Third Session, 42nd Parliament

(2022) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Tuesday, May 10, 2022

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 203

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Routine Business

Statements

Jury duty

Hon. D. Eby

Orders of the Day

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 15 — Low Carbon Fuels Act

Hon. B. Ralston

T. Shypitka

S. Furstenau

E. Ross

A. Olsen

Hon. B. Ma

M. Lee

Hon. G. Heyman

Hon. B. Ralston

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 10 — Labour Relations Code Amendment Act, 2022

(continued)

G. Kyllo

Hon. H. Bains

A. Olsen

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 10 — Labour Relations Code Amendment Act, 2022

(continued)

G. Kyllo

Hon. H. Bains

Proceedings in the Birch Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Health (continued)

S. Bond

Hon. A. Dix

TUESDAY, MAY 10, 2022

The House met at 1:33 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Statements

JURY DUTY

Hon. D. Eby: I rise to recognize Canadian Jury Duty Appreciation Week. Members

in this place will know the important role that juries play in many

aspects of our justice system, the coroner’s inquest process as well as

criminal trials and civil trials. This is the week where we recognize

that work that people do. They come in, and they hear about important

issues between individuals — sometimes quite serious issues — that need

to be resolved.

First of all, I rise to express my appreciation to those who serve

on jury duty. They get that notice in the mail, they respond, and they

provide that essential duty as citizens. The second is to underline

government’s commitment to support people who serve on

juries.

Now, some of the work done by people on juries includes quite

traumatic information involving a criminal trial, for example. So

government has ensured that jurors have access to supports, both during

and after trial, to discuss anything troubling that they may have seen

during their time serving on duty. We also have two additional pilot

programs that we’re launching to better support jurors that will be

coming out and that we’re working in partnership with the federal

government on.

I wanted to rise and express my appreciation to all British

Columbians who serve on juries, to thank them for doing their civic

duty, to let them know that government supports them in that work and to

express gratitude for ensuring that our justice system works as it

should.

[1:35 p.m.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: In this chamber, I call second reading of Bill 15, Low Carbon Fuels

Act.

In the Douglas Fir Room, I call committee stage, Bill 10, Labour Relations

Code Amendment Act.

In the Birch Room, I call debate on the Ministry of Health

estimates.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 15 — LOW CARBON FUELS ACT

Hon. B. Ralston: I move that Bill 15 be read a second time now.

I’m pleased to present Bill 15, the Low Carbon Fuels Act. Bill 15

will replace the Greenhouse Gas Reduction (Renewable and Low Carbon Fuel

Requirements) Act. The current energy crisis underlines just how

important it is for us to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels and to

transition to made-in-B.C., low-carbon options, such as biofuels,

hydrogen and electricity.

The Greenhouse Gas Reduction (Renewable and Low Carbon Fuel

Requirements) Act was first introduced by the previous government in

2008. That act established the low-carbon fuel standard, the LCFS, the

regulatory framework which aimed to reduce the carbon intensity of fuels

by, firstly, requiring fuel suppliers to supply a prescribed percentage

of renewable fuels and, secondly, empowering the province to set

regulations for specific carbon intensity targets to reduce the amount

of carbon emitted per unit of energy in fuel.

The low-carbon fuel standard is now the single largest contributor

to meeting our CleanBC targets, expected to account for 31 percent, or

approximately one-third, of all reductions in the CleanBC Roadmap to

2030. To date, the low-carbon fuel standard has reduced more than 12

million tonnes of global greenhouse gas emissions.

Over the years, the department has worked closely with the state

of California on the low-carbon fuel standard. Our Pacific Coast

Collaborative partners, Oregon and Washington, have recently adopted

similar measures. To maximize our production of low-carbon energy and to

support the clean transformation of manufacturing and fuel production in

British Columbia, we’re building on approaches that we know well, and

we’re creating incentives for innovation.

The new Low Carbon Fuels Act incorporates the learnings of the

past 14 years to create a clearer and more robust structure that ensures

the low-carbon fuel standard will be easier to administer and to

enforce. The new act does not substantially change the existing policy,

but it does strengthen and modernize the structure of the act itself.

With this legislation, we’re modernizing and expanding the low-carbon

fuel standard to incorporate new fuel classes and to encourage broader

participation, investment and innovation in the production and use of

low-carbon fuels.

Stimulating the production and use of made-in-B.C., renewable and

low-carbon fuels will generate jobs and economic opportunities for First

Nations, businesses, in­no­vators and communities around the

province, all while reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

The proposed act will deliver on CleanBC’s Roadmap to 2030 cleaner

fuel commitments by expanding the scope to include more base fuels such

as fossil-based aviation and marine fuels; enabling compliance units to

be issued to persons who permanently sequester greenhouse gases captured

directly from the air; allowing registered persons to trade credits,

whether or not they are a fuel supplier; requiring prescribed utilities

that earn credits from the supply of electricity to invest a portion of

the revenue from the sale of the credits into projects that increase the

use of electricity in transportation; and finally, by supporting the

development of production capacity for 1.3 billion litres of

made-in-B.C. renewable fuels per year by 2030.

This legislation is just one of a range of actions we’re taking

through our CleanBC Roadmap to reduce greenhouse gas emissions; build a

cleaner, stronger future; and prepare for the impacts of climate

change.

[1:40 p.m.]

T. Shypitka: Thank you to the minister for the statements.

It gives me great pride to be the designated speaker for Bill 15,

Low Carbon Fuel Act. As critic for Energy and Mines and Low Carbon

Innovation, along with my colleague from Skeena, who will be joining us

fairly shortly, it is my responsibility to hold government to account in

accordance with what the minister has been mandated by the Premier but

also to industry, communities and people in British Columbia.

This province — actually this world, in fact — has seen some of

history’s largest environmental, technological and social

transformations, arguably, over the last 20 years or so. There’s been a

strong signal that collectively, as humans, we need to be more

responsible in how we live.

As we all know, greenhouse gas emissions are altering our climate

system in many ways, causing frequent weather events, such as heat

waves, fires and flooding. We don’t have to go too far back to see some

of the climate disasters that we’ve seen in the last couple years —

extreme flooding, fire. We’ve got to do everything we can, as human

beings, to reduce our impact here on the planet.

We have an ever-advancing technology sector that is brining us

alternate ways to keep us warm and to keep us cool with less assistance

of carbon-intensive fuels, less carbon-intensive ways to transfer

ourselves and our supplies. This certainly has been a work in

progress.

Additionally, the cost for these alternative energy sources is

becoming more and more affordable, and that is where the balance is.

After all the good heads come together, after industry develops better

delivery models, the last question is always: what is practical to use

so that it’s sustainable and what is cost-prohibitive and unsustainable

to use? This is the real equation for the everyday businesses and people

of British Columbia.

At a time when this province is seeing the highest gas prices,

housing prices and most people $200 away from making their next mortgage

payment, good timing is critical when implementing strategies to what is

outlined in Bill 15.

B.C. continues to experience a deepening affordability crisis, and

young people in our province are enduring some of the worst

consequences. We have the highest gas prices in North America. This is

well before the invasion of the Ukraine, although that definitely has

been adding to the pain at the pump that we’re seeing right now. The

last tally I’ve seen was $2.23 a litre here in the Lower Mainland or on

the Island, and no relief in sight.

We’ve got some of the highest rents in our country, and the

housing prices are the highest we’ve ever seen. The younger people in

our province are struggling to afford to buy a house and, instead, face

incredibly high rental rates. Groceries are getting dramatically more

expensive. Everybody can see that every day, when they buy their goods

at the local grocery store.

People need to see the government taking real action on B.C.’s

affordability crisis, and this is the balance I’m trying to draw between

Bill 15 and the real crisis, the other crisis that we have right here.

We’ve got a climate emergency, as some refer to it, and we also have an

affordability crisis here in British Columbia. So when we introduce

bills such as this, we have to take a look at the broad, holistic view

of it and what that is going to actually mean to everyday British

Columbians.

The bill was tabled yesterday by the Energy Minister, and its

purpose was described as to modernize the low-carbon fuel standard to

support CleanBC’s fuel carbon intensity targets, expand the act to

include new categories of fuels, such as aviation fuels, as the minister

just stated, and enable utilities to reinvest credit revenues into

projects supporting electricity and transformation. Fair

enough.

However, just prior to the tabling of the bill, the minister

stated, in referring to the B.C. Liberal’s Greenhouse Gas Reduction Act

— I’m assuming that’s what he was getting at — during an introduction:

“Since being introduced over ten years ago with little precedent to draw

upon, B.C.’s low-carbon fuel standard has been the single largest

contributor to meeting our CleanBC targets.”

So the question automatically jumps out at me that if the former

act, the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Act of 2008, and B.C.’s low-carbon

fuel standards have been such a large contributor to meeting our CleanBC

targets, why do we need to replace the entire bill and not just simply

amend the current bill to modernize it?

When the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Act was implemented in 2008, it

came along with another act entitled the Carbon Tax Act, in 2008. Not in

tandem, but they were done the same year. This was the B.C. Liberal’s

forward-thinking on how we could be more responsible on reducing our

impact here in British Columbia.

[1:45 p.m.]

