British Columbia Hansard — 30 April 2019, p.m., Issue 243 (41st Parliament, 4th Session)

20190430pm-Hansard-n243

British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)

Fourth Session, 41st Parliament OFFICIAL REPORT OF DEBATES (HANSARD) Tuesday, April 30, 2019 Afternoon Sitting Issue No. 243 THE HONOURABLE DARRYL PLECAS, SPEAKER ISSN 1499-2175

PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Entered Confederation July 20, 1871) LIEUTENANT-GOVERNOR Her Honour the Honourable Janet Austin, OBC Fourth Session, 41st Parliament SPEAKER OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Honourable Darryl Plecas EXECUTIVE COUNCIL Premier and President of the Executive Council ............................................................................................................... Hon. John Horgan Deputy Premier and Minister of Finance............................................................................................................................Hon.

Carole James Minister of Advanced Education, Skills and Training..................................................................................................... Hon. Melanie Mark Minister of Agriculture.........................................................................................................................................................Hon. Lana Popham Attorney General.................................................................................................................................................................Hon.

David Eby, QC Minister of Children and Family Development ............................................................................................................ Hon. Katrine Conroy Minister of State for Child Care...................................................................................................................................... Hon. Katrina Chen Minister of Citizens’ Services.................................................................................................................................................... Hon.

Jinny Sims Minister of Education ............................................................................................................................................................ Hon. Rob Fleming Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources ...............................................................................................Hon. Michelle Mungall Minister of Environment and Climate Change Strategy............................................................................................. Hon.

George Heyman Minister of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development ..............................................Hon. Doug Donaldson Minister of Health .....................................................................................................................................................................Hon. Adrian Dix Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation ......................................................................................................... Hon.

Scott Fraser Minister of Jobs, Trade and Technology............................................................................................................................ Hon. Bruce Ralston Minister of State for Trade...............................................................................................................................................Hon. George Chow Minister of Labour ...................................................................................................................................................................Hon.

Harry Bains Minister of Mental Health and Addictions............................................................................................................................ Hon. Judy Darcy Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing.................................................................................................................. Hon. Selina Robinson Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General ........................................................................................................... Hon.

Mike Farnworth Minister of Social Development and Poverty Reduction..............................................................................................Hon. Shane Simpson Minister of Tourism, Arts and Culture.....................................................................................................................................Hon. Lisa Beare Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure................................................................................................................ Hon.

Claire Trevena LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Leader of the Official Opposition................................................................................................................................Andrew Wilkinson, QC Leader of the Third Party ....................................................................................................................................................Dr. Andrew Weaver Deputy Speaker................................................................................................................................................................................

Raj Chouhan Assistant Deputy Speaker................................................................................................................................................................... Joan Isaacs Deputy Chair, Committee of the Whole ................................................................................................................

Spencer Chandra Herbert Clerk of the Legislative Assembly ....................................................................................................................................................Craig James Acting Clerk of the Legislative Assembly...............................................................................................................................

Kate Ryan-Lloyd Clerk Assistant — Committees and Interparliamentary Relations ..........................................................................................Susan Sourial Sessional Law Clerk...............................................................................................................................................Loredana Catalli-Sonier, QC Parliamentary Counsel ...................................................................................................................................................................... S.

Suzie Seo Sergeant-at-Arms ................................................................................................................................................................................. Gary Lenz Acting Sergeant-at-Arms......................................................................................................................................... Randall Ennis, MMM, CD

ALPHABETICAL LIST OF MEMBERS Ashton, Dan (BC Liberal) ........................................................................ Penticton Bains, Hon. Harry (NDP)...............................................................Surrey-Newton Barnett, Donna (BC Liberal) ................................................... Cariboo-Chilcotin Beare, Hon. Lisa (NDP).............................................Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows Begg, Garry (NDP) ..................................................................... Surrey-Guildford Bernier, Mike (BC Liberal) .......................................................

Peace River South Bond, Shirley (BC Liberal)......................................... Prince George–Valemount Brar, Jagrup (NDP)..................................................................... Surrey-Fleetwood Cadieux, Stephanie (BC Liberal)....................................................... Surrey South Chandra Herbert, Spencer (NDP) ..................................... Vancouver–West End Chen, Hon. Katrina (NDP).....................................................Burnaby-Lougheed Chouhan, Raj (NDP) ............................................................... Burnaby-Edmonds Chow, Hon.

George (NDP)............................................... Vancouver-Fraserview Clovechok, Doug (BC Liberal) ................................ Columbia River–Revelstoke Coleman, Rich (BC Liberal) ...............................................................Langley East Conroy, Hon. Katrine (NDP)......................................................... Kootenay West Darcy, Hon.

Judy (NDP) ............................................................New Westminster Davies, Dan (BC Liberal) ..........................................................Peace River North de Jong, Michael, QC (BC Liberal) ............................................ Abbotsford West Dean, Mitzi (NDP)...............................................................Esquimalt-Metchosin D’Eith, Bob (NDP) ...............................................................Maple Ridge–Mission Dix, Hon. Adrian (NDP)......................................................Vancouver-Kingsway Donaldson, Hon.

Doug (NDP).....................................................................Stikine Eby, Hon. David, QC (NDP)............................................. Vancouver–Point Grey Elmore, Mable (NDP)....................................................... Vancouver-Kensington Farnworth, Hon. Mike (NDP) ...................................................... Port Coquitlam Fleming, Hon. Rob (NDP) .....................................................Victoria–Swan Lake Foster, Eric (BC Liberal)........................................................... Vernon-Monashee Fraser, Hon.

Scott (NDP) ................................................ Mid Island–Pacific Rim Furstenau, Sonia (BC Green Party) ........................................... Cowichan Valley Gibson, Simon (BC Liberal) ................................................. Abbotsford-Mission Glumac, Rick (NDP)........................................................Port Moody–Coquitlam Heyman, Hon. George (NDP) .............................................. Vancouver-Fairview Horgan, Hon. John (NDP) ...............................................

Langford–Juan de Fuca Hunt, Marvin (BC Liberal) .......................................................Surrey-Cloverdale Isaacs, Joan (BC Liberal) .........................................Coquitlam–Burke Mountain James, Hon. Carole (NDP)...................................................Victoria–Beacon Hill Johal, Jas (BC Liberal)...............................................

Richmond-Queensborough Kahlon, Ravi (NDP)..............................................................................Delta North Kang, Anne (NDP)..................................................................Burnaby–Deer Lake Kyllo, Greg (BC Liberal)............................................................................ Shuswap Larson, Linda (BC Liberal) .............................................Boundary-Similkameen Lee, Michael (BC Liberal) ......................................................

Vancouver-Langara Leonard, Ronna-Rae (NDP) ....................................................Courtenay-Comox Letnick, Norm (BC Liberal)............................................Kelowna–Lake Country Ma, Bowinn (NDP) ................................................... North Vancouver–Lonsdale Malcolmson, Sheila (NDP) .......................................................................Nanaimo Mark, Hon. Melanie (NDP) ..................................... Vancouver–Mount Pleasant Martin, John (BC Liberal)......................................................................

Chilliwack Milobar, Peter (BC Liberal).................................... Kamloops–North Thompson Morris, Mike (BC Liberal) ..........................................Prince George–Mackenzie Mungall, Hon. Michelle (NDP).................................................... Nelson-Creston Oakes, Coralee (BC Liberal) ...........................................................Cariboo North Olsen, Adam (BC Green Party)........................... Saanich North and the Islands Paton, Ian (BC Liberal)......................................................................... Delta South Plecas, Hon.

Darryl (Ind.) ..........................................................Abbotsford South Polak, Mary (BC Liberal) ............................................................................ Langley Popham, Hon. Lana (NDP)..............................................................Saanich South Ralston, Hon. Bruce (NDP) .......................................................... Surrey-Whalley Redies, Tracy (BC Liberal) ..................................................... Surrey–White Rock Reid, Linda (BC Liberal) ................................................

Richmond South Centre Rice, Jennifer (NDP) ............................................................................ North Coast Robinson, Hon. Selina (NDP) ....................................... Coquitlam-Maillardville Ross, Ellis (BC Liberal)..................................................................................Skeena Routledge, Janet (NDP) .................................................................. Burnaby North Routley, Doug (NDP) ................................................Nanaimo–North Cowichan Rustad, John (BC Liberal) ..............................................................

Nechako Lakes Shypitka, Tom (BC Liberal) .............................................................Kootenay East Simons, Nicholas (NDP) ........................................Powell River–Sunshine Coast Simpson, Hon. Shane (NDP)................................................ Vancouver-Hastings Sims, Hon.

Jinny (NDP) .............................................................Surrey-Panorama Singh, Rachna (NDP) ........................................................Surrey–Green Timbers Stewart, Ben (BC Liberal) ................................................................Kelowna West Stilwell, Michelle (BC Liberal)..............................................Parksville-Qualicum Stone, Todd (BC Liberal)........................................

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

North Vancouver–Seymour Throness, Laurie (BC Liberal) ..................................................... Chilliwack-Kent Trevena, Hon. Claire (NDP) .............................................................. North Island Wat, Teresa (BC Liberal) ................................................Richmond North Centre Weaver, Dr. Andrew (BC Green Party) ......................... Oak Bay–Gordon Head Wilkinson, Andrew, QC (BC Liberal) .............................. Vancouver-Quilchena Y ap, John (BC Liberal)..........................................................

Richmond-Steveston LIST OF MEMBERS BY RIDING Abbotsford-Mission ..........................................................................Simon Gibson Abbotsford South ..................................................................... Hon. Darryl Plecas Abbotsford West .................................................................... Michael de Jong, QC Boundary-Similkameen.....................................................................

Linda Larson Burnaby–Deer Lake ...............................................................................Anne Kang Burnaby-Edmonds ..............................................................................Raj Chouhan Burnaby-Lougheed................................................................... Hon. Katrina Chen Burnaby North................................................................................

Janet Routledge Cariboo-Chilcotin ............................................................................Donna Barnett Cariboo North .................................................................................. Coralee Oakes Chilliwack.............................................................................................. John Martin Chilliwack-Kent..............................................................................Laurie Throness Columbia River–Revelstoke........................................................

Doug Clovechok Coquitlam–Burke Mountain................................................................. Joan Isaacs Coquitlam-Maillardville..................................................... Hon. Selina Robinson Courtenay-Comox ................................................................. Ronna-Rae Leonard Cowichan Valley ............................................................................

Sonia Furstenau Delta North ...........................................................................................Ravi Kahlon Delta South.................................................................................................Ian Paton Esquimalt-Metchosin.............................................................................Mitzi Dean Fraser-Nicola........................................................................................

Jackie Tegart Kamloops–North Thompson............................................................Peter Milobar Kamloops–South Thompson ................................................................Todd Stone Kelowna–Lake Country....................................................................Norm Letnick Kelowna-Mission.............................................................................

Steve Thomson Kelowna West.........................................................................................Ben Stewart Kootenay East .....................................................................................Tom Shypitka Kootenay West ...................................................................... Hon. Katrine Conroy Langford–Juan de Fuca............................................................. Hon. John Horgan Langley....................................................................................................

