that climate change is not only something to be concerned

about; it’s also an opportunity. Did you know that 40 percent of new

cars in Norway are electric? They’re electric today. Netherlands, India

and other jurisdictions have announced that all new cars will be

electric by 2030.

[3:15 p.m.]

Here in British Columbia, we have an opportunity for leadership.

The first step in claiming that leadership is setting in place targets.

It is those targets that allow the civil service, allow the modellers,

to do their wedge analyses so that we can actually start to understand

what the effects of certain policy measures are in terms of future

greenhouse gas reductions. That work is ongoing as I speak. I’m very

pleased that it is ongoing as we speak.

Coming back to the LNG relationship with this legislation. I’ve

heard it say that LNG Canada is talking about a two-train LNG facility

instead of a four-train. I’ve got the numbers for a two-train LNG

facility as well, and they’re no different.

If LNG Canada invested a two-train LNG facility in Kitimat, all

other aspects of our economy would have to drop their emissions from

63.3 megatonnes in 2015 to 34.5 in 2030, 21.4 in 2040 and 8.6 in 2050.

That’s a 46 percent, 66 percent and 86 percent reduction — an 86 percent

reduction, everything else other than LNG Canada.

These are big numbers. These are very big numbers, and very big

numbers cannot be met without bold plans. That is what we’re looking

forward to. We’re looking forward to seeing that plan, because frankly,

I got into politics back in 2012, not because I saw this wonderful

opportunity for a career in politics. That was not the

intention.

It’s that I was involved very intimately with Gordon Campbell’s

government and the development of the climate policy and climate

strategies and his government — which, hon. Speaker, I note you were

part of at that time — as they put British Columbia on the map as a

leader internationally in both dealing with the challenge and

recognizing the opportunity of what greenhouse gas mitigation

does.

We were leaders, and then I saw that start to crack apart in 2012.

I could not stand by and say to my students, who would come…. You know,

I would talk in these classes about framing the whole issue of climate

change as an issue of intergenerational equity, because it is. Today’s

generation, our decision-makers, won’t have to live the consequences of

our decisions, and those who do, better get participating in our

democratic institutions, because they’re going to inherit those

consequences.

They don’t. I would ask them: why don’t you vote? Why is it that

30 to 40 percent of youth between 18 and 24, until the last election,

voted federally? They would say to me that all politicians are corrupt.

All they want to do is line their policy…. I’d say to them: “No. No,

that’s not the case. People go there for a right reason. If you don’t

like them, run yourself or find someone to run, but this is the system

we have.”

In 2012, I’m giving the same lecture, and I’m looking at myself in

the face and saying: “I’m a hypocrite. I can tell them that if they

don’t like what’s happening, they should run themselves.”

So I ran. I ran with the B.C. Green Party. Let me tell you, hon.

Speaker. It is not the easiest path to this Legislature, as my friend

from Saanich North and the Islands and my friend from Cowichan Valley

will attest. Running with the B.C. Green Party, a party that had elected

nobody before in any province, is not what you do if you’re looking for

a political career in power. You do that out of principle. The same goes

for my colleague Adam and my colleague Sonia.

We’re here. We’re here with 17 percent of British Columbians

saying: “We support you.” We were very clear in our campaign that this

defining issue of our time is one that we’re here to push, to ensure

that British Columbia capitalizes on the opportunities. We can be

laggards of yesteryear or we can be leaders of tomorrow. I think British

Columbians want to be leaders.

We could talk about revenue. Revenue to natural gas was more than

$1 billion a little over a decade ago. Well, a couple of years ago we

actually lost money. Now we’re making a mere few tens of millions of

dollars.

Hon. Speaker, I am the designated speaker. I noticed the light has

come on.

We are not going to continue to bring wealth and prosperity to

British Columbia if we continue to chase the economy of the past. We are

blessed in British Columbia with resources — renewable resources and raw

resources like minerals, like gas, like water, like forests. We are

blessed with resources that we have a duty and a responsibility to

steward for future generations, not only the resources themselves but

also the environmental and social systems that surround them.

That’s why this bill is critical as giving the first step of those

targets that will allow the civil service the wedge analyses to get

there. For example, let’s look at the mining sector. British Columbia is

blessed with a mining sector. We are some of the world’s leading miners

around the world. Many of them started…. Some of them get bought

up.

[3:20 p.m.]