The Carbon Tax Act incorporated a pretty nifty way of dealing with

the tax. That was to make the tax revenue neutral, which was another way

of saying that every penny collected from the tax was going to be kicked

back and spread across all taxpayers of B.C. in the form of lowering

personal and corporate income tax. At that time, I believe we had the

lowest tax rate provincially in Canada for those making less than

$120,000 a year.

This forward-thinking was heralded across the globe, and it helped

people afford the things they needed. In 2012, the carbon tax was halted

at $30 a tonne.

When the NDP came into power, however, they immediately removed

the revenue neutrality of the carbon tax and took all that money that

was going to B.C. taxpayers and put it in their own pocket as general

revenue in order to spend the money as they saw fit. With Bill 15, I

hope we’re not seeing a somewhat close cousin to that type of move and

what happened with the carbon tax.

There were incentives created with carbon credits, and these

incentives are based on the creation of an initiative fund that’s going

to be set up. That would be funded by selling compliance credits, which

we will require clarification on — why that fund was created and what

that money is expected to be spent on. I’m hoping it’s not just merely

going to be transferred into general revenue.

I know there will be a utilities…. B.C. Hydro will be taking

charge of that initiative fund in some way, shape or form. We’re just

wondering. Those are some of the questions we’ll be asking in committee

stage, on better clarification of how that initiative fund will be set

up and all the moving parts and pieces that will go along with

it.

The recently introduced Bill 15 repeals and replaces the previous

legislation, as I said, and adjusts the formulas for compliance credits

to potentially increase the carbon intensity — in turn, making it

perhaps more difficult to receive compliance credits. It’s a fairly

complex formula that has been set up.

There’s been a new piece — I think it’s the UIC component of the

formula — that has been brought in. It’s on page 10. It’s

section 13 of

the bill. It identifies several components of the formula that’s used.

That’s the TCI, the EER, the RCI, the UCI and the EC. The UCI, I

believe, is a brand-new component. That will be under discretion, in

accordance with the regulations of the minister. There are actually

several pieces of that formula that will be subjected to

regulation.

We’re wondering how that regulation is going to impact the

availability or the way that companies or suppliers can address

receiving credits. Will it make it more hard? Will it make it easier?

What impact will that have on the cost of the fuel that we’ll be

receiving at the retail level? Will that make it go up?

I think the minister has made statements that it will. I believe

the statement yesterday was a cent. We’ll be asking more questions on

how he’d arrived at that calculation, because I think it’s fair for

British Columbians to understand what we’re getting into when we adopt

these.

We’re not saying that these are bad initiatives or that these are

bad things we don’t want in the province. Of course we want to take a

leading role, and British Columbia has been doing that for quite some

time. As I mentioned earlier, the carbon tax was one of those

forward-thinking initiatives that the B.C. Liberals brought into play.

The government now has supported and has increased that tax. We need to

be responsible, but we need to do it in a sustainable way. These are the

questions we’ll be asking in committee stage for sure.

The bill gives the ministry the power in determining additional

carbon intensity through regulation, but this does also require

definition of what is considered additional carbon intensity and how it

is measured. Getting back to the formula, how is that going to be

measured, and what is considered additional carbon intensity?

Replacing the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Act, the new legislation

will have an updated scheme for incentivizing the supply of renewable

and low-carbon fuels in British Columbia. Further, as the goal of this

legislation is to reduce the greenhouse gases emitted, we would hope to

be provided with material that will identify if the carbon intensity of

base fuels will be changed dramatically.

[1:50 p.m.]

In all these formulas, there is a base fuel and there is an

alternate fuel. We want to know the base fuel, the fossil fuel…. How

will that be identified? How will that intensity of that base fuel be

changed through this bill?

Additionally, as the process of lowering the carbon emissions is

so expensive due to the cost of the refining process, how will this

impact the already high cost of gas for transportation? Some of these

renewable fuels and some of these low-intensity carbon fuels have a high

refining process, and it costs, perhaps, in some cases, three to four

times more than what fossil fuels would have.

We’re wondering how that’s going to parlay itself to the taxpayer

British Columbian and what people see at the pump. I dare say we can’t

stand to see much more increase at the gas stations than we already

have. These will be some of the questions we will have during committee

stage.

Should we expect the cost to rise further as more money is being

spent on building the facilities to create more planet-friendly fuel

sources? Yesterday it was announced that Parkland refinery has a project

to expand their facilities to incorporate low-carbon fuels, at a cost of

about $600 million. I believe the B.C. part of it is about 40 percent of

that, so about a quarter-billion dollars will be somehow funded through

the provincial government, through tax credits. I think the building of

this refinery will garner Parkland about a million credits.

How that all works, as far as the funding that the B.C. government

will be doing to assist in this project…. Now, in some measures, it’s

great to have that self-reliance of fuel here in British Columbia, not

relying on Louisiana or Singapore or all these other places that supply

renewables, but it comes at a cost, once again. We are wondering how all

that kind of stuff is going to work for British Columbians.

Additionally, as the process of lowering the carbon emissions is

so expensive due to the cost of the refining process, as I said, how

will this impact the already high cost of gasoline? Should we expect the

cost to rise further as more money is being spent on building the

ability to create more planet-friendly fuel sources? I said that

already, but it’s an important thing to note, because once again, $2.22

at the gas pump is a little high.

As costs continue to soar for so many British Columbians, is this

going to cause greater stress? That’s another thing to consider. During

committee stage, we’ll probably be asking the obvious questions. What

type of outreach did the government do to bring this bill forward? Were

all these extra pieces considered when we talk about not only moving

forward with low-carbon fuel emissions but also the impact it has on

everyday B.C.’ers?

As you can see, it raises many questions. There are many clauses

in the act. It’s a pretty technical bill, so there will be a lot of dry

conversations, I’m sure, during committee stage. But it’s really

important to wade through this technical piece of legislation to finally

come out with an outcome that people can understand.

Let’s see if I can bring up some other stuff that was of concern

here. I think one of the things that needs to be mentioned is the fact

that when we get lots of people in a room together — we get a lot of

good people thinking, whether it’s industry, whether it’s government,

stakeholders, the whole crew — we can have the greatest programs in the

world come out of that. But at the end of the day, it really does depend

on if it’s sustainable or not.

This is critical to this bill. We’re going to be asking many

questions on that, and I’m hoping that we’ll get the answers that will

make it clear for British Columbians.

[1:55 p.m.]

Clause 1, going through this bill now…. Some of the things that

we’ll be asking for clarification on are some of the

definitions in the

bill. The categorization of fuel types and alternatives to base fuels

will be something we’ll be asking. Subject to the regulations, a fuel is

part of a base fuel if it is to be used as a component of a base fuel.

There’s some clarification needed in some of the wording, for

sure.

Additional carbon intensity —

definitions on what additional

carbon intensity means. This is not in the original formula, in the 2008

gas reduction act, so why are we adding this now? I think that’s what I

was talking about earlier — was in that formula. Why is that being

added? Some clarification around that. How does this being added to the

formula affect how credits are acquired by fuel marketers? That would be

another question.

Sequestration of greenhouse gases is in here. You can get credits

for sequestering of greenhouse gases, whether it’s carbon dioxide,

carbon monoxide. Can the minister outline what forms of greenhouse gas

sequestration could be covered by this section? There’s biological and

geographical sequestration, so which ones are applicable to this bill?

If both are, that’s fine.

As the minister knows, there is some good work being done up in

the northeastern part of British Columbia with carbon capture and

storage. We’re wondering how that will play into it. Of course, we’ll

need some more mapping and details on, maybe, how B.C. could probably be

a destination for carbon storage, when we’re looking at some of our

partners in Alberta and Washington and some other close jurisdictions

where we could actually sequester carbon into storage, into our deep

wells and deep gas reservoirs that are available, that are perfect for

sequestering carbon.

Why does exporting fuel result in an individual receiving

compliance units? So another question would be just in regards to: how

will this affect our export trade-exposed industries when we’re

delivering these fuels outside of British Columbia? How does that play

into our competitiveness outside the jurisdiction? We’re already behind

the eight ball, so to speak, on our competitiveness right now in British

Columbia — I feel, anyways. The minister may differ. But every dollar

counts and every cost counts when it comes to competing globally

throughout the world.

Does the minister expect the carbon intensity of base fuels to

change dramatically? I mentioned that a little bit earlier. Why is an

initiative fund being created? Of the moneys received from selling

compliance credits, what percentage must be put into an initiative fund?

Is there a certain amount? Does the government have a minimum that goes

into these initiative funds? That’s an important thing to

know.

What could be done with those funds once they are inside the

initiative fund? Can government dole them out as they see fit? Can they

transfer them? What happens to the whole trading of compliance units

with industry? With B.C. Hydro being, so to speak, the gatekeeper of the

initiative fund, how will they adopt the ways of the trading system? Are

they compliance sellers, or are they compliance buyers, or are they one

or the other? How does that play out in the whole trading system with

compliance credits?

Why is the government authorizing that they can take moneys from

the initiative fund? Would this not count as a tax on funds earned off

of the sale of compliance credits? On what category would the minister

expect to approve funds being removed from the initiative fund? These

are some of the questions we’ll have here in committee stage.

[2:00 p.m.]