Mary Polak Langley East .......................................................................................Rich Coleman Maple Ridge–Mission ............................................................................ Bob D’Eith Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows ..........................................................Hon. Lisa Beare Mid Island–Pacific Rim .............................................................. Hon. Scott Fraser Nanaimo ....................................................................................

Sheila Malcolmson Nanaimo–North Cowichan.............................................................. Doug Routley Nechako Lakes ...................................................................................... John Rustad Nelson-Creston.................................................................. Hon. Michelle Mungall New Westminster ......................................................................... Hon. Judy Darcy North Coast..........................................................................................

Jennifer Rice North Island ............................................................................ Hon. Claire Trevena North Vancouver–Lonsdale ................................................................. Bowinn Ma North Vancouver–Seymour ......................................................Jane Thornthwaite Oak Bay–Gordon Head ..........................................................Dr.

Andrew Weaver Parksville-Qualicum .....................................................................Michelle Stilwell Peace River North.................................................................................. Dan Davies Peace River South ............................................................................... Mike Bernier Penticton................................................................................................ Dan Ashton Port Coquitlam .................................................................... Hon.

Mike Farnworth Port Moody–Coquitlam .....................................................................Rick Glumac Powell River–Sunshine Coast ..................................................... Nicholas Simons Prince George–Mackenzie ..................................................................Mike Morris Prince George–Valemount.................................................................

Shirley Bond Richmond North Centre ........................................................................Teresa Wat Richmond-Queensborough .......................................................................Jas Johal Richmond South Centre........................................................................ Linda Reid Richmond-Steveston..................................................................................

John Y ap Saanich North and the Islands............................................................Adam Olsen Saanich South............................................................................Hon. Lana Popham Shuswap .................................................................................................... Greg Kyllo Skeena ......................................................................................................... Ellis Ross Stikine ..................................................................................Hon.

Doug Donaldson Surrey-Cloverdale............................................................................... Marvin Hunt Surrey-Fleetwood ...................................................................................Jagrup Brar Surrey–Green Timbers ......................................................................Rachna Singh Surrey-Guildford ....................................................................................Garry Begg Surrey-Newton.............................................................................Hon.

Harry Bains Surrey-Panorama........................................................................... Hon. Jinny Sims Surrey South............................................................................... Stephanie Cadieux Surrey-Whalley........................................................................ Hon. Bruce Ralston Surrey–White Rock ............................................................................. Tracy Redies Vancouver-Fairview ............................................................ Hon.

George Heyman Vancouver–False Creek....................................................................... Sam Sullivan Vancouver-Fraserview .............................................................Hon. George Chow Vancouver-Hastings .............................................................. Hon. Shane Simpson Vancouver-Kensington ..................................................................... Mable Elmore Vancouver-Kingsway ................................................................... Hon.

Adrian Dix Vancouver-Langara .............................................................................. Michael Lee Vancouver–Mount Pleasant ................................................... Hon. Melanie Mark Vancouver–Point Grey...........................................................Hon.

David Eby, QC Vancouver-Quilchena ......................................................Andrew Wilkinson, QC Vancouver–West End....................................................Spencer Chandra Herbert Vernon-Monashee...................................................................................Eric Foster Victoria–Beacon Hill ................................................................ Hon. Carole James Victoria–Swan Lake .................................................................. Hon. Rob Fleming West Vancouver–Capilano .................................................................

Ralph Sultan West Vancouver–Sea to Sky ..............................................................Jordan Sturdy Party Standings: BC Liberal 42; NDP 41; BC Green Party 3; Independent 1

CONTENTS Tuesday, April 30, 2019 Afternoon Sitting Page Routine Business Introductions by Members..................................................................................................................................................... 8561 Orders of the Day Second Reading of Bills .......................................................................................................................................................... 8561 Bill 28 — Zero-Emission Vehicles Act(continued) S. Gibson Hon. J. Sims J. Thornthwaite D.

Routley Reporting of Bills..................................................................................................................................................................... 8569 Bill 4 — Witness Security Act Second Reading of Bills .......................................................................................................................................................... 8570 Bill 28 — Zero-Emission Vehicles Act(continued) B. Stewart R. Coleman D. Davies J. Rustad D. Clovechok M. Bernier Hon. M.

Mungall Point of Privilege (Reservation of Right) ............................................................................................................................. 8594 D. Routley Second Reading of Bills .......................................................................................................................................................... 8594 Bill 28 — Zero-Emission Vehicles Act(continued) Hon. M. Mungall Bill 23 — Land Owner Transparency Act Hon. C. James T. Redies A.

Weaver Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room Committee of the Whole House............................................................................................................................................ 8600 Bill 4 — Witness Security Act(continued) M. Morris Hon. M. Farnworth Committee of Supply .............................................................................................................................................................. 8607 Estimates: Ministry of Labour Hon. H. Bains J. Martin N.

Letnick Proceedings in the Birch Room Committee of Supply .............................................................................................................................................................. 8624 Estimates: Ministry of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation(continued) E. Ross Hon. S. Fraser L. Throness D. Ashton D. Barnett D. Davies I. Paton M. Bernier

TUESDAY , APRIL 30, 2019 The House met at 1:33 p.m. [Mr. Speaker in the chair.] Routine Business Introductions by Members R. Chouhan:Mr. Speaker, it’s my pleasure to welcome some special guests who are in the gallery today. I under- stand they had a wonderful lunch with you as well — very enjoyable. We are very pleased to host a visiting delegation from the German Bundestag. The delegates had the opportunity to meet with members during lunch, and they have a num- ber of meetings planned with officials from various minis- tries this afternoon. They are Bernd Rützel, Prof. Dr.

Matthi- as Zimmer, Martin Erwin Renner, Dr. Tobias Lindner, Hen- ning Otte and Sandra Weeser. The members are accompan- ied by Dr. Klaus Schmidt, consul general; Geoff Gartshore, counsellor, political affairs, Canadian Embassy in Germany; Franco Legiano, Office of the Parliamentary Groups; and Bernd Saure and Carola Garth, two interpreters with their delegation. [1:35 p.m.] Would the House please join me in welcoming these won- derful people, Members of Parliament, to British Columbia and to our Legislature. Orders of the Day Hon. M.

Farnworth:In this chamber, I call continued second reading debate on Bill 28, the Zero-Emission Vehicles Act. In Committee A, the Douglas Fir Room, I call continued debate on committee stage of Bill 4, Witness Security Act. In the Birch Room, I call continued debate on the estimates of Indigenous Relations. [J. Isaacs in the chair.] Second Reading of Bills BILL 28 — ZERO-EMISSION VEHICLES ACT (continued) S. Gibson:I appreciate this opportunity to make this pres- entation today on behalf of my constituents in the Abbots- ford-Mission riding.

I appreciate the opportunity to repres- ent them here regarding Bill 28, the Zero-Emission Vehicles Act. Important legislation but it requires considerable atten- tion, I think, by every member of this House. The implications are significant. I think all of us…. There’s unanimity in this place with regard to the desirability of reducing emissions significantly, and these kinds of vehicles that we’ll be discussing today are all a part of that paradigm. There are some reservations that rise to the surface as we examine the materials that have been disseminated. I want to thank the minister for arranging a briefing.

A number of my colleagues went to a proposed Zero-Emission Vehicles Act briefing, which was quite helpful. We were able to engage the staff with some questions that we thought were relevant, and I believe most of their responses were timely and well- thought-out. So I want to make that comment here. It’s my concern that what I would call a measure of hol- low optimism, as government moves ahead with this, in some ways quite expeditiously, notwithstanding the long window which will approach us quicker than we might imagine — 2040….

We do acknowledge, I believe, on this side of the House the desirability of pursuing lower emissions, ultimately lead- ing to zero emissions. The question is: at what price, and how is that executed? As I talk to my constituents, there is the realization that the internal combustion engine will continue in many iter- ations but that its application, particularly as we pursue this means, is something that will be reduced over the years, per- haps significantly. [1:40 p.m.] I do want to honour government to this extent. I believe the intentions are good. I believe that they’re honourable.

Of course, we would agree that it’s a tampering with the marketplace. Who better knows how to provide these kinds of vehicles to the public but the manufacturers and dealers themselves? So the vision that the government has may not necessarily be congruent with the aspirations of the various companies that make these vehicles. Now, there are a lot of vehicles registered in our province. As a matter of fact, interestingly, in my riding of Abbotsford- Mission, I’m advised that in the Abbotsford side of the rid- ing, it’s the most percentage of vehicles per population.

In other words, we have a 140,000 population in Abbotsford, and the largest percentage of those adults own a vehicle. Y ou can tell we are a very vehicle-oriented community, and we’ll continue to be so around it. I also want to make some comment with regard to what industry’s aspirations are. I was having a look at the growth of the Nissan LEAF , which is the largest electric vehicle, EV , sold in the world — hundreds of thousands sold in the U.S., Japan, Canada and other places. But it should be noted that this vehicle was really brought about by the initiative of Nis- san itself and, in particular, the CEO.

He said to his team: “We need an electric car. ” The result, of course, is one that is selling widely in all parts of the world. Although it’s true that the nature of society was moving in that direction, it was not regulated. I want to make that comment. Wherever commerce is regulated, you need to be suspicious. Y ou need to remember that the values that government imposes on the free marketplace will have some repercussions. 8561

I’ve noted, in particular, that the profitability of companies is essential. If companies can’t be profitable making these kinds of vehicles, zero-emission vehicles, then so what? The companies will collapse, or there’ll be other issues and maybe some bailouts. We’ve seen bailouts of car companies, a number of instances, in the financial crash in the U.S. It’s interesting to note that a Labour government in the U.K. — which would be characterized as a left-of-centre gov- ernment, perhaps similar to the government here — nation- alized a good portion of the auto industry in the mid ’70s in the U.K.

Of course, subsequently, that auto industry col- lapsed, and now you see that the manufacturing of automo- biles in the U.K. is, largely, boutique luxury vehicles. I want to make that point. I’m hoping that government will review that, because as we move in this trajectory, which is laudable to some extent, we are saying to the manufactur- ers: “This is what we want you to do, and here’s how you’re going to do it. ” I’m a bit alarmed about that.

In addition, the changing marketplace is going to have an impact, repercussions like little dominos clicking together, with regard to the future of the internal combustion engine. It should be noted, for the record, that the internal combus- tion engines today, with all of the catalytic converters and the other paraphernalia that are added to vehicles, are consid- erably cleaner than those that I had as a university student, driving my big, gas-guzzling, old V8 Buick. I wanted to make that point.

Although I’m not saying that we shouldn’t be pursuing these kinds of vehicles, it should be noted that internal combustion engines now are much clean- er than they’ve ever been, which is why the AirCare stations have been closed in the Lower Mainland. They really were no longer a necessity. [1:45 p.m.] The planning for this is in place. I won’t review too much, other than the fact that there’s a sequence of requirements, and I think that’s a good thing. But in terms of history, we’re going to accelerate it quite dramatically, to the point where we are going to have a full imposition of this policy in 2040.