Look at Teck Cominco — well, it’s now just Teck — an incredible

asset to British Columbia. Teck’s a good company, a good steward of the

environment. Teck would love to be able to use electric trucks. But

there’s no technology out there. There’s an opportunity for B.C.

innovation.

There’s an opportunity for B.C. to actually do what Norway is

doing in replacing their ferries with electric ferries — with batteries

built in Richmond, no less. Why are we not recognizing this innovative

opportunity for heavy industry? Electric trucks. We’ve got lots of

electricity. We’ve got a company like Teck, a global leader, ready to

adopt. There’s an opportunity.

Here’s another piece of innovation out there. We talk about gas

filling stations all over the place. You want to be a leader of the new

economy? You recognize that you can get land really cheap on the highway

between here and there, halfway between towns, and you could start to

put a gas station there. But the gas you’re doing is actually

electricity for electric vehicles. When you fill up in a high-voltage

400-volt charger, it’ll take you 30 minutes. You’re going to sit there.

You have a cup of coffee. It’s an opportunity for innovation, to start

to create charging stations. But that innovation needs government to get

out of the way.

Right now in British Columbia, you cannot give away your

electricity and ask someone to pay for it unless you’re a registered

utility. I have an electric charging station at my house. I’d love to

charge the member for West Vancouver–Capilano 35 cents every time he

filled his electric car up. But I can’t.

Interjection.

A. Weaver: There we go. My colleague here would charge me 25 cents, and the

free market starts to come to play here. Capitalism, free market economy

— here we go. He’s charging 25 cents, and maybe my colleague there from

Whiskey Creek will say: “I’m going to charge 20 cents, because I’ve got

a First Nations, the Huu-ay-aht, who’ve got a generating station there,

and they have excess power. We want to charge that power here. Let’s

go.”

This is innovation. We in British Columbia used to be leaders in

that regard, and now, sadly, we’ve fallen off that. This legislation is

the very first step, the necessary first step, mirroring what was done

in 2007 by Gordon Campbell, to get us back on the right path.

British Columbia has an electric car company, Electra Meccanica.

Our colleague there ran in Vancouver–Mount Pleasant against the member

for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant. This is the company that builds electric

vehicles. It’s traded publicly on the NASDAQ. It builds electric

vehicles in Victoria. But now, guess what. The factories are going to be

in China and India. He’s got hundreds of millions of dollars of sales

coming forward. In B.C., we should be doing that here.

We should be saying say to Terrace: “We get that you have some

economic issues right now, because the oil and gas sector is hurting

because the price has gone through the floor. But you are on a rail line

between Chicago and Prince Rupert. You’re on that rail line, and guess

what. We can get your goods manufactured there to market in both the

biggest east coast and Asian markets.”

What we need is to attract manufacturing there, by recognizing

that there’s a whole generation of manufacturers who want to be clean

and good corporate citizens: B corp. — the legislation I just brought in

a couple days ago — benefit corporations. We could give them that clean

energy. We don’t have to double down on the economy of yesterday. We

could say that Terrace is the place to go, and 100 Mile House. All of

these small communities across our province have their own strategic

advantages that make them the place to go for innovation and variety of

areas.

Forest fire innovation. There is so much potential there, both in

terms of the type of suits that people wear through the suppression

techniques for innovation in the forest fire sector. We have innovation

in the forestry industry, but we buy our innovation from

Finland.

There was a government there that recognized that in order to

compete, we can’t compete by racing to the bottom. We can only compete

if we are smarter. Otherwise, we’re going to give our resources away.

We’re smarter, and we’re more efficient. Therein lies an opportunity. In

those opportunities, those wedge opportunities, we meet our targets at

the same time as we bring economic prosperity to British Columbia — not

only for this generation but for generations to come, because not doing

so is a problem.

We bemoan…. And it’s a tragedy that we have the flooding events in

the Boundary-Similkameen region this year. We had flooding last year. We

had forest fires last year. We had forest fires that took out much of

Fort McMurray. This is a story that happens year in, year out not only

in B.C. but everywhere.

As I’ve tried to point out time and time again, the issue of

global warming, which this is addressing, is fundamentally a question of

intergenerational equity. Do we, the present generation, owe anything to

future generations in terms of the quality of environment that we leave

behind?

[3:25 p.m.]

If the answer is no, who cares about global warming? Really, it

doesn’t matter, because it just goes to hell in a handbasket and “I

don’t care about future generations.” But if we care, yes, we must act

now, because waiting is too late.