Clause 53 is: “Regulations in relation to responsibility and fuel

requirements.” Has the minister written, seen any drafts or reviewed any

ideas on what these regulations that…? Sorry, that’s 57: “Regulations of

minister.” Has the minister written, seen any drafts or reviewed any

ideas on what these regulations in

section 57 would

authorize?

Clause 54 is: “Regulations in relation to public and local

utilities.” Has the minister written, seen any drafts or reviewed any

ideas on what these regulations

section 57 would authorize? Clause 55

has something similar and a similar question. Clause 56 is the same

thing. There are a lot of questions that will have to be answered here

in committee stage, and we’ll look forward to doing that.

When we look at the breakdown of fuel costs across the province,

we see that we’re one of the highest-taxed jurisdictions in North

America, resulting in the highest gas prices in North America. On the

average litre of gas, I believe TransLink has a levy of about 18½ cents

per litre. Carbon tax is about 11 or 12 cents, I believe, on that.

Federal excise tax is about ten cents. GST — I guess it depends on how

much the gas goes up, but it’s about ten cents right now. Provincial

excise is about nine cents. That’s about 57, 58 cents a litre right

there, and then the fuel standard regulation is about 17 cents per

litre.

That was what I was getting at a little bit earlier. When the

minister was asked yesterday how this will affect the fuel standard

regulation on the tax on a litre of gas, I believe the minister said it

was going to be about one cent. It was going to go up. But I find that

hard to believe, so we’ll have to get some better clarification on that

tomorrow.

Overall, once again, this is a pretty complex and technical bill.

It’s going to take a lot of time to wade through all of this. But I

think, as I said earlier, in the grand scheme of things, it’s okay. It’s

good. Good forward-thinking never hurts.

I believe the B.C. Liberals were somewhat roughed up a little bit

when they brought in the carbon tax back in 2008. It was a bold move,

but it was ahead of the curve at the time. We got ahead of the federal

government, and we took matters into our own hands. And we were able to

pour that money back into British Columbians in a form of revenue

neutrality. It was a bold one. I think there was some kind of world

conference somewhere that heralded — B.C. got some kind of award for

that carbon tax and the way they drew it up.

Once again, that was squashed pretty quickly when the NDP came in.

We’re hoping that with Bill 15, we don’t see money and credits getting

transferred across into government coffers to be spent on how they see

fit. I hate to see history replay itself once again. But I commend the

work of Parkland in what they’re doing.

I’m not too sure if my colleague from Skeena is going to be

joining me here soon or if we have another speaker coming up. But I

would just like to say that we’re just super interested in what the

minister has to say about some of the stuff that this bill

represents.

Reporting is another major issue that we’re going to be seeing

with this bill. There’s a long supply chain when fuel is processed,

refined, delivered — once not twice but three times — to different

suppliers. For example, we could get a supply of renewable fuels from

Louisiana. They get trucked up on a train. They cross. They come into

Alberta. Maybe they get further processed there. From there, it comes

across the line through into B.C. to different suppliers. They pass that

gas off to other truckers or other supply outlets, finally getting to

the retail.

[2:05 p.m.]

What has to happen is that the reporting of these fuels has to be

of a certain carbon intensity to get credits, so the person that’s

responsible for that fuel is the person that basically takes that fuel

off the last supplier’s hands. You have to hope that the reporting from

the source is accurate.

When we have fuel sources coming in from not only out of province

but out of country, not only out of North America but out of other

countries such as Singapore, you can see how the dependence on proper

reporting from the source is critical, because if the reporting comes

back fraudulent or not accurate, whoever picks up that fuel is going to

have to pay either a debit or a credit on compliance units.

Now, if you get a false report from Singapore or from Louisiana or

from some other jurisdiction saying the fuel meets this criteria, and

you take that responsibility as the purchaser, you are now responsible

for that fuel. And if it’s deemed that it’s anything else other than

what was originally reported, then you have to pay the default, which is

the raw cost of the base fuel, which is a high cost.

When, in briefing, we talked about this…. You know, it’s kind of

buyer beware — caveat emptor , whatever the Latin phrase is —

for the buyer to make sure that those records are accurate, because if

not, then they will be paying the default price for that fuel. This

would obviously increase the cost dramatically across the

board.

When asked how we control that — How do we control this reporting

from outside our own jurisdiction? We obviously don’t have

jurisdictional powers in Louisiana or Singapore or anything like that —

the answer was, “Well, you know, fool me once, shame on me; fool me

twice, shame on you,” or whatever that is. It’s something like that,

isn’t it?

Interjection.

T. Shypitka: Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. That’s

what it is. There we go. Yeah.

But that’s basically how it will have to work. So if this fuel

comes in that is not accurate in its description, then we just…. Well,

we’ll just not buy from them anymore. But that doesn’t help the

suppliers that get caught with this fraudulent reporting.

I think that’s probably it. I guess another one was in clause 26

that was kind of interesting. The moneys received from selling

compliance credits — what percentage must be put into an initiative

fund? Is it a set percentage? Is it required at all times? Is it 20

percent? Is it a certain amount? Those are questions we’ll have to be

asking as well.

If government is able to access these funds like it appears that

they will, what does that constitute as far as…? Is it a tax then? Does

this relate to just another tax? If government’s using it as they see

fit and it’s a charge to the industry, not, maybe, necessarily going

right back into clean initiatives, then I would argue that it would be a

tax.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I think I’m pretty much done. I’m not too

sure if there are any other speakers to the bill. Give it to the

Greens.

S. Furstenau: I’m rising to speak on Bill 15, the Low Carbon Fuels

Act.

Interesting listening to the critic for the official opposition.

As he’s working his way through, it’s important to note, I think, that

this bill was introduced yesterday. It’s a 43-page bill. It’s pretty

technical. There’s a lot in this bill. I know that the official

opposition and our caucus each got a briefing. Ours was 30 minutes this

morning. So listening to the questions being raised, we are right there

with him. There is a lot going on here.

[2:10 p.m.]

A clean fuel standard is an important component in the fight

against climate change. As I said to my staff earlier today, it would

have been fantastic around 1996, still important today. It works by

requiring a certain calibre of fuels in the province to ensure that we

aren’t burning the worst of the worst fossil fuels, although we are

doing a good job of increasing the extraction of some of the worst of

the worst fossil fuels with fracking expansion in this province. It also

incentivizes corporations to further develop low-carbon fuels through

the credit program.

That’s one of the interesting things about this — that we are

relying very much on the notion that the conditions that got us here,

brought us here, are somehow going to be the same conditions and same

tools that address this crisis that we’re in, this climate emergency,

that we are going to somehow be led out of it by the actions of fossil

fuel companies improving their actions without recognizing that those

companies, of course, have a pretty significant motivation around

profit.

Just last year the big oil and gas companies brought in nearly

$174 billion in profit. It looks like this year is going to be even

better. So what’s fascinating is that we keep finding ways, in this

province, to enable them to be a little bit better in their actions by

giving them public funds — subsidizing, ultimately — and what we don’t

seem to be doing with anywhere near as much consistency and urgency is

recognizing that we need to transition, very quickly, our economy, how

we move around.

Imagine $500 million into improving our public transportation

network in this province, particularly for underserved rural areas where

people have little to no choice about how they’re going to get around

because there is such a limited access to affordable, reliable and

accessible transportation.

If we were doing that in combination with looking at clean fuel

standards, if we were ensuring that our housing and our building codes

were really operating in a way that significantly and very quickly

reduced the amount of energy that has to be used in our buildings, if we

were treating this emergency like an actual emergency, then this

wouldn’t be the first real piece of legislation that we’ve seen from

this majority government since 2020 on climate action.

This legislation in front of us updates the 2008 iteration of this

act, making allowances for different types of fuels, such as biofuels,

to be developed and brought under the program. It’s not a bad thing.

It’s another tool in the toolbox. But as you can probably detect, I’m

exhausted by the very small tools that seem to be going into the toolbox

at a time when we need every tool, and they need to be the biggest

tools.

I point to, right now, what is unfolding in India, which just had

the hottest April in 122 years, since records have been kept.

Temperatures in the 40s, regularly over 45, and now May temperatures

into the 50s. The cost of that in human suffering, the cost of that in

agriculture and food production, the cost of that in every way that we

can imagine is unimaginable, yet that’s what people are living through

right now.

The NOAA just detected a massive increase in methane emissions,

perhaps from melting permafrost, perhaps from release from oceans. They

aren’t quite sure yet. But we know that those increases in methane,

which is a much stronger driver of climate change, moves us forward to

more and more tipping points.

[2:15 p.m.]

That’s the world we’re in right now. We’re in the world of tipping

points, not in the world of “Let’s do a little bit better and start

slowly turning the ship.” Tipping points. Yet we keep relying on market

solutions when the climate crisis is exacerbating as quickly as it is.

We’re incentivizing oil and gas companies with carrots when they’re

reporting hundreds of billions in profits, and we’re spending public

money to help them emit less without harming their profits.

Meanwhile, British Columbians are suffering. They’re suffering the

direct impacts of the climate crisis, and they’re suffering the

exorbitant costs of the products that these companies sell.

Sadly, my trust in this government on the climate file is waning.