So it’s a significant change. Also, I would recommend to government that they have a plan in place to review what the future of the internal com- bustion engine is, with regard to those vehicles above a Ford 150 pickup and all light-duty vehicles. I’m advised, when we had the briefing, that every other vehicle above that would be still internal combustion. Now, that may be moderated in due course, but that’s the plan right now. Y ou’ve got larger pickups and other vehicles — delivery vans, small buses — that are all going to have internal combusion engines.

As we are adding more of the charge stations, then, of course, the need for more gas stations is going to be really compromised. This is another implication. I might add, as well, that the whole infrastructure of our society is, in many cases, based upon the availability of people to work on cars, work in the transmission repair places. In all of the shops and those other kinds of businesses in my community, they’re working on cars — transmissions, air-conditioning, radiators, all of those things. Most of these will not be found on the new EV cars.

Now, I’m saying that, really, to point out to government that when you inter- fere with the marketplace dramatically — and I understand the aspiration — there’s going to be an effect of connecting with people who are feeding their families by taking care of internal combustion vehicles. Of course, there are going to continue to be used dealer- ships selling these kinds of vehicles. Eventually they’ll disap- pear, if that ultimately is the case. We need to remember that. On both sides of this House, we’re glad to have people working on cars.

I would say that everybody in this room knows somebody who has a liveli- hood working on internal combustion vehicles — whether it’s the radiators, the transmissions, whatever it is. Many of these components are not found on zero-emission vehicles. I want to make a comment, if I may, with regard to gov- ernment’s attention to the manufacturers. When we had our discussion, it was really an emphasis on the manufacturers of vehicles. Some, of course, are more prepared than others. There are companies that are just starting to get into zero- emission vehicles.

Mitsubishi is coming into it, and we know Chevrolet is working at it. Of course, the premium compan- ies, such as Tesla and others, are grabbing a lot of headlines with some pretty amazing cars, but they’re out of the reach of most people. I want to speak to that in just a moment. With regard to automobile manufacturers, I think we have to be quite careful in trying to understand who they are. Just because a company calls themselves Chevrolet and they get the acknowledgment or recognition, it doesn’t mean that they make those cars. Many manufacturers will buy one vehicle and put their label on others.

A recent example is a car made by Subaru, but Toyota puts their name on it. It’s a sports car. Some of you are familiar with that. The auto industry is extremely competitive. I want to make sure that anything that this House supports is sym- pathetic to the fact that the auto industry operates some- times on razor-thin profitability. Interestingly, when you look at a car…. Y ou’ll see a Volvo drive by on the street. Most of us will think of Volvo as being a Swedish car. As a matter of fact, it’s now owned by Geely, out of China.

The Lotus, which we think of as an English car, is also owned by the Chinese. [1:50 p.m.] Jaguar has just produced their brand-new, first zero-emis- sion car, a very handsome car and very expensive, which I’ll speak to in a moment. Jaguar and Land Rover are both owned by Tata of India. Y ou might say: “Well, what’s the relevance?” The relev- ance is that if we’re going to start categorizing companies and doing our best to encourage them to produce the cars that we want to see here, we’ d better make sure that we’re categorizing the cars appropriately and under the correct manufacturer.

I want to say, in addition to that, that my comments regarding the competitiveness of the auto industry…. I think 8562 British Columbia Debates Tuesday, April 30, 2019

we all know around here, this place, how many car marks, companies, have declined or died in the last few years. I just casually made a list, and some of you here could probably help me with the list. I remember Mercury. Mercury is gone. Plymouth is gone. Pontiac is gone, Oldsmobile, Hummer, Scion, Suzuki and many others. Well, these were pretty big names. When I was a young student in university, I owned a couple of Pontiacs. They were pretty nice cars. They’re gone, and that was a result of GM’s bankruptcy. We’re a small market here in British Columbia, if you con- trast the overall in Canada or the U.S.

However, I think we need to be sensitive to the fact that car companies are vul- nerable. We need to make sure that when they produce zero- emission vehicles, they are doing it in a trajectory that they feel comfortable with, not one that we impose on them. What about these zero-emission vehicles? I worry sig- nificantly that these cars are likely going to be out of the price range of average families. On both sides of this House, we characterize our work we do here as benefiting families, in particular.

Well, if you look at the zero-emis- sion vehicles, I believe a Nissan LEAF is early $40,000s, $40,000 plus for a small car. That’s out of the range of a lot of young people and young families. Tesla makes three different models. The two most expensive ones are around $140,000, $150,000 — something in that area, putting on options. Their new one, which is kind of a mid-size, I’m given to understand it’s around $60,000 to $65,000 — out of the range of most people.

We can see that government needs to think about the implications of that, because if they’re going to impose this dramatic model on the public and the public can’t afford these cars, what they’re going to do is just buy used vehicles that have internal combustion engines. I have a Toyota 4Runner ’02, not a very new car, and it’s got 215,000 kilometres on it. The guy that looks after it for me, my buddy, says to me that I can go probably 400,000 kilo- metres with that car. Y ou imagine in 2040, you’ve got all the lots filled with used internal combustion engine cars.

Those are the ones that can be afforded by young families. It’s only going to be rich people that are going be riding around in the zero-emis- sion vehicles. So you’re going to get a hierarchy of society. Y ou’re going to have the people with limited means driv- ing internal combustion engine cars, and then you’ve got the other folks driving the zero-emission cars. I think this gov- ernment needs to be sensitive that they’re not having a kind of bifurcated society, bifurcated between those who can buy them and those who can’t.

One of the things that we’re going to have to anticipate is availability of power, clean electricity. I was very happy to see this government finally acquiesce on Site C and clean power, clean energy. I was very thrilled to be a part of a government that moved that goal forward to the extent that we now are constructing it and providing clean energy. But may I say that government, this government in particular, seems to be nervous about clean energy. I want to say that if we don’t have clean energy, we’re sure not going to have zero-emission vehicles.

In addition, I want to make the point that the point system — and I refer to the document that was disseminated here — is complicated. It’s not easy to understand. I had a look at it. My colleagues looked at it, and it’s a bit perplexing. We dis- cussed it with staff. [1:55 p.m.] I don’t think it’s insurmountable, but I can tell you that if a manufacturer is looking at a point system…. There’s a ratio. If you make this many vehicles, then you get this kind of point system. If it’s overly complicated, I wonder if some companies are going to look and say: “Why are we going to bother with B.C.?

This is, like, really complicated. It’s only a small market. There are only five million people in the pop- ulation. Let’s work on California more. ” California’s popula- tion is more than that of Canada. What is it? It’s 34 million — something like that — against five million. So I worry. If this document is too perplexing and too complicated, I fear that manufacturers are going to be quite uncomfortable. They won’t want to bother with this market. Overall, I think it’s laudable that we’re going in this dir- ection.

However, I must say that I’m worried that this gov- ernment hasn’t anticipated all the possible challenges. I think they’re moving in a trajectory that could be problematic. Y es, we need zero-emission vehicles on the road within a cer- tain time frame. But whether we’re doing it in a way that’s respectful for families, for the auto sector, for dealerships, for people who work on cars right now — all of those things…. If it’s not respectful of them…. I think really, to some extent, it’s a social agenda, which isn’t bad, wrapped in some kind of ideal, which really compromises the objectives for this.

I’m going to register those concerns. I know we’ll be dis- cussing it further. I do appreciate this opportunity, today, to speak to it. Hon. J. Sims: It’s my pleasure to rise and speak in favour of the Zero-Emission Vehicles Act. As you know, our gov- ernment is very committed. We have launched CleanBC. This is just one component of our total package to make sure that we have a program in place, policies in place, so that we’re taking actions to make sure that we’re looking after Mother Earth. I don’t think there are too many people in this House who would be in denial about climate change.

We don’t need to read scientific tomes to know that the climate is changing. We just have to turn on our television set and see images of the North Pole, and in the south, of the melting of the gla- ciers. We just have to look at the kind of climate we have experienced over the last number of years and see what kind of a massive shift has occurred, with massive fires, floods and temperatures that have varied greatly. One of the ways of starting to address climate change is to take a look at our biggest polluters and start moving towards zero-emission vehicles.

I’m so glad that my colleague across the way who just finished speaking spelled out that we have Tuesday, April 30, 2019 British Columbia Debates 8563

to do this judiciously. When we are bringing about this kind of change, it can’t just be a massive shift. That’s why I am so pleased that this legislation does exactly what my colleague across the way was asking for. It’s not asking for the manufacturers and the retailers to have zero-emission vehicles in the next two or three years — 100 percent of their fleet, let’s say. The legislation requires auto- makers to meet increasing annual levels of zero-emission vehicle sales to reach 10 percent of the new light-duty vehicle sales by 2025. We’re not starting from zero. We’re already at 4 percent.

So I think that kind of an increase, up to 10 percent by 2025, is very judicious. Then, by 2030, to build up to 30 percent, and by 2040, we’re looking at 100 percent. The reason that I think this is a very thoughtful way to proceed is because it takes into consideration the very issues I’ve heard being raised here about transitioning, about transitioning the eco- nomy, transitioning our automakers. [2:00 p.m.] We all know that when the automobile was first manufac- tured, it was out of bounds for most people. It could only really be afforded by the very, very rich, and very few people had a car or an automobile.

But then as more people began to buy and more cars got to be produced, the prices became reasonable. I’m absolutely convinced that’s what’s going to be happening with ZEV , the zero-emission vehicles. That is exactly what is going to be happening with them, because as more are produced, more sales will be made. I know that in our province here in B.C. — I’m only going to speak on behalf of B.C. — we do have a shortage. I have a number of friends who are on wait-lists. They have been waiting. I know that when my vehicle went through a need for a renewal….

I’m one of those people who buys a vehicle and then keeps it forever, until it kind of gives up. I had to go out and buy one a few years ago, and my first choice was to get a hybrid or an electric vehicle. Unfortunately, I didn’t have the luxury of waiting, and there was no vehicle available at that time that I could have purchased. So the demand is definitely here. I know my children and my grandchildren vocalize this. They expect our gener- ation to do something about climate change. They expect us to take steps to make sure that we’re looking after Mother Earth.

And for those of you with children, you know that after our children finish kindergarten and grades 1 and 2, they come home and become the police for recycling as well. I can remember me throwing a piece of paper into the wrong bin and getting a lecture from my little ones, saying: “Mom, you’re not supposed to do that. ” Our children are very, very much into this, and they’re expecting us, as adults, to set policies, to set targets, to make sure that we do move into zero emission and are looking after the planet. I’m so proud of the recycling that goes on in so many of our cities, especially of the organic waste.

Talking about organic waste, I really want to talk about Surrey’s state-of- the-art biofuel plant. This facility will actually reduce the city’s carbon footprint by up to 50,000 tonnes of green- house gases annually. That’s huge. And who would have thought that your potato peelings and banana peelings could lead to this? The city unveiled its new industrial-scale biofuel plant, and I had the pleasure of being there for the opening, the ribbon-cutting, and then getting a tour of this facility where organic waste will be converted into natural gas, which then fuels the city’s waste collection fleet.

To me, that’s another example of a creative and innovative way of using our pro- duce, our waste, to make sure that we are looking after our emissions. The Surrey biofuel facility has capacity to trans- form up to 115,000 tonnes of organic waste into biofuel, according to the city. It will reduce local greenhouse emis- sions, as I said, by 50,000 tonnes per year.