The analogy that’s direct is that you put a pot of water on the

stove, and you turn it up to 8. Now, that dial there is essentially

greenhouse gas emissions and the level in the atmosphere of carbon

dioxide and other greenhouse gases. You turn it up. The water’s cool. It

starts to warm. “I don’t worry about global warming. I don’t care.” The

thing’s on 8. It starts to get a bit warm. You go: “Whoa, this is

getting hot.” It starts to get a little bit warm. “I’m going to turn 8

down to 7.” It gets warmer. Now it starts boiling. “Oh, I better turn it

off.” You turn it down to zero, but guess what? It’s too

late.

The analogy is direct to the world: 71 percent of our globe is

covered by water. It takes time for the oceans to heat up. Once they do,

you can’t cool them right away either. The analogy is direct. Once you

get to a stage where you say, “Oh, it’s too warm. We better cool it,”

it’s too late, frankly.

Now we worry about a forest fire here and a flood there, and I get

that it’s really important. But it pales in comparison to the plight

that’s in store for us. You can go back and look at what the climate

scientists have been saying for decades. It’s been the same thing. Those

touting that it’s just somehow some natural cycles act like a legal

defense team who’ve lost their case. They throw all sorts of public

doubt out there, fake news and all, hoping that the public jury will

render a not guilty verdict.

We know that a substantial fraction, something like 60 percent of

the world’s species, will be committed to extinction — 60 to 80 percent

at the end of this century, as a direct consequence of greenhouse gas

emissions. We can’t turn the level of atmospheric dioxide up, on the

scale of 100 years, to the levels that haven’t been seen since Jurassic

and Triassic and not think there’s not going to be an ecological

response.

We are literally going back to the Triassic and Jurassic in the

scale of a few decades, as we take that captured carbon that was

captured in those swamps and seas that created goal and natural gas,

which we’re releasing in decades.

Sure, life will go on after an extinction event. It will come on

in a different form, but it certainly will not be life like we know it

today. We know that in the big extinction events in earth’s history,

when a meteor hit or when we had more intensive volcanic activity, 80

percent, 90 percent of marine organisms went extinct. We know we’re on

track to do that now.

We know that the biggest sink of atmospheric carbon is the oceans.

We know that the Great Barrier Reef is probably gone, and there’s

nothing we can do about it because of the sink of the carbon that

exists. We know that many of the ocean’s corals are dead, and they will

die forever, and there’s not much we can do about it. These are just the

early stages.

Again, I come to the point of: do we, as the present generation,

actually owe anything to future generations? If we do, we must act here

now. We must not weigh, for example, one LNG plant and jobs that may or

may not exist five years from now versus the opportunity for success in

a new economy that preserves prosperity and the environment that our

next generation will actually come to live in.

These are not options. I talk about some of the sad things I see.

One day I see a politician putting sandbags up on a dike, and the next

day that same politician is here arguing: “Rah, rah, rah Kinder Morgan

and LNG.” Where’s the disconnect? The disconnect is

mind-boggling.

Again, we go back to this issue that we’re proposing to deal with

here. The greenhouse effect goes back to Jean Baptiste Joseph Fourier in

the early 1800s, the first to recognize that the atmosphere acts like a

greenhouse that allows incoming solar radiation through but blocks

outgoing long wave radiation to act like a blanket to keep the surface

warm.

We’ve known about the different effects of a variety of greenhouse

gases since the 1860s. We’ve known about the specific role of carbon

dioxide in the 1890s. We had the first multisensory projections in the

1930s. In 1979, when I was graduating from high school, Jule Charney, an

MIT climate and atmospheric scientist, was tasked with the first

national assessment in the U.S.

They came up with the best estimate of the single most important

metric summarizing our cumulative understanding of the world’s response

to increasing greenhouse gases. That is climate sensitivity. Climate

sensitivity, by definition, is: how much will the world warm if we

double atmospheric carbon dioxide levels from pre-industrial levels,

from 280 to 560 parts per million.

In 1979, the very best estimate was between 1½ and 4½ degrees.

That was the range. In 1990, the first IPCC, Intergovernmental Panel on

Climate Change, assessment. Scores of publications examined. Best

estimate: 1½ to 4½ degrees.

[3:30 p.m.]