They’re currently in court, fighting not to be held accountable for

their Climate Change Accountability Act. They have committed to spending

over $6 billion subsidizing LNG Canada, which is literally a carbon bomb

and fundamentally opposed to any meaningful efforts to combat climate

change.

The first phase of the project alone will emit 4 megatonnes of

carbon annually, and the government, by its own words, very recently in

this chamber, has indicated that it is in no way ruling out a second

phase of this project. At a time when the IPCC says that we cannot be

building more fossil fuel infrastructure.

Meanwhile, communities are suffering effects. This morning, it was

reported that residents of Rolla are being warned that they may have to

“shelter in place” in response to a leak of hydrocarbons. When I saw

that, I thought: “Orwell would be proud.” A leak of hydrocarbons —

sounds so benign, really. I’m not sure which hydrocarbons exactly, but

people have to shelter in place because of the leak of them. Just two

weeks ago residents of Rolla were interviewed about the industrial

landscape their community has become and reported that they can see LNG

flares from their homes.

This government has laid the conditions to ramp up fracking

through their record-setting investments in fossil fuels. It’s

interesting that reports and studies are indicating that children born

near fracking sites are 25 percent more likely to be born at low birth

rates or less than 5.5 pounds. It’s interesting that these reports

indicate that there is an increased risk of childhood mortality and poor

educational outcomes and that these factors disproportionately impact

Indigenous people.

While we’re talking about clean energy fuel standards, researchers

at the University of Toronto are undertaking further study on the direct

impacts of fracking on fetal health. More research is needed, but

instead of contributing to that research, the B.C. Oil and Gas

Commission has just criticized the existing study. It seems there is

very little concern about the fact that this study of pregnant people

found higher contaminant levels in homes near fracking sites and that

the highest levels of exposure were found among the Indigenous pregnant

people who participated. Indigenous participants’ homes showed notably

higher concentrations of chloroform, acetone and decanal.

A lead author from the Nobel Prize–winning group Physicians for

Social Responsibility has called fracking “the worst thing I’ve ever

seen.” It’s interesting. I was at the Local Government Leadership

Academy last week and heard from participants that there had been…. The

theme was “Resilience and strong communities,” and there was a

presentation from a panel of experts on emergency preparedness. And one

of the things the panelist told this group of locally elected leaders

was that the impacts that we will see from climate change are worse than

we can possibly imagine.

[2:20 p.m.]

This is what elected officials are being told at conferences right

here in B.C. — that the impacts from climate change are going to be

worse than we can possibly imagine and that we are going to see those

impacts, as we did last year — the heat dome, the heatwaves, the

flooding, the forest fires.

I shared a story when I spoke to LGLA about my own experience of

coming home, down Highway 97, in 2018. A forest fire was moving

northward, and we got turned around on the highway. We were trying to go

through Kamloops to come home to the Island. We got turned around and

had to go north, and we had to go north quickly because that fire was

moving. At one point, the windshield wipers couldn’t get the ash off the

windshield, and the sky around us was black and red. Everybody in the

car got really quiet.

That was worse than I could have imagined, and I know people in

British Columbia have been through a lot worse than that. My colleague

got a call last year from somebody he knew in Lytton, and they said:

“We’re getting out now.” Within a few hours of that call, that town was

gone.

I don’t know how it is that those of us in these rooms cannot seem

to understand the time that we’re in. I can’t understand how we think

that incrementalism is going to be sufficient at this point — because

it’s not. It’s going to be worse than we can imagine. It’s not alarmism;

it’s the reality that we are in right now. As elected representatives,

what responsibility do we have to respond to that? A sigh. It’s so hard

to bear that responsibility. It is ours. We have asked to be here, we

have chosen to be here, and we will be judged for what we didn’t

do.

This legislation, as is becoming increasingly the norm, leaves a

lot to regulation, which means government can make changes without

public oversight. There’s no clarity about exactly what are going to be

the implications of this legislation. They indicated that this is to

promote efficiency and to reduce red tape, but actions speak louder than

words, and actions show that while we can update the regulations and

expectations around somewhat lower-carbon fossil fuels, we have not

really yet come to terms with the reality that we’re in.

It’s not terribly surprising that this is what happens. We have

the lobbyists registry now, and we can see how much time lobbyists are

spending with members of government, members of staff. It looks like in

the month of April, oil and gas lobbyists had 76 different meetings with

members of this government. In one month — 76.

We have before us a policy tool, a policy tool that needs to be

updated. Of course, we need lower-carbon fuel standards as an interim

measure, but we need to move so much more urgently beyond interim

measures and incrementalism. We have to show that we actually understand

the severity of the moment we’re in. I look forward, hopefully, to

seeing some sense of that urgency from this government, but thus far, it

has been absent.

[2:25 p.m.]

E. Ross: We’re talking about Bill 15, 2022, the Low Carbon Fuels Act. Its

predecessor was actually introduced in 2008 under the B.C. Liberals. It

highlights the two different parallel tracks that the government has

actually developed, both at the same time, on how to deal with

environmental standards in B.C., mainly through the Environmental

Assessment Act and regulations but also trying to formalize a deeper

relationship with First Nations.

When you deal with First Nations, especially when you deal with

projects that impact the land, there is no separating the environmental

impact from Aboriginal rights and title. They’re both one and the same.

So it made sense back then to combine the two, whether they’re

incorporated into one process or in parallel processes, whether you’re

talking about the B.C. Environmental Assessment Act, for example, or the

Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.

Either way, in terms of a project — like LNG Canada, Chevron, some

of the forestry agreements that were signed by First Nations back in

2006, or some of the many mining agreements that were signed starting in

2004 — it was all part of the same discussion. How do we address rights

and title? How do we address the economic component of rights and title?

At the same time, one of the main interests of First Nations was: how do

we reduce the existing impact of environmental issues on our lands? As

well, how do we reduce the impact of proposed projects on our

lands?

That process started back in 2004. Back then, you know, it was

mostly done in relation to the Haida court case that had come, on the

government’s duty to consult and accommodate. Back in 2004, when the

court case came out, nobody really knew or understood how to implement

the principles of the Haida court case.

At times, when we were trying to co-develop it between government,

First Nations and industry, it was quite painful, because there were so

many interests at play. There was the interest of the First Nation that

wanted to engage and be involved in the economy but also didn’t want to

water down any environmental standards. The Crown was just trying to do

its duty in looking after the provincial interests as well as the

natural resources.

It was quite a remarkable time in B.C.’s history, quite the

transition. Over the years, in all of my participation in permitting

processes and environmental assessment processes, I saw the push to

always do better. Always try to find the gaps in the regulations or some

the environmental issues that might not get covered under the B.C.

environmental assessment process or the Canadian environmental

process.

Deputy Speaker: Sorry, Member, could the member help the Chair understand the

connection to Bill 15, the Low Carbon Fuels Act?

E. Ross: Yes, Chair. Where I’m getting at is that First Nations are

actually the ones leading the environmental charge in a new day and age,

especially when we’re talking about Bill 15, the Low Carbon Fuels Act.

It has been an evolving process, and it’s hard to describe.

As First Nations became more aware of the issues of economics and

of emissions, of environmental assessments, of permitting, they

understood that they had to evolve as well. They had to develop the

capacity. They had to develop the expertise. At the end of the day, no

matter who you talk to in B.C., no matter who you talk to in this House,

we’re all looking to lessen the environmental impact.

[2:30 p.m.]

In this case, we’re talking about emissions — low carbon in our

fuels, to be exact — because this has a history. The Low Carbon Fuels

Act has a history dating back to 2008, when we saw the first version of

this come out. It’s going to be amended before this session ends, I

believe. It’s quite the act; it’s 42 pages long.

Really, we’re talking about renewable fuels. That’s what we’re

talking about. We’re not really talking about diesel or gasoline in its

current form that we see today at the pumps. We’re talking about

renewable fuels. This is my understanding, coming out of the briefing

that we had today at 10:30 this morning.

But in relation to this, this is a really complicated topic to

understand. The roots of this go way back. It goes back way before 2008.

But in today’s context, we do have innovation in B.C. We’re always

trying to do better. Usually it’s industry and the private sector that

are leading that charge in terms of innovation.

I’ll give you an example, one that plays directly into Bill 15,

where we’re talking about a company called Nation Clean Energy, in

partnership with Rocky Mountain GTL Inc. What they proposed is basically

renewable fuel for today’s private sector, whether we’re talking about

airports, whether we’re talking about the marine industry, for example —

really large emitters of pollution and carbon. They’ve come up with this

concept that has actually been built in Alberta already.

Now, apart from the political branding I’ve been given on social

media in terms of a skeptic…. I’m a skeptic of everything. I make sure I

question everything. I like to think of it as critical thinking. It

doesn’t matter if you’re talking about LNG, oil or clean energy. I want

to know everything about it and whether or not it can be produced in a

realistic and practical form, especially when we’re talking about

affordability, especially when we’re talking about energy security,

energy dependence.

I’ve gone through this business proposal by these First Nation

companies, Nation Clean Energy and Rocky Mountain GTL Inc., and I really

can’t find anything that doesn’t…. It not only complies with Bill 15; it

surpasses it. In fact, if anything, I think this path and the clean

energy plant that’s being proposed right now actually shows some flaws

in Bill 15, in the Low Carbon Fuels Act, because we’re really talking

about a synthetic fuel.