That’s a city that I’m very proud of, the city of Surrey, and the steps it has taken over the last number of years — not just the city but the residents of Surrey — in protecting our environment, getting involved with recycling and also in reducing our emissions. As you know, Madam Speaker, April 13 is Vaisakhi month. Even though Vaisakhi was on April 13 here in B.C., we like to celebrate Vaisakhi all month. I think all of us have been to a number of Vaisakhi celebrations. When I was in Kelowna this past weekend, lo and behold, they were having their Vaisakhi celebration there on that day.

In Surrey, it was an amazing Vaisakhi parade. We had over 500,000 people in the streets of Surrey — safe, secure, eating amazing food and listening to some religious lectures along the way, as well, but really enjoying the Nagar Kirtan. [2:05 p.m.] What was special about this Vaisakhi is the work that is being led by Bal and Sarj Sabharwal, two brothers from Sur- rey who are hoping businesses and families that serve free food at last year’s Vaisakhi parade would find alternatives to Styrofoam to cut down on the waste headed to the landfill. I believe that in Surrey, this was the first Styrofoam-free Vai- sakhi.

A huge, huge shout-out to the initiative of two cit- izens who took this upon themselves because they care so, so deeply about Mother Earth and about our planet. When I talk about electric cars and the importance of us moving toward zero-emission vehicles, it is something that is no longer a luxury. It’s not something we can just keep talk- ing about and hope it will happen by osmosis. We know that when we reach that target, then we have something to aim for. So does the industry. And it gives the industry a clear road map.

I don’t think the automakers are going to find it hard to read the charts that are going to be provided to them. If they do, I’m sure they’ll know which minister to phone. It cer- tainly won’t be me. But I can tell you that giving automobile makers and the retailers a road map of the targets actually helps them to do the planning and actually helps them to transition from the old to the new. That is really, really important, because that’s the kind of thing…. Businesses want to know that ahead of time. They 8564 British Columbia Debates Tuesday, April 30, 2019

don’t want to be surprised one day and then told a year later or smacked: “Why aren’t you doing this?” I’m very, very happy with the way that this is going to be rolled out. It is a transformative tool. Setting targets will transform the production, but it will also be transformative in changing habits, as well, because we know that we need to have cars, clean electricity from batteries or hydrogen fuel cells. We need to have that up and running, and it is no longer something we can talk about. I heard my colleague talking about the Tesla and the lux- ury end of that market.

Absolutely, even in the traditional cars fuelled by gasoline, we have the luxury end of the car market as well. Y ou know, you can go out, and you’ll see the Hummers being driven. Y ou’ll see the Lamborghinis on the streets of Vancouver and Surrey. And you will see the luxury cars that we were talking about. I’m sure that in the electric category, there will be luxury cars. But also, when you have targets like this and when the practice of the consumer is changing and the government is helping with that transformation, you know what’s going to happen? It’s going to give manufacturers that incentive.

It’s going to allow them to do that planning. It’s going to allow them to start transitioning their workforce as well. All of that is very important. And this is about growing jobs. It will grow jobs. Absolutely. It’s not about getting rid of jobs, as was hinted at earlier. This is about jobs as well. But we do know that zero-emission vehicles use cleaner energy. And absolutely, I don’t think there is anybody on either side of the House that does not support clean energy. Of course we do. It improves air quality, and it costs dramatically less over time to fuel and operate.

There was a time when even recycling was unheard of, and now we take it to be part of our lives. We either compost or we have a green bin, and it gets picked up and gets taken away. Electric cars. Y es, they’re still very expensive, but even at the expense they are at, there are people out there who are wanting them because they care about the planet. There’s the luxury end, absolutely. Not everybody will be able to afford those. But as more vehicles are produced and we move more into the electric vehicle zone, I think what we will see is a dramatic shift in the prices as well.

Who would ever have thought that the other cars, the reg- ular cars that use gasoline, would have come down in price from when the automobile was first invented, when only very few people and those with lots of money could afford to buy those cars? [2:10 p.m.] So it is without any hesitation that I speak strongly in favour of this plan. One of the main reasons I speak in favour of this plan is it’s well thought out. It’s laid out like a road map, both for the consumer and for the automakers and those who retail.

It gives them the time to make the trans- ition that we must all make, because at the end of the day, what we have at risk is our planet, is Mother Earth. As my colleague said earlier, from the other side, all of us want to move towards zero emission. Here, then, is a prime example for all of us to stand together and say that each and every one of us, no matter where we sit in this House, is com- mitted to looking after Mother Earth. J. Thornthwaite:I’m pleased to rise today to talk about Bill 28, the Zero-Emission Vehicles Act.

The challenges that do come with climate change are an action item for all gov- ernments, and the B.C. Liberals are no different than that. We do support — I support — the thrust of this legisla- tion. Obviously, it sounds like a great idea with regards to moving British Columbia vehicles towards zero emissions. Our government set the stage for that to happen. Basically, I’m talking about Site C. We had a lot of doubters from the other side. I know that it was a campaign issue in the 2017 election. I had a lot of people from the other side, the NDP side, telling me that the Site C dam was not needed.

Well, we’ve had folks from B.C. Hydro since tell us that if everybody is going to go to an electric vehicle, then we’re not going to need just one Site C dam; we’re probably going to need three. It was the leadership from the B.C. Liberals that certainly got that one started. The other thing that…. Before I get into specifics about my situation, being an owner of an electric vehicle, I’ d like to have a caution.

I think there are a few cautions that my col- leagues from this side have brought forward, but one of the main ones is that there’s a huge assumption in this bill that the price of zero-emission vehicles is going to be the same or go down. In other words, it’s the very foundation of this bill that zero-emission vehicles will be affordable. Right now they’re not affordable to the average person. I’ve talked to numerous people, because they always ask me about my car, and then they want to know how much it was. Even with the rebate, they are not classified as a cheap car.

One thing we do know is costs never go down. They always go up. According to the bill, in six years, 2025, at least 10 percent of the new light-duty vehicles, sold or leased, will be zero emission. Then it goes up. Five short years later it is expected to triple again, making an increase in affordability critical. Then by 2040, all light-duty vehicles will have to be zero emissions. The viability of this entire legislation, and for the targets for the zero-emission vehicles, relies on the affordability of the cars.

Ten, 15, 20 years from now, the government is counting on price drops in technology to make zero-emis- sion vehicles more affordable, to make the sales targets. I’m worried that this whole thing will fall apart if prices do not drop. It was us, the B.C. Liberal government, that brought for- ward the proposal for the rebates — the CEV for B.C. vehicle incentives for point of sale, which I’ve been able to benefit from. But we worry, again, that it doesn’t necessarily mean that in the future these vehicles are going to be affordable.

Then just an aside, because I know that my colleagues from rural British Columbia will be bringing this up in more detail. What I worry about, and I worry about it with regards Tuesday, April 30, 2019 British Columbia Debates 8565

to the options of transit and other non-car ways of getting around, is that those of us who live in areas that do not have access to public transportation — or, in this case, say, a neighbourhood charging station and long distances…. We don’t want to punish those folks. [2:15 p.m.] Certainly, in rural British Columbia, they seem to get the brunt of these decisions often that we make here in urban British Columbia. Even some of us in urban British Colum- bia don’t have those things close by.

The point being is that I think we have to have an appreciation of how this legislation will affect my colleagues in rural British Columbia. I’ d just like to talk a little bit about my personal situ- ation. I’ve had a 2018 Chevy Volt for almost a year. I was very pleased that I was doing my part for the environment by purchasing an electric car. The Chevy Volt, just so you know, is part gas, part electric. I get, on average, 85 kilo- metres on a charge, which is okay for bombing around in the riding and even Vancouver.

But you can’t get very far if you’re going on a trip, certainly not in rural British Col- umbia, on 85 kilometres. I do have a gas tank. So when I do go up to Whistler, because my sister lives up in Whistler, I basically make it to Squamish, and then it kicks into gas. Thankfully, Squam- ish gas is cheaper than here. Then you’ve got to try and find where you are going in Whistler and whether you have a plug-in. That’s where it becomes really interesting. Although the idea of having an electric car came to me, and I enjoy driving it, the number one barrier right now is the lack of charging stations.

I can charge at home, and because I don’t have a fast charger in my home, I use the reg- ular outlet. It takes an overnight charge to get it up to snuff. If I am driving because I have to be somewhere at an appoint- ment outside of downtown Vancouver — so going to visit my colleague in Surrey — there is no place for me to plug in close to the area that I want to go to meet that person. I’ll give you another example. I’ve got some friends that live in the Interior.

Traditionally, I would probably gas up in Abbotsford or Chilliwack and then head on the Coquihalla or the Hope-Princeton or whatever, wherever I’m going. But this particular example is what happened to me last year. I thought: “Okay, this is going to be good. I’ll go to Abbotsford. ” I was going to meet my girlfriend there, because she works at the university. I thought: “Well, the uni- versity will have charging stations. ” Well, they do have char- ging stations, except that all of them were full. This is in the summer.

Who knows who was filling up all of these charging stations, but they weren’t available to me. One of the problems that I’ve noticed in owning an elec- tric car is that there’s no etiquette when it comes to charging stations. People will go and park in those one or two char- ging stations that you’ve got in an area, and they’ll park there for the whole day. So everybody else that’s maybe commut- ing and coming to a meeting in that area and wants to plug in…. If it’s a fast charger, you can sometimes get it charged in a couple of hours, which is good.

But if those charging stations are unavailable or full, then that kind of defeats the purpose. So back into gas. Then what did I do? I didn’t get a charge in Abbotsford, so I decided to go to Chilliwack. Okay, notoriously, where you can fill up your car is at district halls. Municipal halls have charging stations. Are they always available? No. But sometimes they are. So I thought: “Okay, well, there’s…. ” I didn’t know where another charging station was. Y es, I do have the app that has the points of charging stations, but one of the ones that they alerted me to was this one at the municipal hall.

If you’ve ever been to the municipal hall in Chilliwack, it’s kind of out of the middle and not exactly in the centre of town. Y ou can’t go to London Drugs or Starbucks or whatever. There’s actually not a heck of a lot there. But I thought: “Oh, okay. I’ll go visit the mayor. ” I know the mayor in Chilliwack. So I did. I went and visited the mayor, but she wasn’t there. She was on holidays. [2:20 p.m.] The point is that I plugged in my car. I got to plug in my car, but I wasn’t there very long — say, half an hour or so. Then I came back. And you know how much charge I got?

I got enough charge to get me from the municipal hall to the highway. So I’m back on gas. This is the point. There is a significant problem right now with the lack of infrastructure for charging stations and for fast chargers. Funnily enough, last year I was in Europe on a holiday with my family, and I was talking to a guy from Ireland, actually. He had an electric car, but he was selling it. He was selling it, Madam Speaker. Why? Because he lived in an apartment, and he needed to plug in his car. His apartment didn’t have a charging station, so he had to find charging sta- tions all around the place.