In 1996, a second assessment report, best estimate: 1½ to 4½

degrees. The single best estimate of the single most important metrics

summarizing our cumulative understanding of how the world responds to a

doubling of carbon dioxide, has not changed from 1979 to 1996, where

we’re in the second assessment report.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

We move to 2001. We’re now at the third assessment report. The

best assessment gives 1½ to 4½ degrees, and then we move to 2007. That’s

the Nobel Prize year. It moves to 2 to 4½ degrees. Wow. We’ve changed it

slightly. Then in 2013…. I was involved in every report from 1996

through 2013, and that 2013 one was fundamentally frustrating. The

report had largely concluded in 2012, and I withdrew from the process

when the writ was dropped in the 2013 election, but all the rating had

been done.

The 2013 estimate from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate

Change, summarizing tens of thousands of papers’ knowledge on this

issue, the best estimate of climate sensitivity, the single most

important metric summarizing our cumulative understanding of what will

happen as a consequence of global warming — that is, how much the world

will warm if we double carbon dioxide…. The best estimate was 1½ to 4½

degrees again.

We don’t need more science. What we need is political will, and

what we don’t need is more grandstanding on these important issues,

which is why I’m excited about this bill. Why am I excited about this

bill? Because it provides the first step, as was done in 2007 — the very

first step that is necessary to actually head us in a direction. And

that necessary step…. This should be taken as a signal.

If government is serious about this bill brought forth, it cannot

support the addition of a two- or four-train LNG facility. We just can’t

do it. You cannot square that round peg. It doesn’t work. The numbers

don’t work, and the last thing this government needs to do is to try and

play the accounting games that happened towards then end of the last

administration’s governance.

We start to get things like: “Okay, I’m going to give you money

and take a carbon credit, because you’re not going to not cut down those

trees that otherwise you would cut down.” This is the kind of carbon

accounting nonsense we get into. If you open that Pandora’s box, you’re

going to have to start accounting for forest fire losses as well, and we

don’t want to do that, let me tell you.

We started to pay Encana…. They had at the time…. We gave them

carbon offset as they actually upgraded some natural gas facilities.

Okay. That’s fine, but that was not the intent. The intent was to

actually get fundamental changes and send a direction to the economy

that we want to move elsewhere. And we have to be careful how we

continue with the offsetting.

With that, I will suggest that this debate…. Both my colleague

from Saanich North and the Islands and my colleague from Cowichan Valley

will be looking to speak to this bill further.

I do want to touch upon the last two things that I haven’t marked.

I want to support the minister in his ability to be given the powers to

set sectoral targets through regulation. I think that’s important. He

has articulated and identified, in his opening remarks, that he will

seek guidance for that from his…. I forget the name of this

reincarnation. We’ll call it climate leadership team 3.0, for the

purpose of Hansard . He will seek advice from them. They

represent a variety of sectors. I think that’s a good strategy, and I

think the approach is a fine one.

I also want to give the minister a lot of credit for adopting the

recommendation of the Canadian Auditor General with respect to biannual

reporting out of the risks as well as how we are moving towards meeting

those risks of climate change.

The risks are very real and very serious and will get worse as

time goes on. You know, I could talk about…. For example, we knew since

2000, when a student of mine, Dáithí Stone…. He went to Oxford — I lost

touch with him in the last few years — and was a lecturer there after

that. He wrote a paper where he analyzed precipitation trends in Canada.

We know extreme precip is going up.

We know, for example, we can attribute…. We did this in 2004.

Nathan Gillett is a former post-doc. He’s now head of the Environment

Canada Canadian Centre for Climate Modelling and Analysis. We knew, in

2004, that we could detect and attribute the increasing area burnt of

forest fires in Canada directly to human activity. We know

that.

[3:35 p.m.]

We know what the cause is. We know what the precursors are. We

need to have ignition. Well, we’ve got lots of lightening. We need to

have dry, dry timber, and the way you get dry timber is through soil

moisture and summer warmth. We know we can connect regional changes in

increasing temperatures.

Again, I’ve said the same thing since the 1990s. As a climate

science community, we know it’s going to happen. We know that we’re

going to get an increase in extreme weather events, particularly in

precipitation. The 100-year event is no longer a 100-year event; it will

become a 25-, a ten-year event, and then it’ll become a five-year event,

and so forth. We know we’re going to get that.