I’ve tried to question how valid this is in terms of what we’re

talking about in terms of a lower-carbon future. But what their project

is proposing and what they’re actually doing right now is capturing

carbon and producing hydrogen without carbon emissions. It produces low-

to zero-carbon biodegradable, synthetic and renewable fuels with a

zero-emissions plant.

Now, I know that sometimes, when we talk about zero emissions,

we’re talking about technicalities, and we’re talking about formulas,

and maybe we’re talking about some trading of carbon credits. In this

case here, that’s not what they’re talking about. In fact, if anything,

they’ve actually partnered up with the Musqueam. The director of

business development, Jay Mearns, was in this Legislature today talking

with members of government, from what I understand.

I know the counterpart up in Prince Rupert. His name is Chris

Sankey. He used to be a councillor for Lax Kw’alaams and went into the

private sector. He’s all over the place in terms of the energy sector.

They’re typical of what First Nations are starting to evolve into.

They’re looking for clean energy solutions, in response not only to what

B.C. is considering but also what Canada is considering, as well as the

world.

[2:35 p.m.]

When we’re talking about how this concept could show flaws in Bill

15, they’re really talking about their form of clean fuel, which is a

synthetic fuel, versus conventional diesel, for example. Their clean

form of fuel, which will not harm the environment, will not harm living

beings, will actually get excluded from Bill 15. Yet it displaces so

many of the issues that we’re actually talking about here today, when

we’re talking about emissions and pollution and carbon.

This is brand-new in Alberta, so I can see how Bill 15 could

exclude this new opportunity. It’s too new. But people like Jay Mearns

from Musqueam, the director of business development and Chris Sankey,

who owns Blackfish inc., have actually been promoting this all across

B.C. and Canada. They are getting good feedback, but unfortunately,

they’re not getting that extra push over the finish line that they need

to incorporate this into today’s economy.

In terms of what the Musqueam are thinking, they’re pretty

disappointed that an example of what can be done in terms of what Bill

15 is proposing, the Low Carbon Fuels Act, in terms of the agreement

with Parkland…. Musqueam’s pretty disappointed they weren’t included.

Talking with Jay Mearns from Musqueam, I hadn’t realized this myself,

even though I’ve actually experienced this in Kitamaat Village

myself.

The way he explained it to me was that it was an insult, because

ever since they got displaced off the lands that now became YVR airport,

they’ve been breathing in the diesel exhaust fumes and all of the other

fuels that get burned at YVR airport. It has affected their health, it

has affected their land, and it has affected the Fraser

River.

Nothing’s been done not only to remediate that impact on the land

and the air and the water, but also nothing’s been done to include the

Musqueam in what’s happening in their territory around them, including

YVR as well as the Parkland refinery agreement that was just announced a

couple of days ago.

So they are disappointed. But they’re not discouraged. They still

want to see a solution, even in light of the Low Carbon Fuels Act

omitting their project proposal in terms of producing a clean fuel. It’s

proven technology. It’s not theory. It should fit perfectly within Bill

They’ve done all the heavy lifting on their own, even trying to

acquire a portion of private land at their own expense, because they

want to be close to the emission source, which in this case is YVR

airport. If they can do this, they can actually translate this into

going after the marine industry, which they believe is also polluting

their territories.

Everything I’ve seen so far is pretty technical, so I’m going to

try, for my own purposes, to explain what this process is. It is in

relation…. If we can fit it into Bill 15, and I’ve actually…. If we can

amend this — we have time to amend it — so that this proposal, coming

from the Musqueam First Nation and its energy partners…. If we could

amend it in time, we should be able to celebrate this innovation being

brought to B.C. and cleaning up a lot of the emissions coming from these

big polluters like the YVR airport.

But the person that explained this to me…. There are two people,

technical side…. Dale Tsuruda, the founder of Nation Group of Companies,

and Dennis Wilson, the executive director of Nation Group of Companies,

explained it in political terms to me, which means

simplified.

[2:40 p.m.]

They said that, basically, you can take a fuel product — whether

you’re talking about a biofuel, whether you’re talking about natural

gas, or you’re talking about a fossil fuel — and you can put it through

this plant, through their process, and out the other side comes

hydrogen.

Now, everybody knows that hydrogen is a preferable form of energy,

and actually, hydrogen is starting to get traction in terms of the

marine industry for smaller craft being built and being powered by

hydrogen. And if this market takes off, we’re going to have to develop

different infrastructure so that these boats that are powered by

hydrogen have places to fuel up on the water. So there are going to be

some changes needed to fully realize the future of hydrogen.

But that is not what they do. The end goal is not to produce

hydrogen as a fuel source. What they basically do is take the hydrogen

and use it to hydrotreat the bio feedstock like canola. That’s what they

do. And really, when we’re talking about it, they understand carbon

intensity and the drive to reduce carbon intensity in all of our

fuels.

They need the government’s support — provincially, specifically.

They saw the incentive that was provided to Parkland refinery, and

they’re questioning why they do not get the same type of agreement.

Apart from them being excluded, even though their fuel source is

actually a lot cleaner than what’s being proposed in different sectors,

they still want to be a part of this. They can have dramatic impact, and

it could be a flagship in terms of a First Nation–led initiative that

could really highlight the purpose of Bill 15, the Low Carbon Fuels

Act.

I understand the intention of Bill 15 in terms of carbon intensity

and renewable fuels. I understand that. But we can address a number of

different things at the same time, if we consider the clean energy plan

proposed by the Musqueam and their energy partners. We can address a

long history of exclusion of the Musqueam people in their own territory,

and while cleaning up the emissions from YVR airport, we can address

economic reconciliation for the Musqueam people themselves.

There’s really not much I can…. I tried to go through this

proposal and figure out things that are wrong with it — places where

there were deficiencies. In my mind, when I look at this, and knowing

that there’s a working model in Alberta, I can’t find any

deficiencies.

They’re basically producing biodegradable and non-toxic fuels.

They’re actually developing drop-in synthetic and renewable fuels that

are compatible with diesel and jet engines. So in reality, we’re also

talking about jet fuel. We’re talking about enhanced blue hydrogen

production. And captures carbon — there are no carbon emissions coming

from this plant. It captures carbon in the production of hydrogen, and

hydrogen is used as is or is used to hydrotreat bio feedstock, creating

ultra-low to zero-carbon, renewable fuel.

In reading Bill 15, 2022, I thought, overall, that’s what the

purpose is. I know that we’re talking specifically about renewable

fuels. But I think that ultimately the goal, when we’re developing

legislation to reduce emissions, we’re actually talking about these

kinds of projects that are being promoted by the Musqueam First

Nation.

They actually produce ultra-low to zero-carbon fuels. They produce

zero sulfur and are clean-burning. They will improve airsheds with zero-

to ultra-low SOx and NOx. We did a lot of this conversation in Kitimat —

SOx and NOx. You can get buried in those conversations. But at the end

of the day, we’re really talking about emissions. That’s what we’re

talking about.

[2:45 p.m.]

There are commercial advantages to this fuel as well. It increases

lubricity — I didn’t even know that was a word — increased lubricants

for reduced engine wear. So when we’re talking about that in terms of

the marine industry or the aeronautical industry or any industry that

uses mechanical equipment, we all know what lubricants mean and how

important they are. It’s even important in our cars and our trucks and

our personal vehicles.

What’s amazing about this…. The production cost is efficient and

competitive, mainly because it’s a path in the process. It’s a privately

owned Canadian company.

Now, I understand Bill 15, 2022, is proposing to have at-home

production of fuels, as opposed to, say, shipping in something from the

east coast of the United States — or Thailand, for that matter. Any

savings in terms of emissions actually gets offset by the cost, and we

don’t really know the carbon footprint of the production of these

lower-emission fuels when we’re talking about a fuel source coming from

halfway around the world.

In this case here, from what I understand, Bill 15 is

pro­posing domestic fuels, biofuels, with lower emissions, lower

carbon intensity. Well, that’s exactly what this proposal is talking

about, in terms of what the Musqueam Nation is trying to promote here in

B.C.

In talking with Jay Mearns, we talked about how difficult it is

for First Nations to engage in the economy, to engage in technical

processes. I mean, really, we’re still young. We’re still learning this

process, if you consider that our first formal steps into this world

actually started in 2004. That’s not too long ago, when you consider how

old Canada is or how old B.C. is.

The advancement and catching up to what the world thinks about in

terms of emissions is remarkable. I read about this stuff back in 2004,

2006, but it was all theory. Nobody could make a commercial reason for

this. It wasn’t practical. They’ve now proved it.

In terms of Bill 15, 2022…. I know we’re going to go through this

in committee stage. I know that. We’ll go through it word by word. But I

will be looking for the clause, looking for some kind of amendment that

allows nation clean energy’s proposal, in partnership with Rocky

Mountain GTL, and more importantly, including Musqueam in future

agreements between the private sector and the provincial government to

ensure that we capture the full potential of what we’re trying to

achieve in Bill 15, the Low Carbon Fuels Act.