As I just alluded to, trying to find a charging station that’s actually free — I don’t mean free in cost; I mean free like available — because there are too many people that are char- ging their cars…. They might charge up in two hours, but their car is sitting there for eight. Then I can tell you another story that happened just last Friday, when I was at the BCSTA convention, which was in Richmond, at the Sheraton. I was elated when I saw that the Sheraton had five parking spots devoted to electric vehicles, except for — guess what — only four charging stations.

So I went in, and I paid for my parking — at parking spot 141, or whatever it was — then went to go charge. No charging sta- tion available, because they only had four for five spots. That seems a bit ridiculous. I went and told the person at the front desk, and of course, they acted like I was from Mars and I didn’t know what I was talking about. But I had already paid for my parking spot, in parking spot 141. I don’t want to move, do I? These are the kinds of things that people that don’t own an electric car — huge frustrations.

And if we’re having more people get electric cars and not the accompanying charging 8566 British Columbia Debates Tuesday, April 30, 2019

etiquette as well as the number of places that you can charge up, then it’s going to be a huge problem. The other thing that I think people aren’t talking about. I mentioned that I was eligible for the $5,000 rebate. And that’s all good, but it still doesn’t make the car affordable. I’ve got a Chevy Volt, not a Tesla. I think I’ve got probably the cheapest electric vehicle on the market, and it’s not cheap. The other thing that I think people are not talking about…. I actually asked the Attorney General about this last year. It’s the insurance.

I compared my insurance, the new insurance for a new vehicle, to my old vehicle, which actually wasn’t that old. It was a leased vehicle. It was four years. I was trying to figure out, when I was buying my insur- ance by the ICBC guy at the dealership: why is this insur- ance so expensive? He said: “It’s because the electric cars are big computers.

They cost a lot to replace or repair, and your insurance reflects that. ” Nobody is talking about the affordability here when they’re talking about how much more expensive the insur- ance is just to insure an electric vehicle because of all of the bells and whistles that are all in the car. The other thing that I think is something that is a barrier: what about the home charging stations? I mean, I mentioned that I’m okay getting my car charged up overnight at my house. But what about incentives for private businesses?

As I said, I’m not going to go to a district hall to plug in my car when my meeting is down somewhere else. I mean, this sort of thing has to be convenient. I don’t think that the majority of these charging stations are convenient. Private businesses. If I was going to go to a Starbucks or a coffee shop or even someplace in Deep Cove, there is abso- lutely no place to charge your car in Deep Cove. Y es, I do take transit a lot of times, but if I have to be there quickly, I have to take my car, because transit only comes once an hour to go to Deep Cove. [2:25 p.m.] I talked about those examples.

And the enforcement issue — I talked about that. And the apartments. I really do want to get onto the apartments, because here we are in Metro, where not everybody expects anymore to be in a single-fam- ily home. Granted, some of the newer apartments probably do have plug-in stations, but the older ones don’t. So where are these people going to plug in their cars down the road? Maybe in the city of North Vancouver there’s a couple of plug-in stations in their district hall, but I’m not aware of very many plug-in stations right in the city of North Vancou- ver. What about that?

If everybody has an electric car and the grid isn’t prepared to provide electric cars for everybody in your apartment complex, what about that? I don’t know. Has anybody thought about that? For sure, if you’re in a single-family home, it’s maybe not so much of a problem. But if we’re all trying to do our part and get into the electric car business or to purchase an elec- tric car or lease or rent or whatever, then we have to have a really easy and convenient and affordable way of charging, if we happen to live in an apartment.

Then the last thing I wanted to mention with regards to some of the barriers of owning an electric car is the HOV lanes. We all thought that was great. Y ou get your little decal there, you stick it on, and then you can whip in onto those HOV lanes. Well, guess what. Every time I’ve…. To be fair, I’m in North Van. There’s no such thing as HOV lanes. If I was going to Vancouver or going further beyond on the high- way, they have HOV lanes. But the HOV lanes are already packed, not just with electric vehicles, obviously with people that have more than one person in the car.

If every- body’s driving an electric car and they’re all going to be piling into these HOV lanes, then that’s not going to do anything for congestion. I guess what I want to say is that I like the idea of Bill 28. I like the idea of it. But I think, in practical terms, there has to be more of a concern of the barriers to ownership, either affordability of ownership, because they’re expensive, as well as the lack of infrastructure to accommodate more of the usage of electric cars, even today. D. Routley:It gives me great pleasure to stand in sup- port of Bill 28.

That’s because it answers all of the basic principles that I and the NDP stand for. Those are equity at the core, but using the three pillars in our society to achieve the goals that we all share. One of those goals is environmental protection. Using the market forces, using directed action through public policy, as has been done in so many other jurisdic- tions, is definitely an effective way to go about achieving your goals. It’s really surprising to hear the party that claims to be the free market representative reject the use of market force to achieve goals.

I mean, I think it really runs counter to the basic principle that they stood for when they intro- duced the carbon tax, which they said was using a market force in order to achieve a goal. I think all of us should be supporting that. Also, I think this represents a shift, because it takes us from expressions of hope in agreements with targets, which essentially put off action, to a place of action. This bill takes action. This bill is not telling these students: “Hope for the best.

It will work out. ” It is actually saying that by this time, we will achieve these goals, and we will use these forces to make their futures better and also protect our economy at the same time. It also represents a just transition, which is core to the principles I represent and that my party represents. A just transition means effecting change in a way that doesn’t dis- place people or harm them. When you provide predictability to a marketplace, that protects jobs.

That creates security and protects prosperity. [2:30 p.m.] Similarly, the Vancouver building code, which looked out and had several phases of change, told the industry to expect those changes. Those changes could be predicted. The lead- ers in the industry actually leapfrogged ahead and met those Tuesday, April 30, 2019 British Columbia Debates 8567

conditions early in order to be more competitive. There are so many examples of using market forces to achieve these goals — California, which demanded higher vehicle safety standards. We all benefited, because the marketplace deman- ded it. They had a large enough pressure in the marketplace. Similarly, California vehicle emission standards meant that every vehicle in every jurisdiction met those standards. The member refers to other jurisdictions. The member before the member for Abbotsford-Mission recommended against any tampering with the marketplace. It’s obvious that we do not live in a free market.

We live in a marketplace that is guided by regulation and law. [R. Chouhan in the chair.] We exist in a marketplace that has restrictions as well as freedoms, and adjustment of those is the responsibility of every government, to the benefit of the people we repres- ent. So it seems odd to see the B.C. Liberals standing up and opposing the constructive use of market forces to achieve the goals that we all share, or we, at least, purport to share. Prosperity usually goes to early adopters, and in this case, that couldn’t be more true.

Not only will prosperity come to those who are early adopters, but so will the cars. Y ou know, California, the state that the member mentioned, is, in fact, doing a very similar thing. They’re joining together with sev- en other states to become ZEV states. They are ZEV states, and in ZEV states, there are rules and regulations. It’s already paying off, in that those states are receiving far greater ship- ments of zero-emission vehicles than other states. They’re receiving the newest models up to six months earlier than any other state.

If you go into dealerships in states that are not ZEV states, you may face a six-month waiting time to get the car that you want,

whereas in a ZEV state, it’s much less. In that way, again, this bill protects our local marketplace, our provincial marketplace. The car companies, far from what the member opposite suggested, aren’t saying, “Why bother with B.C.?” because B.C. is demanding more zero-emission vehicles. They’re going to be saying: “Why bother with jurisdictions that aren’t requiring this? We need to go where this is a requirement, where there is a demand. ” I didn’t know I would be standing up and tutoring the B.C. Liberals on marketplace dynamics, supply and demand.

But it’s pretty clear that a jurisdiction that takes these steps along with California, along with Colorado, along with the six oth- er states and along with other jurisdictions, I’m sure, that will be leaping to do this as well…. We will, in fact, be protect- ing jobs, protecting the economy and protecting prosperity at the same time that we’re protecting the environment. That, to me, is a pretty good equation. The member for Abbotsford-Mission said that interven- tions will have consequences. Interventions in the market- place will have consequences. Well, I certainly hope so.

I anticipate that the consequences will be excellent, because, in British Columbia, companies, including car repair service outlets, will be able to have time to adjust — not only adjust their business to the demands of the marketplace but also have time to put their employees ahead of the curve in train- ing for new technologies. That’s a very important advantage that jurisdictions like ours will capture by taking these steps with public policy. In fact, I would read from an article.

When we look at California and Colorado, ZEV states that adopt California’s rules establish a system that requires they attain specified numbers of ZEV credits for low-emission vehicles. Auto- makers must comply with these numbers or face financial penalties. [2:35 p.m.] This is very clearly the wave of the future, when the largest marketplace in North America — California, the market- place that was responsible for vehicle safety standards that we enjoy now — demanded lower emissions from vehicles so we don’t have leaded gas anymore.

That’s what they did, by using the marketplace to achieve the goals that we all share. That’s what this bill does. Not only does it do that, but it puts us in that critical mass with California, with Colorado, with other states and, hopefully, with other provinces. That will create the demand, and we’ll be the place that those car companies come to in order to supply and in order to train and maybe even in order to manufacture and design. That would be a wonderful thing. This bill puts us on that path. This

article goes on to say that non-ZEV states have a six-to-12-month waiting period for new models, after they go on sale in these ZEV states. For example, in December of 2018…. Subaru started selling its first electrical vehicle, the Crosstrek Hybrid, in January of 2019. The reporter who wrote this

article went to her dealership in Colorado, which was not yet a ZEV state, and was told that she would have to wait for at least six months, and they would have likely no cars to test-drive in the foreseeable future. So she had to order sight unseen and then wait six months to 12 months. Becoming a ZEV state will motivate automakers to deliver more models and thus increase future sales in Colorado and right here in B.C. That will help. That will help the environ- ment, that will help the economy, and that will help our com- munities. There will be fewer people displaced from the cur- rent industry.

That’s an important principle for us to remind ourselves of. The member for Abbotsford-Mission, I think, mistakenly reminded us of that when he said: “There will be conse- quences. ” I agree with him. He said: “If car companies fail, so what?” He thought that if the marketplace caused a company to fail, well, so what? There’s a lot more to it than that, isn’t there, Mr. Speaker? It is a marketplace that we affect by the rules and the expect- ations and the regulations of government, governments past and inherited by governments now and handed off to gov- ernments in the future.

Obviously, we live in that kind of an environment — that these things have consequences in the marketplace. I think it’s rather callous to just say: “Well, if these com- 8568 British Columbia Debates Tuesday, April 30, 2019

panies fail, so what?” Well, so a lot. If we are setting public policy that can help transition an economy into a new phase, ahead of the curve, thereby protecting jobs, protecting the economy and encouraging and supporting prosperity, why would we not do that? We’ d be derelict in our duty if we did not do that. That’s what this bill does. He also was worried, he said, about those workers who work on internal combustion engines. So am I, which is another reason that I support this bill.

Those workers will have a greater and advantaged opportunity to train for future opportunities that will be coming due to this bill and its requirements. He then went on to say that car companies are vulnerable. Well, that’s a debatable notion, but I don’t think I need to spend much time on it. He said he worries that these technologies will be priced out of people’s reach. So did the member for North Vancou- ver–Seymour, who said that prices only go up and that this technology will only go up in price. Well, I’ d ask the mem- ber to harken back about eight or ten years ago when a flat screen TV cost $6,000.