We know we’re going to increase our precipitation in our

latitudes. We know water here is not going to be an availability issue;

it’s going to be a storage issue, because we know we’re going to get

increased water in the winter and less in the summer, because we have

increased likelihood of summer droughts.

We know that in the winter it’s going to be increasingly likely

and more and more extreme events. Ironically, we might get amazing snow

years, because if the temperature is slightly below zero, it’s snow

instead of rain. So yes, we might get a big snowfall, but that’s exactly

what we would expect to get, because it’s winter, and it’s and cold, and

we expect increasing amounts of the warming climate to have more

moisture in it.

We expect a northward shift of the storm track, so yes, and lo and

behold, we’re getting more of these stronger storms hitting our

latitude. What would you think? That’s exactly what we’ve been saying:

these move further northward.

The same in the south. We know where Arctic sea ice is going. We

know it’s likely going to be gone in the summer in a few decades. We

know that 2017 is right on the edge of setting a new record — the record

that was first set in 2007 and then broken, quite dramatically, in 2010.

We’re on path to beat it again this year.

We know that global sea ice volume was a record low this year. We

know that if we don’t do anything, we’re going to commit 60 to 80

percent of the world’s species to extinction towards the end of this

century. We know that we’re going to get increasing droughts. We know

that we’re going to flood islands.

We know that there are hundreds of millions of people living on

the coasts, and we know that if we get warming to about 2 degrees, we

have a very high probability that we’re committed to seven metres of sea

level rise, because that point puts Greenland and the West Antarctic Ice

Sheet past the point of no return.

Now, we also know that when there’s a storm — and we know that

there are increasingly strong storms — that we actually get storm

surges. We know that with the warming water…. Again, you could do this

experiment at home. When you have a high tide, warming water and storms,

you get big storm surges, and you start to see things like Hurricane

Sandy flooding New York.

Now what happens when New York, which has flooded once, starts to

get flooded like that every ten years? Then you add six metres of sea

level rise on that. You start to create a problem for our built

infrastructure — a problem when you have hundreds of millions of people

living within ten metres of the coast.

The town of Shanghai, the burgeoning metropolis of Shanghai, is

less than ten metres from the coast. You get rid of Greenland and the

West Antarctic Ice Sheet. It’s pretty hard for them to adapt if you add

ten metres of sea level rise. It’s pretty hard for Delta and for

Richmond to adapt if they have ten metres of sea level rise.

It’s not going to happen overnight. This is why the issue is one

of intergenerational equity. That won’t even happen in the next 100

years. It takes hundreds of years for that to happen. But, hon. Speaker,

let members in this House know that history will not be kind to those of

us who stand by and let this happen. We will be judged. So be it if

people don’t care, if they don’t care about intergenerational equity.

That’s fine. People who don’t have children might not care.

Some people may have belief systems that this conflicts with. They

might believe, for example, that whatever is going to happen was meant

to happen, and it’s God’s will. As climate scientists, we can’t argue

science against faith. You can’t dismiss those views — people within our

society — because nobody, no science could ever address the question: do

we as a society need to actually deal with this issue? That requires all

of us.

What we need to do is we need to get facts and evidence on the

table, and we’ve got to stop listening to rhetoric that’s put forward

and doublespeak — like we need to build pipelines in order to have a

climate plan. Politicians need to be truthful to the people of British

Columbia. They need to know what the consequences of inaction

are.

If society believes that you don’t need to deal with this problem,

so be it. I happen to think we do, and I happen to think most people do

believe we need to deal with this issue. As such, this bill is critical.

When we apply this as critical, not only to implement this bill but also

the subsequent policy measures that will ensure we will meet targets….

Targets have been in place in Canada since the 1980s, when Brian

Mulroney introduced the first targets, and we’ve got a litany of missed

and failed targets.

Europe met their targets. We have not met our targets here in

Canada — not one, not close, not even a little bit close to any of our

targets.

I look forward to the subsequent legislation announcement to come.

With that, hon. Speaker, I thank you for your attention, and I look

forward to further debate.

[3:40 p.m.]

A. Olsen: It’s an honour to stand today and speak to the Greenhouse Gas

Reduction Targets Amendment Act, which is now going to be renamed, and

quite thoughtfully renamed, the Climate Change Accountability

Act.

I think, you know, oftentimes we can get caught up in words in the

Legislature here, and I think that these are important words — the

Climate Change Accountability Act. I think, as my colleague so

passionately spoke about just for the few minutes that he had the floor,

this was about us being accountable.