Thank you. I’ll take my seat and listen to the rest of the

speeches.

A. Olsen: Thank you for the opportunity to speak to Bill 15, the Low Carbon

Fuels Act, in recognition that this is a continuing project in the

province to lower the number of emissions that British Columbians are

emitting — largely, in this case, through transportation

fuels.

Before I get too far into my comments, I wanted to acknowledge

that the project has now been undertaken by both of the establishment

parties that have been in this building for decades. It started with the

Liberals in 2008, with the greenhouse gas…. I had it written down here.

It’s not near me. But they started the project in 2008, with the carbon

tax and with the greenhouse gas act, and now it is being

continued.

[2:50 p.m.]

I think, as my colleague spoke to earlier, we can argue or quibble

or discuss, debate, the pace of change and the need, I think, in our

society, to recognize that the incrementalism of the past has gotten us

to where we’re at today, which is in a very dire situation that is

materializing in extreme weather events around the world and impacting

human health and the health and well-being of the planet.

I think that it’s an important role that we play in the

Legislature to ensure that there is significant tension around this

topic, that we are doing absolutely everything we can do to mitigate the

impacts of greenhouse gas emissions on the climate and on the ecosystems

that sustain life on this beautiful planet.

This bill is, as has been mentioned, more than 40 pages, and it’s

very technical. It’s important that the Members of the Legislative

Assembly have the ability to understand and to ask questions and to get

to the bottom of what a bill is proposing to be done. We, like our

colleagues in the B.C. Liberals, had our brief this morning — 30 minutes

to ask questions that we were able to glean in the few hours that we had

with the bill. And now here we are this afternoon in debate on the

bill.

I can see colleagues around me madly working their way through the

bill, trying to understand it and to get to the bottom of it. I think

that it’s important to just acknowledge that the quality of the debate

and the quality of scrutiny that this bill will have largely determines

on our ability to understand it, to get to the bottom of it and to be

able to ask good questions. This has been a challenging process. I think

it needs to be on the record.

Thirty-seven percent of British Columbians’ emissions come from

the transportation sector. This bill is around low-carbon fuels and

creating a pathway for less carbon-intensive fuels to be created in this

province, to be manufactured, produced in this province for British

Columbians. We’ve heard a lot, over the last number of weeks and the

last number of months, about the impact of importing fossil fuels for

the transportation sector — the cost that’s having on British

Columbians.

It is a good idea, as we are working to minimize the number of

emissions that we’re putting into the atmos­phere, that in that

process, we’re also reducing the carbon content of the fuels that are in

the transportation network.

I agree with my colleague that we could be investing much more in

public transportation and other forms of transportation, but I also

agree that it is an important step for us to be creating strict

standards to innovate the fossil fuels that British Columbians are

currently burning in their vehicles, whether it be for their personal

vehicles or their boats, the marine vehicles, or what the airlines are

using for aviation fuel.

While I believe that we need to be putting a lot more focus on the

pace of our response to the climate emergency that we’re facing, this is

an important step. It builds on the 2008 iteration of this act,

allowing, as I said, different fuels such as biofuels to be developed

and brought into this policy, the low-carbon fuel standard in this

policy, which is a tool in the toolbox.

I think that it’s also important that we recognize the fact that

we do, in this province, invest pretty heavily, either through credits

or through support for the fossil fuel companies.

[2:55 p.m.]

I think that there is a credible argument to be made that they

could be doing a lot more of this as well, without public money being

infused into it, when they are taking record profits, largely from

British Columbians, from the money that British Columbians are paying at

the pump.

While there is this debate that’s going on in this Legislature

about what government is going to do about fuel prices for British

Columbians, what tangible steps government is going to take — the

official opposition tabled three ideas in this — the reality of it is

that the oil and gas companies….

Not only are they spending an awful lot of time wandering the

halls — their lobbyists wandering the halls, making sure that they talk

to all of the staff of the various ministries, the ministers, members of

the government — they’re raking in record profits.

They’re still making the argument to governments, and governments

are still falling for the argument, that “Don’t look at the profits

we’re making. In order for to us do this good deed, lower the carbon

intensity of the fuels that we’re making. We’re going to need you,

government entity” — whichever one it is; in this case, the province of

B.C. — “to invest public money to ensure that happens.”

I think what we need and what makes this bill more than just an

act of greenwashing is that on the other side of the equation is a

government that is enforcing and ensuring. It’s the carrot and stick.

You have the carrot. There also needs to be the stick. We also need the

enforcement. We need to ensure that we are holding those companies

accountable for the impact that they’re having and the commitments that

they’re making.

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

As my colleague mentioned earlier, talking about the impact the

oil and gas companies are having in our communities, talking about the

impact of oil and gas through fracking, the reality that children born

near fracking sites are 25 percent more likely, one in four, to be born

at low birth weights, under 5½ pounds. These are studies that are coming

out talking about the impacts of fracking. Increased childhood

mortality. Poorer educational outcomes.

I asked this question in question period last week, talking about

the disproportionate impact this is having on Indigenous people. The

response was that the Blueberry River court case found in favour of the

Blueberry River Nation, so now the provincial government is seized with

taking action on it. I would just say that my hope is that it doesn’t

take court cases for there to be concern about the impacts that fracking

is having on people in our communities, that it doesn’t take government

to be embarrassed in the courts for this to be a concern.

While we are really stretching CleanBC, which the low carbon fuel

standard is an important part of achieving the targets within CleanBC,

we see Woodfibre now going to be adding to their emissions and the LNG

Canada partnership openly talking about bringing on trains 3 and 4,

which are completely not accounted for within CleanBC.

When we asked members of the government about that, they said:

“Ah, it’s not likely to happen. Don’t worry about it.” It’s always been

on the plan. Just brushed aside. “Don’t worry about it.” All too happy

to be seen getting the final investment decision. Bending over

backwards. Going kilometres further down the road than the B.C. Liberals

were prepared to in securing a final investment decision on LNG. We

heard that debate in Bill 10.

The reality of it is that while British Columbians are working to

try to lower their carbon emissions, the government, on the other side,

is also increasing those emissions.

[3:00 p.m.]

I recognize that we don’t stop doing one because the other is

happening. We do have to continue to fight climate change on all fronts.

We do have to be making decisions and be creating policy that is working

towards that end. It is our role to continue to hold government

accountable for the decisions that they’re making, for the outcomes of

the policy decisions that are being made.

We’ve spent the last few months in this spring session talking

about the stressed, challenged, overworked, overburdened, exhausted

public health care system.

The Minister of Health raised today in question period the

challenging reality of public health care workers in Kamloops, talking

about British Columbians who are having to pack up anything that they

can get their hands on as the fires near their homes. If it’s not fires,

it’s the floodwaters rising around their homes — literally an entire

town displaced for months and months and months on end. Talking about

the impact that that has had on the public health workers at the

hospital in Kamloops.

The reality is that if we are not taking our responsibilities to

climate action seriously, if we’re not doing everything we can to limit

emissions and to be honest about the impact of the policy decisions that

are being made, we are going to see more and more negative impacts on

our public health care system — one that the minister himself has

repeatedly admitted is vulnerable and is at a state of fragility that

generations of British Columbians have never witnessed. We’ve never seen

it like this.

If we’re going to continue to not take the impacts of this climate

emergency seriously, we’re going to see that health care system, that

public health care system, which has been really put on the brink, be

put in an exceptionally challenged situation.

With that, Madam Speaker, I look forward to listening to the

debate and the questions of the minister through the committee stage of

this bill. There are others that wish to speak to it.

So with that, I’ll take my seat and thank you for this

opportunity.

HÍSW̱ḴE.

Hon. B. Ma: I’m pleased to rise today in support of Bill 15, Low Carbon Fuels

Act.

Let me begin by sharing with the House an

article that I saw come

up on my feed today. It was an

article from The

Guardian . I actually saw a few articles on this. It was an

article from The Guardian . The title was “Climate Limit of 1.5

Celsius Close to Being Broken, Scientists Warn.” I think it’s called the

lede, underneath the title, says: “The probability of one of the next

five years surpassing the limit is now 50 percent, up from 20 percent in

2020.” This was written by an environmental writer, Damian

Carrington.

In the article, it provides a quote from Prof. Petteri Taalas.

He’s the head of the World Meteorological Organization, which published

a new report about this. I’m going to quote the professor.

“The 1.5 Celsius figure is not some random statistic. It is, rather,

an indicator of the point at which climate impacts will become

increasingly harmful for people and, indeed, the entire planet. For as

long as we continue to emit greenhouse gases, temperatures will continue

to rise. Alongside that, our oceans will continue to become warmer and

more acidic, sea ice and glaciers will continue to melt, sea level will

continue to rise, and our weather will become more extreme.”

[3:05 p.m.]

I think that it’s probably an understatement to say…. Young people

these days do experience quite a lot of eco-anxiety, and that anxiety is

very real. I remember speaking with a high school student who held an

internship posting at my office. He was asked to do a presentation or to

create a report on CleanBC, B.C.’s climate action strategy. He did a

wonderful presentation. It was really quite…. I was impressed. I have to

say. This young man was in grade 12, and what he presented on was what

CleanBC means for young people who know about it.