A bigger one now costs $600, some 20 years later. Interjection. D. Routley:Y eah. We created demand, right? [2:40 p.m.] The notion that technology costs will go down when there’s a greater demand created seems nonsensical to me.

In fact, when California, which is a fairly large economy and not known for being an outlier but in fact a leader, is lead- ing their partner states, in ZEV states, to create the demand necessary to get those vehicles into their market so that they can make the transition as quickly as possible, with the least disruption to the current marketplace and also protecting jobs by ensuring those vehicles actually come there, thereby protecting the environment. States and jurisdictions that fail to take these steps will be left out.

They will not receive the inventory, and they will not receive the latest technology, because it will go to places where there is a demand. That demand is being created by that critical mass south of us, and we need to get on board with that. We need to get on board with that and make B.C. one of the leaders, rather than a laggard. This is about just transition. This is about achieving goals. This is about using the principles that we believe in, in order to satisfy our goals, the dreams of British Columbians that they would have a future that’s worth hoping for.

I think we owe it to the students who were here earlier, and to future generations, to take whatever steps we can to transition our economy to a low-emission and zero-emission state as quickly as possible. It’s too late to avoid the effects of climate change — we are going to have to cope and to man- age through them — but it is not too late to begin to turn that around. This bill is part of doing that. I think it’s even more principled or more important than the goals, specific and technical, of this bill: to achieve so many cars in a certain length of time.

That is, obviously, the thing we’re trying to achieve here, to have an impact on the environment. But to do that in a democracy, we need to persuade people. We can’t simply…. We need to persuade people to make that change, and this is part of doing that. This is part of making a step in government that will encour- age not just hope. Hope, in climate agreements that put tar- gets off, simply puts off action. We’ve seen that. People, particularly young people, can be forgiven if they become skeptical or even cynical about the steps that gov- ernments will take.

The pronouncements that they will achieve certain goals within a certain time period are met only after a while, with an adjustment of that time period. They need more than that. They need to see us do more than that. They need to see us take action, not just issue words, not just proclaim goals with no specific plan. This is a specific plan. This is helping us transition. I sup- port it because it does it in a just way. It does it in a way that protects the marketplace, the economy, our society and our communities. Those are the pillars of our core principles.

The third one is the goal that we’re all aiming at here. That is to improve our environment. Then I think we can go home after the end of this session and feel as though we’ve taken a step that we can be proud of to all the young people that we encounter in our communities. We can legitimately stand in front of them and say that we are taking concrete steps to improve their lives, improve their environment and make their communities and their economy more just and fair. Those are laudable goals. This is a worthy tool.

This is something that deserves support from all sides of the House, and I hope that the government that claims to support using the free market to achieve goals will do just that. I am sin- cerely hopeful they will do that. That’s what this bill does. It uses that tool of the marketplace economy to achieve a goal shared by all of us. Then we can go home, hold our heads high and tell people that we have actually taken action to address climate change. [2:45 p.m.] Deputy Speaker:The member for Kelowna West. Member, would you please move adjournment of debate? B. Stewart moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved. Reporting of Bills BILL 4 — WITNESS SECURITY ACT Bill 4, Witness Security Act, reported complete with amendments, to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today. Hon. M. Farnworth:As the ravages of time require me Tuesday, April 30, 2019 British Columbia Debates 8569

to have my glasses…. In this chamber, I call continued second reading debate on Bill 28, the Zero-Emission Vehicles Act. In the Douglas Fir Room, I call the estimates of the Ministry of Labour. Second Reading of Bills BILL 28 — ZERO-EMISSION VEHICLES ACT (continued) B. Stewart:It’s a pleasure, after that little bit of confu- sion, to kind of…. I have watched this before, but it’s kind of like I’m one of the animals, and I don’t quite know the direction I’m supposed to be, where I’m supposed to be standing or sitting. It gives me pleasure to rise and speak on Bill 28, the Zero- Emission Vehicles Act.

The challenges that come from cli- mate change are a call to action for all governments of every stripe — no individuals, no matter where they live. Our gov- ernment set the stage with the introduction of a carbon tax way back in 2007, the Clean Energy Act, and the improve- ments that we were aspiring to, to reduce emissions that were emitted by vehicles and transportation, the built environ- ment and manufacturing. I don’t know if anybody has really referenced that, but the first report-out on the CO2 emissions in British Columbia….

With growing GDP , an economy that was one of the best in Canada, we saw CO2 emissions decline in British Columbia because of the revenue-neutral carbon tax that this govern- ment had brought in. I’m talking about our government. What I do find about Bill 28 is that it is an attempt to be more prescriptive, and it’s a narrow point of view. What is really missing is that…. There appears to be a lot of effort that’s gone into the credit system around cleaner vehicles, which I think is good. But what’s lacking in it are the other things that are so important and vital to making this a suc- cess. People have spoken….

I can’t help but think about the comment that the member for Chilliwack-Kent made yester- day about a photograph that was taken in 1903, and there’s a single automobile in there. The question was: can you find the vehicle? Ten years later, in 1913, there’s another picture. Y ou can’t…. Where is the buggy in the picture? That’s how quickly technology can change. It is changing, as we’ve seen by the growing list of vehicles that meet the requirements about CleanBC. I look at this page, and there are, pretty clearly, over 25 different options here.

We’re starting to fulfil a need, and I think that that is great. [2:50 p.m.] I’m not necessarily certain that everybody is buying those vehicles because they’ve thought through, as the member for North Vancouver–Seymour just mentioned, in the sense that there are fundamental things when you buy an electric vehicle. Y ou think that you’re going to be able to plug it in and find charging stations. Y ou don’t know the range, and all of those things. These things are very complicated. Buying the vehicle is only one small component.

What is expected in this plan that’s laid out by government here is to put people into new, completely emission-free vehicles by 2040. Is that realistic? I mean, that means that we’re going to be selling a number that I don’t even know if they actually manufacture that many in the world yet. The reality is that our vehicle sales today are about 80,000 per year. It’s going to increase over that period of 16 years. The reality is that the government’s Bill 28 mandates that we’re going to be at 10 percent in 2025, which is a more than 60 percent increase. Today’s sales are roughly….

As an earli- er speaker from the government mentioned, it’s about 4 per- cent today of all vehicle sales. It has to grow in six years from 3,200 to over 8,640, I think it is. The reality is that there’s an affordability issue in there, and there’s the other things that the member for North Vancou- ver–Seymour mentioned — the whole availability of where the electricity plug-in stations are going to come from. I’ll talk more about how much consumption this is going to be and how it all works.

Y ou know, I think that most of us have been frequent visitors to California during the win- tertime, maybe Disneyland and other things like that. I can tell you that there are a lot of regular internal combustion engines on the road in California. I don’t know where their numbers are at, but there are certainly not charging stations on every corner, and they haven’t got it figured out. But one thing that I did notice when I was down there recently was that they do have a charge when you go to charge up. Y ou can get a rapid charge, etc., and you’re expected to pay for it.

When I’m thinking about the grid system and I’m think- ing about the Lower Mainland and Fraser Valley, it doesn’t take very long to get out of town. Squamish was mentioned earlier. What about Hope? Maybe Chilliwack. Or the Uni- versity of the Fraser Valley was cited, right? The fact is that they’ve got a couple of charging stations there. We don’t have it figured out how we’re going to have these charging stations so that everybody in 16 years can have a plug-in vehicle. It kind of reminds me of when I used to live in Calgary back in the ’70s. Every parking lot had a plug-in for a block heater.

Maybe that’s the kind of grid that we have to build up. I don’t see anything in here — nor do I see it in the govern- ment’s plan — in terms of its CleanBC plan as to how they’re going to build that infrastructure out. In estimates earlier, the Minister of Citizens’ Services talked about money to go in to putting in charging stations. Not specific — the design and the actual numbers haven’t been determined or planned out.

But $5 million to randomly — and I would say random at this point, because it’s not a plan — put in electric charging stations in government offices, whether that’s Service B.C., or maybe it’s forestry offices, conservation offices, wherever it might be. The bottom line is that these charging stations are not…. I don’t know if it’s clear as to whether those are for the public 8570 British Columbia Debates Tuesday, April 30, 2019

or just for the electric vehicles that government plans to put into its fleet. When I hear numbers about how far and the distance that the vehicles can actually travel in terms of…. Again, the member for North Vancouver–Seymour said that her Chev- rolet Volt did 83 kilometres, which is about what it says it does on the electric range. It does a full range of 676 kilo- metres based on the gas-electric mix. Are we prepared to accept that as a lower standard, even though it’s not really meeting the CO2 emission targets, by allowing vehicles in rural British Columbia that have to have backup?

I mean, I’m sure that when you hear from some of my colleagues that represent the ruralest parts of British Columbia that they’re going to talk to you about the impracticality of even driving from Dawson Creek to Fort St. John, which is a good hour. That is not likely to be on electric power. I have to say that one of the things that I really wonder about is when it comes to this planning about….

We talk about the grid, and we talk about the goal, this target, of hav- ing 100 percent of the vehicles in 16 years being all light-duty vehicles and being emission free. [2:55 p.m.] I guess the real question is: well, where is the plan? Where is the electricity coming from? I mean, it’s all great to be self- righteous and to say that we’re going to do this. We’re doing this, I am assuming, because of the confidence and supply agreement.

I think that it says that, that this is a fundament- al part of why the Green Party has joined up and created a coalition to have two minority parties that are basically run- ning the government — saying that they want this. I understand that they want it. We wanted it too. But the reality is that we have to have the electricity. We have to have the grid. We have to have the costs. I’m assuming that costs will decline. What about the recycling of all of these leftover batteries? Now, I happen to have a business that uses electric fork- lifts.

We prepay for the battery, and we get five years use out of the battery out of a forklift. At the end of it, that battery has to be recycled, and that is in place. But the new batter- ies that are going into electric vehicles are not the same, and they do need to be recycled at some point. There’s an end- of-life use that has to be considered, and I haven’t heard any- thing from the Minister of Environment on that. I think the minister that’s working on this initiative…. No doubt, I think it’s probably near her riding, where Teck is actually doing a lot of this complicated recycling with rare metals.

But it is still a big project. Where do you take them to? I remember as the minister having to recycle electronic goods. We had a depot in Surrey — for all of British Col- umbia, one depot. Now it’s expanded, and we have a system that’s grown. I’m not saying it’s perfect, but the reality is that we can collect used television sets, stereos and all of those things. We can take it back to a place where it will be prop- erly disposed and put those mined minerals back to good use. But there’s nothing in this plan that talks about it.

Even the member for Cowichan Valley mentioned about the building code, and I do think that we have to address that. Is the Minister of Housing dealing with how we’re going to incentivize existing buildings? New buildings. How are we going to put charging stations in for everybody that’s in those buildings? If the life cycle of the building is 50 years and it’s only a ten-year-old building, we still have to retrofit it. We’ve got to come up with that. Who’s paying for it? When I talk about planning, I can’t help but think about starting out with a small winery. I started out making a few bottles of wine.