I often tell the story of XÁLS, the Creator in the WSÁNEĆ

territory. XÁLS left that place, left that territory, for the

W̱JOȽEȽP, the people that live

there. The key message that he left us was that we were to be

accountable for our terri­tory, that we were to make decisions

that were not to diminish it, that we weren’t to take more than could be

replenished.

I think that that is the foundational principle of what’s trying

to be accomplished here with the repealing of this name, which was the

reduction targets, and giving it a new name, which is adding the word

“accountability,” Climate Change Accountability Act. I don’t think that

this should be something that should be underestimated, the importance

of the change of the name of this bill.

What is also important, not more important, is that we identify

the fact that we have a responsibility. The decision-makers in this

place have a responsibility to more than just the four-year cycle that

we get elected to in this place. We have a responsibility that goes much

further into the future than four years.

I know we get caught up in the cycle of this place, that decisions

need to be made now in order…. You know, the tough decisions need to be

made at the front end of an election cycle, and then at the back end of

an election cycle, we start to give back, and we get caught in this

cycle where we, the 86 members that fill the seats of this place, become

the most important. Our political careers are seen as more important

than the actual policy that we’re putting forward.

I think that what’s critical here is that we start to take a look

at this policy, the Climate Change Accountability Act, and we see that

we’re actually making decisions that are much further in the future —

the intergenerational equity.

The responsibility that I have as a father is to make decisions

that are not only going to impact me and my wife in our lifetime but

also the lifetime of our children, my ten-year-old son, my six-year-old

daughter — the chances that they have in the future of also having a

place that’s worth living in so that when they get to the time in their

life where they decide whether or not they’re going to have children,

they don’t throw their hands up in the air and say: “Well, what good is

it? When my dad had a chance to make a choice, a decision…. When my dad

had a chance to stand up for us, he made the wrong decision. He sold us

out, all for a few dollars or for some opportunity that was fleeting,

for a too-good-to-be-true sales pitch. He bought into it, and now we’re

stuck with the world.”

My colleague, as only he could do in this place, could highlight

the challenges that we will be faced with if we do not take firm, bold,

courageous action on climate change.

We don’t face down the dinosaurs that we face in the open fields

these days — the fossil fuel industry that has a sales pitch for us. We

don’t face them down in the open fields, but we drag them into the

jungles, and we say, “You’re going to have to battle us there,” because

we’ve put forward an alternative vision for this beautiful place that we

live that says that we don’t need to survive on fossil fuels alone. We

can invest in innovation. We can create other opportunities for us that

don’t require us to be beholden to the fossil fuel industry.

We find ourselves saying things that we don’t believe, or we find

ourselves morally compromised, ethically compromised, because we’re

chasing a dream that just simply does not exist. It may exist now, but

it’s fleeting, and it won’t exist a few years into the

future.

[3:45 p.m.]

I think it’s hard for us to remember that we’re only here for such

a brief moment in time, yet we have to make decisions that are going be

impactful for countless generations ahead of us. So it’s important that

the government takes action. I think it’s important, to me and my

colleagues in our caucus, that this bill, only a few pages in length —

that the three of us are going to take the time to stand and speak to

it.

It emphasizes the point that we want to make — that this is an

absolutely fundamental and critical part to why we are here as members

of this House, why we have stood to put our name forward. The action

that we take is important to us — that we all stand and speak to it,

that we all stand and say that this is an important first step, setting

the targets, setting the goals. If we are going to take action on

climate change, then we have to set goals, and we have to be accountable

to them. So I think that this is a phenomenal step to that.

I think it was highlighted on Monday. A number of speakers on both

sides of the House talked about the costs of climate change, and

oftentimes we find ourselves having these economic arguments around

certain industries, primarily the fossil fuel industry now, as it’s in

its sunsetting days.

We have these conversations about economics. I think that we

cannot overlook the economic costs that climate change is going to

provide us. One of the examples of that is just in North Saanich alone,

the conversations that are happening around rising sea levels. The

property owners on the beachfront, and the district itself, are starting

to wake up to the fact that early action on this now will save the

property owners and the districts into the future. Making these

investments, making the decisions now, here, that we can make in this

place are the critical first steps. Preparing our properties, preparing

our communities to become resilient and making those investments are

important next steps.