One of the things that he ran me through, as well, was the

psychology of young people. He was very candid in his presentation. I’m

not going to repeat some of the things that he said, but it was very

eye-opening as well. One of the things that he expressed is that

eco-anxiety is very, very real amongst young people.

I’ll share a few things. He said that eco-anxiety is very real in

young people. He expressed that he didn’t feel there was enough climate

change education in the schools, which actually surprised me because

young people tend to be very up to speed about climate change and the

climate emergency and the urgency around it. He expressed that, in

schools, it was not necessarily enough of a formal part of the

curriculum. He felt that a lot of young people felt extremely hopeless

about the emergency before them.

In the process of learning about CleanBC…. One of the things he

expressed was how surprised he was that this plan existed and had so

many components to it, how hopeful it was and how we might be able to

actually help resolve a lot of the climate anxiety that young people

feel if we were able to communicate better to them that government and

the Legislature do, in fact, debate these issues. It is, in fact, an

extremely important part of our work, and there’s a plan in place. Now,

we have to execute that plan, of course. We’ve got to hit those

targets.

The fact that a plan is even in place brought hope to this young

man. That was, I thought, really valuable to me to hear.

Here in British Columbia, we know…. The impacts of the climate

emergency are extraordinarily real to us. Our citizens, our residents,

our province have suffered extraordinarily over the last couple of

years. We’re talking floods. We’re talking wildfires, heatwaves.

People’s lives have been lost. Property has been lost. People’s

livelihoods and the impact to our economies…. We’re seeing all of that.

The urgency of addressing that climate emergency really cannot be

overstated. It is so urgent. I couldn’t possibly express the level of

urgency that I feel around it here.

I have to acknowledge, too…. The reality of the climate emergency

is that at some point, if we actually want to reverse the damage that

has been caused as a result of an excess of carbon emissions in the

atmosphere, if we actually want to address that and start reversing what

we’re seeing in terms of extreme climate events…. We actually have to

start producing or emitting a carbon net negative in order to do

that.

Right now what’s…. I mean, I remember having debates in this House

and hearing some members. One member, rightly so, brought up the fact

that carbon is natural. It’s in everything. It’s very organic. That’s

what…. Organic things are made of carbon. That is true. The problem with

the carbon emissions that we’re experiencing right now in the world….

The reason why the temperature is rising is as a result of the excess

carbon.

I mean, in a normal environmental cycle, you have carbon dioxide

in the air. You have a plant, and through photosynthesis, the plant

draws carbon dioxide out of the air, separates it into oxygen and

carbon, retains the carbon and then releases oxygen out into the

atmosphere, at which point we as humans and other animals will breathe

it in. It contributes to the oxygen, contributes to our generation of

energy. We grow with it, and so forth. Then, eventually, comes a time

when our lives end. We decompose, and we actually release a lot of that

back into the atmosphere, and so forth. It’s supposed to be this

everlasting cycle.

[3:10 p.m.]

The problem that we’ve come up against is…. Somewhere along the

way humans have discovered that fossil fuels that were buried deep in

the ground could be burned, and energy could be created from it. We’ve

actually taken carbon that was outside of the cycle, deep inside the

ground, and we’ve brought it up to the surface, burned it, added it into

the atmosphere. It’s actually adding excess emissions.

Now carbon, on its own, is not a dirty substance. It’s not

negative. Like carbon dioxide — we all breathe it out. But any substance

can become a poison in excess amounts, if you have too much of it.

That’s what we’ve been doing. We’ve been poisoning our planet with too

much carbon dioxide.

That leads me to the importance of this low-carbon fuel standard.

Now, again, I believe strongly that at some point the goal, where we

really need to go, is not even carbon-neutral; it’s actually negative.

We’ve got to start putting carbon back in the ground. But we can’t get

there if we don’t start reducing, actually driving down the extra

emissions that we’re adding into the system every single day.

Even if the whole world continuously emitted the same amount of

carbon dioxide into the planet as we are today, the situation would get

worse. It won’t stop getting worse until we’re actually not emitting at

all, but we’ve got to start somewhere. The low-carbon fuel standard is

such an important part of that process. We have to reduce the carbon

intensity of our fuel. How do we do that?

Now, I have to say that people know…. I mean, with the B.C. NDP,

the B.C. government, we’ve been critical on a lot of the work of

previous governments, and so forth. But I do have to acknowledge that

despite a lot of the disagreements I might have with some of the work

that the previous B.C. Liberal governments have done, I do have to

appreciate the courage that it took for previous B.C. Liberal Premier

Gordon Campbell to bring in measures like the carbon tax, like the

low-carbon fuel standards. Those are not easy policies to bring in. It

is my hope that, as a Legislature, all sides of the House continue to

support those kinds of policies.

We also have to acknowledge that those policies are meant to work

by gradually increasing the intensity of that effort. Carbon taxes work

to help drive down emissions if they are continuously expanded over time

and the price raised over time in order to continuously help with some

of the decision-making that all of us make around the kinds of energy

that we use.

Low-carbon fuel standard as well. When it was brought in, an

important standard, but it can’t be left to stagnate. It has to

continuously be expanded. It has to go into other aspects of our

economy, other types of fuel. It needs to, the standard…. If you set,

like, this is the carbon intensity of your usual fossil fuel and your

low-carbon fuel standard, and you want to drive down the intensity by

whatever percent…. It has to continuously….

Sorry, I’m not being very articulate right now. You have to

continuously be using the low-carbon fuel standard to further reduce

carbon intensity over time, because the idea is that eventually we’re

able to collapse, drive down, the carbon intensity of fuel. Then,

hopefully, we’ll start to be headed in the right direction.

It is an important measure in the near term to reduce the

intensity of carbon-based fuels, the kinds of fuels that vehicles and

the marine industry and aviation still use. They’re still burning

carbon-based fuel. But if we can replace more of that carbon-based fuel

with sources from renewable sources, synthetic sources, as opposed to

fossil fuels, if we can leave more of that fossil fuel where it is, the

better off we will be.

Things like biofuels, which are fuels that are able to be

produced, if I’m not mistaken…. You’re able to produce them to directly

add into other forms of your gasoline and diesel, and so forth. The

biofuel is generated and created — it’s refined — from biological

materials, so it is renewable. It’s that plant that sucked in some

CO 2 and then made themselves bigger.

[3:15 p.m.]

Yeah, I’m extra, extra not articulate today. The point is we can

reduce the intensity of the kinds of fuels that people need on a

day-to-day basis by mixing them with more renewable fuels or other

synthetic fuels.

I know not everybody can drop everything and replace their

gasoline-fuelled vehicle with an electric vehicle. It might not be

accessible to everybody because of price. I know there is lots of demand

for electric vehicles. Maybe it’s not immediately available.

I also know that it’s not practical for every single person out

there to replace their family vehicle with a bicycle. For lots of

people, that will be possible, but it’s not going to be possible for

everyone. By reducing the carbon intensity of the fuel that they use, we

can actually help reduce the net gain of carbon emissions without

demanding that people immediately change everything about their lives

and get rid of their cars, and so forth.

This is one tool in the toolbox. It’s not the only solution. We

have to do all of the other things. From a transportation perspective,

we’ve still got to encourage people to shift modes. We’ve still got to

encourage people to switch energy, if they can go to an electric

vehicle, if that’s a solution for them.

We’ve still got to improve insulation and construction in our

buildings so that we’re using less heat to heat our buildings in the

winter and less energy to cool our buildings in the summer. We still

need to be working to repair our land base. We need to be recovering our

watersheds. We need to be working to protect and save and revitalize our

coasts, and our forests need to be protected as well. All of that has to

be done.

This low-carbon fuel standard is an important part of all of that.

My understanding is that the low-carbon fuel standard is actually

expected to be the single largest contributor to meeting our CleanBC

targets, accounting for 31 percent of all of our reductions to the

CleanBC Roadmap to 2030. I mean, it is one piece, but it is a pretty big

piece.

I’m happy to support this work. I’m grateful to the Minister of

Energy, Mines and Low Carbon Innovation for bringing this work forward,

and I look forward to supporting this and many other forward-thinking,

bold measures being brought forward by our government.

M. Lee: I wanted to speak to this bill, as well, on short notice. I have

had an opportunity to have some discussion about the impact of the bill

with the member for Kootenay East as well as the member for Skeena, who

have both spoken to this bill.

The member for Skeena talked about an example of a clean energy

plant that First Nations are working with industry to build here in this

province — over $1 billion of expenditure, capital investment

opportunity, for a clean energy plant technology that is already in

place in Alberta, Denmark and other parts of the world. It will enable

the capture of carbon and production of hydrogen without carbon

emissions. It would produce low- to zero-carbon biodegradable synthetic

renewable fuels. It’s a zero-emissions plan — zero water needed; zero

electricity needed.

This legislation that has come forward by this government was

based on a discussion paper provided on January 13, entitled the

B.C. Low Carbon Fuel Standard: Amend­ments Discussion

Paper . I have a copy here. As I understand it, the deadline for

response was 4 p.m. on February 15. What is that? Thirty-three

days.

[3:20 p.m.]

So 33 days to review a highly complex, technical piece of

legislation — as I understand it, in speaking to the proponent group,

which includes representatives of the Musqueam First Nation, whose

territory my riding of Vancouver-Langara is situated on.