It takes roughly 1½ plants to make a bottle of wine. The reality is that we’re still a small winery. We make just under one million bottles a year. It takes a lot of plants and a lot of management to do that, and we’re still a tiny winery in the scheme of the global things. To put it in perspective, all of these things that…. The grid system — think about it. Look at the Internet. We’re talk- ing about expanded Internet services into rural and remote communities. We’re not talking about hard-wiring every house. We’re talking about putting fibre optic on highways and then distributing through local systems.

We know how much money…. The Minister of Citizens’ Services has just announced $50 million to the Northern Development Initi- ative Trust to help build out the system. It takes years and years of planning. Technology changes. The reality is that our grid system…. We don’t have that plan. We’re talking about Site C. We’re talking about maybe…. I don’t know if it’s 1,500 gigawatts. The member for Langley East would probably know the terminology because I always get that turned around.

But the reality is: how many Site Cs is it going to take to power the number of vehicles that we want to achieve or convert to electric? Three Site Cs. There you go. Where are those going to go? I mean, we didn’t have plans to build more. We tried to improve. We reinvested. We put more efficient generators in there, reconstructed old dams. What’s going to happen about affordability? All these people that are demanding electricity for these vehicles are going to be increasing demand. How is B.C. Hydro expected to be able to deliver affordable energy in terms of electricity for homeowners?

Some of them were convinced years ago to put electric heat in. As demand goes up and the cost of electricity gen- eration goes up, these people are going to be forced into the situation…. Maybe the minister has the answer to that. How are we going to make certain that we keep the prices in a realistic, affordable range for the average homeowner? [3:00 p.m.] I mean, the electric vehicle user is going to have to pay a fair market price for the electricity. Maybe the new energy that we’re talking about — wind, solar, whatever it is — is going to come way down in price, etc.

I didn’t see that when I was in Asia, by the way, even though it’s widely adop- Tuesday, April 30, 2019 British Columbia Debates 8571

ted. Hydroelectric would still be the number one preferred choice, in any of the countries I visited, for electricity use. One of the things that I really worry about in this partic- ular bill is the fact that it lacks the completeness and a plan so that we can count on delivering this in the sense that you, as government, and ourselves, as members of the Legislature, can be adequately prepared that we don’t go off and embark on something that is great marketing but…. What about the rest of the thing? What about the cost to the rest of British Columbians?

We’ve got in estimates this year “Making life better. ” Not only have we seen the carbon tax go from roughly just around $1 billion to $1.4 billion to $1.7 billion this year; we have $679 million for funding to CleanBC to reduce carbon pollution and to promote the use of clean energy to power B.C. ’s economy. What have we got here? We’ve got $90 million out of that $679 million of new funding, it says. But it’s still $90 mil- lion out of the $1.7 billion that the government is going to collect.

Only $90 million is being put into the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources to encourage and accelerate the adoption of zero-emission vehicles. So we’ve got $42 million that’s going into the point-of-sale incent- ives, $20 million to support the creation of new public fast- charging and hydrogen fuelling stations and $10 million to offer more incentives for medium- and heavy-duty vehicles, including trucking, port, airport, ground equipment, buses and marine vessels. It seems to me that port electrification….

I seem to recall that we were a big investor in port electrification when the former minister and member from Cloverdale…. We tried to reduce emissions with bunker fuel, etc., in the port of Van- couver and many of the other places and, I’m sure, right here in Victoria — $6 million in support of training programs for automotive technicians, $6 million to help the light-duty vehicle fleets adopt zero-emission vehicles, and $5 million and another $1 million. So this year $96 million is going into this program. Then we have ’20-21, $6 million, and ’21-22, $5 million. It’s front-end loaded with $96 million.

What type of plan is that? How are we going to get to over 8,600 vehicles that are clean energy vehicles — going to be incentivizing people to buy these? We don’t have the charging stations. We don’t have the grid. We don’t have the vehicles. All we’ve done is we’re putting an imposition on the people that are in busi- ness to sell vehicles, trying to provide fair value, to make cer- tain that they’re clean and energy-efficient.

If people want electric vehicles, we want to have those too, but I don’t see that Bill 28 actually delivers — with all of the credits and the complicated accounting and the bureaucracy it’s going to create — a system that’s going to have people running to the car lots to buy new electric vehicles, because they don’t have the infrastructure or the plan. And especially if they know that the money is running out this year, they get their vehicle, and then they start to find out that there are other costs with it. I think it’s unrealistic — the timelines that are put on this.

It’s not that I don’t like aggressive timelines, but let’s be real- istic. We don’t have the buildout. We don’t have the plan that I’ve talked about. Y ou know, I think that it’s fine to legislate. As the member from North Cowichan mentioned, it’s about… I think he used the term: “We do not live in a free market. ” It’s up to the government to tell people what to do. That’s not the way that…. I’m trying to think that people are raised to make their own decisions.

The situation is that we’re not going to be successful if the government is there telling everybody: “Y ou know, you have to…. ” [3:05 p.m.] Of course we know that we have to reduce emissions. I’ve had dozens and dozens of people that have come to my office because after they’ve retrofitted their homes and reduced energy, now the carbon tax costs more than the fuel that they’re using. They can’t square the peg on this, in the sense that they’re completely perturbed by the fact that we’re allowing this to go on. There’s a disconnect. Anyways, I think that when it comes to this, it’s got to make sense.

People have to be brought along. We have to be thoughtful about where these millions of charging sta- tions have to go — I mean, not just a few hundred thou- sand, millions. First and foremost, I think the other thing that’s really missing is that we need to ensure that this legislation remem- bers the realities of living in rural B.C. I mean, I have places in my riding that are ten minutes from my office that are considered to be almost off the grid.

I don’t think that they’re going to be having charging stations at their home, unless somebody can explain to me how this is going to end up hap- pening with some other legislation that’s yet to come in. I don’t want to sound cynical, but it seems this govern- ment is embedding itself deep into the sales process in a way that is fraught with dangers to consumers, to the cost of vehicles and to the very goals of the program itself. Then there’s the government’s continual lack of transpar- ency, again reflected in this legislation’s reliance on regula- tion to come later. There are a lot of unanswered questions.

It’s difficult, when something like this doesn’t have the plan- ning behind it, to really believe that the act and giving the ministry the power through regulation is going to come out in the best interest of British Columbians. It’s going to end up costing British Columbians, because as taxpayers — we’re all taxpayers here — we have to fund what government’s spending or investing. We want to make certain that that investment is not only idealistic or ideological but that the whole process of this investment works out in the end to achieve the ultimate goal of redu- cing CO2 emissions.

Many of the specifics of the program have been left to be developed behind closed doors, lacking the security of this House, pushed out through regulation without any consulta- tion. I’ d say that this is just a bad way to develop the sys- 8572 British Columbia Debates Tuesday, April 30, 2019

tem that’s supposed to help to accomplish an important goal: a transition to zero-emission vehicles. This is more than a lofty goal. It represents a fundamental change in the daily lives of the vast majority of British Columbians, and it has the potential to have major impacts on their pocketbooks. I look forward to the committee stage, to digging deeper into the complex system the government is establishing and making sure that we can actually reach the 2040 aspirational targets laid out in Bill 28. R. Coleman:I’m pleased to stand up and speak to this legislation.

The aspirational goal of EV vehicles is an inter- esting one and one that is fraught with not just one or two questions but probably a thousand questions. The thousands of question come from a number of places. I want to spend a couple minutes just talking about how the previous government actually got to the idea of maybe putting in place an incentive for people to buy hybrid or elec- tric vehicles back starting in about 2009.

There was a period of time where we went on a very extensive public listening and hearing process, with regards to thousands of people and actually 160-plus meetings with everybody from the automotive industry through to the David Suzuki Foundation to all the environmental groups — scientists, environmentalists and all kinds of other people that were concerned about climate — and had a conversation about how you could improve the climate in the country and in the world. It was quite eye opening, to be honest with you, because you got an opportunity to hear all aspects of the discussion. I’ll give you an example.

In one day, we were having a con- versation with a variety of groups about what was clean energy.

One group came in and said: “There’s only one clean energy in the whole world that’s clean energy, and that is nuclear. ” Well, knowing that B.C. doesn’t want to mine urani- um and that B.C. doesn’t support nuclear power, that wasn’t going to be something in the future that the government would put in policy to say this is how we’re going to get our clean energy. [3:10 p.m.] We had people come in and tell us: “Well, in actual fact, because it’s cleaner than coal, natural gas is clean energy. ” Of course, that led to the conversation about learning what GHGs were and what the calculations per tonne were and what all of those things were about.

It also led to a conversation about hydroelectric. Some people, including members of the Green Party who I know, actually said that Site C was a good idea at the time and that it should be pursued because it was clean energy. Today you’ d get a different answer on that particular conversation. But it does take you down a road where you try and put together a plan where you’re trying to create opportunities for change in your economy with regards to getting cleaner energy into the marketplace, reducing your GHG profile and finding a way to help the rest of the world at the same time. That’s not an easy task.

This actually gets pretty compli- cated, complicated to the point that one person, one organiz- ation…. Not an auto industry. It was actually, I think, one of the scientific magazines that came in and presented us with what I will refer to as the life-cycle environmental impact of a Hummer versus a hybrid Prius.

They went through all the aspects of all of the things that went into building the one and the other, frankly, from min- ing to commodities and what had to go into building them; what their life cycle was; what the life cycle of each of them was with regards to what their waste would be at the end of the cycle; and the inability to actually recycle the batteries, at that time, relative to the Prius. I was shocked. They came up with the conclusion that, at that time, the Hummer had less environmental impact in its life cycle than the Prius did.

Y ou’re trying to figure this thing out, and you get these people who are actually considered to be experts in their field coming in and giving you that example.

So as you go through this, you start to say: “Okay, how do we get to where we need to get to?” Now, the biggest change that was made to try and drive a change in climate in any province in Canada or any jurisdic- tion in North America was to actually come up with a work- able carbon tax, a carbon tax that would actually be rein- vested in the economy to promote issues relative to encour- aging people to go green, whether it be that you add money from the carbon tax so you can recycle the old televisions to replace what are now the high-definition televisions in your recycling programs or whether it’s to enhance the recyclab- ility of tires by having money invested from the user of the carbon to being able to deal with the carbon that you want to dispose of.

It’s to take that carbon tax and make sure it’s revenue- neutral relative to incenting the marketplace with other taxes to reduce use in certain areas and to increase the use of other clean energies in other sectors. Well, I fought the campaign of the $30 carbon tax. I remember the Axe the Tax campaign. I remember the pro- test outside my constituency office — led by, at that time, a member of the New Democratic Party of British Columbia who was running for politics — to axe the tax. We shouldn’t have a carbon tax. It was no good for people and the eco- nomy. It was the wrong tax.

It wasn’t fair to people, and it should go. Well, a couple of weeks ago, on the first of April, the NDP government raised our carbon tax to $40 a tonne, $40 a tonne paid for by every single person that goes to a gas pump in B.C. but, just notably, not by the newest industry to come to British Columbia, which has got a holiday at $30 a tonne guaranteed for 20 years. As I looked at the numbers with regards to this program, as I started to debate this legislation…. It’s about $96 million, if I’m not mistaken, in the first years to try and encourage people to buy electric vehicles.