I think it’s important to highlight two things. We used to be a

leader in climate action. We have an opportunity to regain and retake

our position as a leader in climate action. This bill, Bill 34, is not

the action. This is just simply the goal-setting. It’s important to set

goals. It’s also important to set the tone and to create signals for the

marketplace so that they know that once again British Columbia is going

to be a leader in climate action.

That’s going to create all sorts of economic opportunities for

companies in our province, businesses in our province, the innovators in

our province to take the wicked challenges that we have in the 21st

century and find solutions for them. It’s going give an opportunity for

the government to be working with our post-secondary institutions,

making the investments to ensure that we are at the head, at the

forefront of finding solutions to those problems.

I appreciate in this bill the fact that the minister has taken up

the Auditor General of Canada’s suggestion to have annual reporting.

That’s an important piece of accountability — to see where we’re

at.

The

section here,

part 1.1, preparing for climate change, and

adding the reports on climate change risks and progress…. I think it’s

important that our government has in front of them a process in which we

determine the risks, that we report out on the progress that we’ve taken

to reducing the risks, that we’re clearly identifying the actions that

we’re taking to achieve that progress and that we’re talking about how

we’re planning to continue to progress in time.

I think these are really critically important opportunities for

government to be learning and to be learning from our learning, and to

be always in a position where we are advancing ourselves in this great

challenge that we have in our time.

I’d like to thank the Speaker for providing me the opportunity to

speak to this bill today. I’d like to thank and raise my hands to the

minister for putting forward a bill that really clearly highlights the

accountability that we, the 87 members of the government of British

Columbia, need to take on this important topic of climate

change.

[3:50 p.m.]

I’ll take my seat at this time, and I thank the Speaker for the

opportunity.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Committee C is going to report out, so I move adjournment of the

debate.

Hon. M. Farnworth moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

[3:55 p.m.]

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

BILL 26 — CHILD, FAMILY AND

COMMUNITY SERVICE

AMENDMENT ACT, 2018

Bill 26, Child, Family and Community Service Amendment Act, 2018,

reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed

unanimously on a division. [See Votes and Proceedings .]

Hon. M. Farnworth: In this chamber, I call continued second reading debate on Bill

34. In Committee C, Birch Room, I call committee stage on Bill

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Hon. C. Trevena: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

Hon. C. Trevena: In the precinct at the moment and soon to be in the gallery are 18

students and a number of adults. The students are from the

Ka:’yu:’k’t’h’-Che:k:tles7et’h’ elementary secondary school. These students

have had to go about an hour by boat and then more than an hour, closer to

2½ to three hours, along a very poor logging road up to the main road, which

gets them just south of Port McNeill, and then have driven down Highway 19

and Highway 1 to get here. It’s been a long journey for them.

[4:00 p.m.]

They’re here to see their House, where decisions are made that are

going to affect them and affect their future. They’re also here on a

significant day because this is the day that Brooks Peninsula Provincial

Park got a new name. Brooks Peninsula Provincial Park is just north of where

their school is and where their home is.

Mr. Speaker, I know the group is soon to be in the House, and I hope

everyone will make them very welcome when they arrive.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Before I move second reading of Bill 34 here, I would just like to

advise the House that things have moved very quickly. It will be Tourism

estimates in

Section C.

In this chamber, I call continued second reading of Bill

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 34 — GREENHOUSE GAS REDUCTION

TARGETS AMENDMENT ACT, 2018

(continued)

S. Furstenau: Bill 34, the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Targets Amendment Act,

reaffirms our commitment to the environment and, by extension, to

British Columbians. The act changes the name of the legislation from the

Greenhouse Gas Reduction Targets Act to the Climate Change

Accountability Act. Although nominal, this change demonstrates an

acknowledgment of what we most desperately need in environmental

stewardship, which is accountability.

The reality of climate change in British Columbia is stark, and it

gets worse every year. Recurring and worsening flood and fire seasons

continue to pummel our communities. They are symptoms of climate change,

and they contribute to it too.

As Martyn Brown noted in the Georgia Straight last week,

a single forest fire can easily wipe out any reduction of greenhouse gas

emissions claimed by tree-planting projects. In 2017, there were 1,300

fires. In other words, reducing our emissions cannot rely on a few minor

projects. It needs to be a comprehensive framework across every

sector.

Martyn Brown also provides valid criticism of this legislation.

Setting new targets is not substantive action or change that w