So we’re going to give them an incentive to go buy a vehicle, but on the flip side, we give out $600 million tax-free on PST for 20 years to a company when you’re only putting $96 million into actually incenting Tuesday, April 30, 2019 British Columbia Debates 8573

people into an electric vehicle market. That PST thing is to push for another resource. I don’t have a problem with that. I support the resource. But I think it can be a bit hypocritical. As we went through this whole thing, with these 160-plus meetings and the conversations and whatever, I actually handled a couple of portfolios as I came through that. I found out some things that were kind of stagger- ingly interesting. [3:15 p.m.] First of all, let’s talk about vehicles themselves before I get into their life cycle. I’ll admit that my wife owns a small SUV , and I own a pickup truck. I happen to be an RV’ er.

I’ve been RV’ing with my kids since they were little, and my oldest is now in her 40s. So I like trucks for that particular purpose, and for others. One of my children had a hybrid vehicle that turned out to be not so good at the end of its life cycle. As they tried to get a change in the battery piece because it was starting to go down as the car had aged about three or four years in, they were told that it was $8,000 to replace the batteries in the vehicle if they wanted to continue owning that car, for which they would only say the value was $6,000.

Y ou have to think about that as a life cycle, because in a car of the same size, to replace it with a rebuilt engine was actually about $1,200, which would then give that vehicle a life cycle of another five or six years,

whereas the other one now has to be disposed of and recycled. I remember sitting in a room with people from B.C. Hydro when I was the minister responsible for Hydro, talk- ing about the future needs and supply of electricity in British Columbia. We knew we had a growing population and that it wasn’t going to stop: “We’re predicting a million more people in British Columbia over the next 15 or 20 years. What do we need for electricity?” At that time, you could have made the argument that we were not energy-self-sufficient in British Columbia, because we were actually buying power from other jurisdictions.

Even though we liked to say we were clean energy, we were buying coal power from Alberta on a pretty regular basis. We traded some of our electric power into the U.S., but the real- ity is that we did not have the mix that says we’re energy-self- sufficient but that also we’re as clean as we thought we were. We moved to push that, to try and attract ourselves to more things like wind and solar, to figure out how we could do deals with First Nations based on megawatt prices, to be able to make it a business case with some subsidies to try using the carbon tax to incent people to come up with other forms of power.

We did that. As we did that, of course, we got criticized, because the megawatt price of energy that was coming from run of the river, from wind or from solar was higher than what would come over the top of a dam. The criticism, by the way, that came from the now Premier, very aggressively, was about us buying junk power. He would have preferred at the time to just have us keep buying power by coal, which would never have met any climate goals whatsoever. The next thing I found interesting, though, is that…. I said to B.C. Hydro one day: “Okay, we have the incentive pro- gram.

We’re moving towards electric and hybrid vehicles as we go through this. Tell me: if every single vehicle in British Columbia” — forget the grid; forget the capacities; we’ll get to that in a minute — “went electric, how much more power do we need?” The answer was: “Minister, you would prob- ably need to build three more Site C dams, because the juice has got to come from somewhere. ” Now, people talk about — and California is a classic example — how clean California is with regard to its encour- aging electric vehicles.

But do people in this room know that 35 percent of the power in California still comes from coal — that you’re actually burning more coal in California to power electric vehicles? What’s coming out at the end on the electric vehicle…. They call that clean, but the source of the power is not.

The interesting thing, when I got into that piece recently, looking at that part — I have a keen interest after sitting through 160 meetings back in 2007 to ’09 — was that I asked them, through the transportation people in California: “What does the internal combustion engine do today in California versus what it used to?” The answer was kind of interesting. They said today’s car, a modern car driving down a high- way in California today, puts cleaner air out of its tailpipe than it takes in through its intake. The modern car actually treats air, and there’s more H2O than CO2 coming out of the tailpipe of a car.

In one case, one guy said to me: “It’s actu- ally like an air cleaner. ” It’s actually helping us with our own environment of air down here because the cars have got- ten modern. It’s the reason, quite frankly, a whole lot of air got cleaned up — because technology helped, from the old leaded fuel–type engine all the way through to the new tech- nology today. [3:20 p.m.] Here’s where I found the conversation the most interest- ing: if you have to add more electricity.

It’s a given, because you won’t have enough, with a million people coming, the cars that’ll be here and the electric car and all of the other electric aspects of the economy. So then I went down to the nub, and I said, “Tell me something. In a subdivision built in the last 20 years, and one built in the previous 30 years, how many homes on a street can handle the voltage that’s required for a quick charger or a charger in a home for an electric car?” This answer was not very good.

To use an example of a subdivision with two cul-de-sacs, with a T-intersection com- ing into them, if six went onto that, with one charger per home out of six homes, the lights would flicker in the rest of the houses when they’re all being charged. He said: “Y ou’ve got a problem with transformers outside of that because of the underground power, simply because there’s a load capa- city here. ” I was shocked to find out that in actual fact, as we go and 8574 British Columbia Debates Tuesday, April 30, 2019

move down these roads, we have to look at what the costs are to the next stage of what we want to do. It’s great to say — and I believe we should try to get to it — as many zero-emis- sion vehicles as possible by a certain date. But let’s under- stand the downstream. First of all, you need to have big- ger KVR lines in a number of areas of the province just to bring in enough electricity. A place like Prince Rupert, for instance, has a relatively small KVR line compared to the one that goes up Highway 33. It was built a few years ago.

The lines into Kitimat and Terrace, because they actually have to deal with Rio Tinto Alcan, are pretty large and are being upgraded by LNG Canada for the purpose of taking a bigger load. But Rupert has no backup. Their line goes into there, and if it goes down, the city is in trouble. That means that nothing would run, that nothing would charge. So you’ve got to be careful with what that load is coming in there. If you take the number of cars that are possibly docked that day, forget the incentives.

It’s not anywhere near the number of cars that would be on the roads of British Colum- bia, but if you incent every one of them, you could be run- ning up around $5 billion to $15 billion in incentives to try and reach your goal. That’s not the scary number. The scary number is how you then handle the capacity in subdivisions and in communities where, in some cases, all the power lines need to be replaced. They need to be bigger, they need to be stronger, they need to be able to take a better transformer, and they need to take the load.

As you do this and you start to look at it, you’ve got to keep in mind that you need to deliver. Otherwise, you end up doing some things like you’ve done in other aspects of gov- ernment over the years. Y ou have a great idea, and the inabil- ity to deliver actually makes it unattractive to accomplish the actual goal you wanted to accomplish, which was to clean up the environment. Back in the day when we did the 160 meetings, one of the interesting conversations we had was about the subsidy for an EV or a hybrid.

Even when you put it in place, that con- versation took place with all kinds of groups, both environ- mental and business groups. One of the things that struck me in that whole conversation — I heard it from a group of people in my own riding when we were sitting around at a round table — was that middle-class and working people said to me: “Has it occurred to you that your subsidy to the electric vehicle is a subsidy to the richest people in the province of British Columbia? Has it occurred to you that we can’t afford the car even with the subsidy?

We can’t get in on this, because we can’t afford it. ” The one lady, who had a couple kids, said: “Y ou know, every time I see a Tesla and I’m driving my five-year-old SUV , I’m offended, because somebody subsidized that for somebody to buy that car, and I could never afford it. ” As you start to do this sort of social engineering, remember the people that you’re actually working with and representing. In this case, you forgot about a whole bunch of them.

A whole bunch of them are the people that actually would like to have themselves in a situation where they could get an EV . [3:25 p.m.] Y ou have this interconnection; you have the power load. What’s it going to cost? I know what it costs to bring power into a single-family residential home. I know what it would cost, in addition to that, to increase that for capacity. Let’s assume that we build 30,000 homes in British Columbia a year. Let’s say we added an extra power line in there for capa- city.

For the homes, at about $10,000, that’ d be $300 mil- lion in additional costs for the homeowners who might want to buy homes in B.C. That doesn’t count the million or so homes that we already have, which takes you into $10 billion plus, just to get the power. That doesn’t get the power down the street. Now you have to dig up the street, or you have to go down, whichever way you put the power in, and pull in more wire in order to handle the volume. I know how expensive that is and how difficult it is because when I was minister for Hydro, I actu- ally watched the project proceed.

It snaked wire through a neighbourhood, from downtown Vancouver, underneath the water and into Vancouver, to replace the 40-, 50-, 60-, 80-year-old vaults, as we would then call them, with big switches in them, to make sure that Vancouver had the power, just in case they started to go. That was about 300 mil- lion bucks. Now, I’ve just talked about the single-family home. Let’s talk about condominiums and townhouses for a minute. Condominiums are wired to be able to handle branch-off wires into each individual unit.

If they’re concrete, it’s not so simple to actually add the power — to bring it in, necessarily, to do the ability to handle the number of chargers. My colleague from North Vancouver was talking earlier about how difficult it is to get a charge. Well, I just sat down with somebody who asked me about whether…. Their strata council wanted to look at how they would put in electric chargers. Are there incentives for them to do that? Here’s a big argument. The big argument is if you have 50 people in the condominium, 50 units, and ten of them say they might like to get electric cars.

They want the strata to pay for ten EV charging stations at their parking spots. They don’t want to pay; they want everybody else to pay. The other 40 say: “No way. If we’re doing one, we’re doing them all. ” What was going to be a fairly simple project of a number of thousands of dollars is now running up close to north of $1 million, and somebody has to pay for it. With 50 people divided into $1 million, are they all going to get electric cars next week? No. Are they going to get one in two years? Not likely. Will they sell some of them and not care? Who knows?

The reality is that this initiative ignores all that. It ignores the ability for people to actually make use of what this is about. This is really about saying: “Y ou have to do something. We’ll incent you to do it to a point. We’re going to run out of money, but it’s okay. We’ll dish it out some- where else. We’ll reduce the carbon tax for somebody over here, but we’ll keep charging it over there. We’re going to Tuesday, April 30, 2019 British Columbia Debates 8575

take that into general revenue and actually not put it into the infrastructure that’s required to build this program in the first place. ” What we’re talking about is a multi-billion- dollar hole — in the production of power, how it’s used and how you will access it. The neatest thing about all of this — or the sad thing, actually — is that people that get electric cars today think that electricity is a free good. It’s not free when you have to build the dam. It’s not free when you have to build the power line or bring the line underground into a subdivision, a con- dominium or an office tower.

It’s certainly not free when some municipality is putting up these quick-charging sta- tions. If the demand goes to them that they need ten, 20, 30 or 40, they will start to charge for electricity. If there’s a draw on electricity and there’s not enough of it, we then have to start buying it in the marketplace because we haven’t thought the other piece through, and electricity is going to get very expensive. British Columbia right now pays about the fourth-lowest power costs on the continent.

It looks a lot more attractive when your power cost is four or five times higher in some states in the U.S. [3:30 p.m.] The U.S. answer to this is to build more power stations, but they don’t build power st

Document details

Collection	British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	20190430pm-Hansard-n243
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	20190430pm Hansard n243
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	e6195597c4c825d28b0b6fb4aecc099a26a394b7

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