The member for Skeena also talked about the nature of this

project. It will involve First Nations in the Prince Rupert area, Prince

George and other parts of the prov­ince in the first initial

stages. As I understand it, on their quick review of the act, it will

effectively gut their ability to move forward with phase 1, because of

the technical changes in this act.

Certainly, as the member for North Vancouver–​Lonsdale

acknowledged, the previous B.C. Liberal government, under Gordon

Campbell, brought forward the first carbon tax in North America and

showed the kind of clean energy leadership that I know our leader, Kevin

Falcon, fully supports and advocates. We’ll hear more from him in this

House next week as the member for Vancouver-Quilchena.

With this technical bill, my concern first and foremost, at this

juncture, on second reading, is the fact that this discussion paper was

specifically circulated to Indigenous communities and First Nations.

That was the purpose of the discussion paper. Paragraph 3 of this

discussion paper reads: “The Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous

Peoples Act commits the province to engage with Indigenous peoples when

proposed initiatives may impact or be of interest to them.”

I believe — and I’m sure we’ll have the opportunity to discuss

with the Minister of Energy, Mines and Low Carbon Innovation at

committee stage — that when they refer to that, they are, as government,

referring to

article 19 of UNDRIP.

Article 19 of UNDRIP says: “States

shall consult and cooperate in good faith with the Indigenous peoples

concerned through their own representative institutions in order to

obtain their free, prior and informed consent before adopting and

implementing legislative or administrative measures that may affect

them.”

As I have just been through estimates process with the Minister of

Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation, I did refer to this

article in

the context of Bill 24, I think it was, the anti-racism data legislation

bill. I know the member for Saanich North and the Islands asked a

question or raised a question at committee stage or second reading,

about the bill itself and whether it met

article 19. I was able to

confirm with the Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation

that the government’s view is that of course they met the requirement of

article 19.

Well, my concern here is this. As much as this government talks

about the importance of the clean energy future in partnership with

First Nations, here is yet another example of this government’s failure

to consult, to partner with First Nations. How is it possible that they

could present, on the floor of this Legislative Assembly, a bill that

will effectively limit the ability of this project to proceed? How is

that possible? Well, it’s possible because they weren’t aware of

it.

How is that possible? Well, they circulated a discussion paper,

and it only enabled just over 30 days to respond. In the case of the

Musqueam First Nation, even though this discussion paper was to

circulate until January 13, they weren’t aware of it until, I

understand, a week or ten days before the deadline, maybe at best. I’m

going to confirm that at committee stage. We will confirm at committee

stage to which First Nations this discussion paper was circulated, how

many First Nations responded, and how many First Nations were given the

opportunity to comment on this bill that’s in front of us.

[3:25 p.m.]

Some other comments that I would like to relay to the House are

these. As I understand it, in looking at this discussion paper in brief,

it doesn’t get into the detail of the act. It talks about the impact on

clean energy standards, clean fuel standards, low-carbon fuel standards

for gas stations. It talks about, of course, remote community

electricity generation for Indigenous communities.

That, for decades, has been a focus, understandably, but the

government has had five years now to continue to look at what that clean

energy future looks like, to build off of what the efforts of the

previous government have been. I would have thought that in the context

of UNDRIP — adopted, now, back in October 2019, almost three years ago —

there would be a better understanding as to how to go forward on

bills.

I know this was the concern just before the snap election, on the

eve of the second wave of the pandemic, for the lack of consultation

around mental health, changes to the Mental Health Act, Bill 22. Here we

are, yet again, with this government failing to consult with First

Nations, on such an important piece of legislation that is there and

available to move forward in partnership.

We talk a lot about reconciliation in this House. I know I had the

opportunity to talk to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Low Carbon

Innovation as I joined the critic, the member for Kootenay East, in

estimates. I had the opportunity to talk to the minister, with my

colleague, about the importance…. As demonstrated and telegraphed to

this House by the member from Boundary-Similkameen, that member told

this House that the future of First Nations’ economic partnership is

clean energy.

When I asked the Minister of Energy, Mines and Low Carbon

Innovation as to what that meant in the area of clean energy,

run-of-river projects and electricity purchase agreements that were

entered into close to 20 years ago, most of which are with First

Nations–led initiatives, the minister did not demonstrate any plan to go

forward, any plan to meet the commitment that is set out under DRIPA,

the DRIPA action plan.

Item 4.43 says: “Co-develop recommendations on strategic policies

and initiatives for clean and sustainable energy. This includes

identifying and supporting First Nations–led clean energy opportunities

related to CleanBC.” It goes on to talk about a comprehensive review of

B.C. Hydro and the BCUC inquiry on the regulation of Indigenous

utilities.

For the purpose of this bill discussion, the first words are

“identifying and supporting First Nations–led clean energy opportunities

related to CleanBC.” I know that members of this government will speak

to the importance of this bill to meeting their objectives and their

plan, the CleanBC plan. So you would’ve thought that the government

would be fully aware of the opportunities that are available. As I

understand it, this group has had discussions — some lengthy discussions

— with industry, including YVR, Air Canada, Fortis and even B.C.

Hydro.

As the member for Skeena described, the output is the opportunity

to provide clean, low-carbon to zero-carbon, biodegradable, synthetic

renewable fuels for the marine industry — hence, the importance of

co-location, co-ownership with First Nations in the Prince Rupert area;

YVR, the Vancouver airport; co-location, co-ownership — hence, the

proximity to our gateway to North America, by way of air. There are

opportunities here that this government has not addressed, and the

technical nature of this bill will not enable this project to be

financially sustainable in the first phase.

[3:30 p.m.]

This is a multiphase project. It will deal with other forms of

fuels in a clean-emission way, but as a starting point, phase 1 is what

is jeopardized by the technical requirements of this bill. This is

something that we will explore more at committee stage. As I understand

it, the effective-date nature of the changes under this Bill 15 that

start on January 1, 2023, is what the concern is.

There’s been a lack of consultation. Here, clearly. I’m giving a

clear example to members of this House — members of this House that all

supported the adoption of UNDRIP. We are accountable for that. That is

the responsibility of this government but also members of this House. So

having heard the concerns from this First Nations–led project group, it

does concern me as to how this government is proceeding with a bill that

will forestall and not enable this project to get off the

ground.

I certainly would urge the government to consider pausing the

process that it’s involved with to fully understand what is the nature

of the changes they’re bringing forward as it affects Indigenous

communities and First Nations. Clearly, First Nations and Indigenous

communities who are involved in clean energy projects which involve

low-carbon fuel standards have not been given an appropriate opportunity

to give their free, prior and informed consent.

Now, I know that when we talk about free, prior and informed

consent, we’ve talked about early consultation. It’s more than just

notification, and I wonder whether the government took that

approach.

The government’s assessment as to its obligation under DRIPA took

the approach that they provided notice — short notice, with very little

opportunity to respond — and a survey, which I had a copy of, which was

fairly basic. When I took a look at that survey, it was just asking

basic questions, not technical points. Here it is: “The B.C. low-carbon

fuel standard amendments response form.” A basic, open-ended

questionnaire to help, presumably, guide the reader through the

discussion paper.

But I know, in talking to the Musqueam First Nation and the

representatives I’ve been meeting with, alongside the member for

Kootenay East and the member for Skeena, that they had challenge with

this response form because it’s so basic and rudimentary in nature. It

doesn’t get to the level of detail that they need to consider. They were

not aware of this bill, as it was just introduced in the House

yesterday, until today. They’ve not had the opportunity to review the

details of the bill, but what they know of it and what they see of it is

not reflected in the discussion paper, is not reflected in this

rudimentary response form.

I know that under

section 3 of DRIPA, government fully understands

and appreciates the obligation that it needs to use, which is taking

“all measures necessary to ensure the laws of British Columbia are

consistent with the Declaration.” That

article 19 of the declaration is

a fundamental

article that this government needs to meet. And it has not

met that, based on what I’ve heard relating to this bill.

[3:35 p.m.]

I think there are some serious concerns about how this bill is

coming forward and the way that it will affect First Nations in this

area. Recognizing that this government says, on one hand, that it sees

the future of economic partnership with First Nations in the clean

energy space, yet on the other hand, it’s jeopardizing those projects

which First Nations have been involved with for close to 20 years in

this province — run-of-the-river projects, clean energy projects,

electricity purchase agreements that they’re changing the market pricing

terms on based on mid-C U.S. pricing.

Here is yet another example where the government has failed to

give the ability to First Nations to move down that road of economic

reconciliation and partnership, in an area and a space that this

government sees for First Nations.

We talk a lot about rhetoric in this House. It’s a word that we

hear more and more. But they don’t connect. They don’t connect with the

conduct of this government. That’s a real concern, because we don’t have

more time to waste. The urgency of the opportunities that are available

to First Nations for economic renewal and reconciliation with our

province are here. We cannot waste those opportunities, as we are,

potentially, with those clean energy projects, those run-of-river

projects. We cannot waste the opportunity for even enabling a project

like this to get off the ground because there is a

disconnect.

Now, I know that legislation…. We talk all the time at committee

stage, and maybe at second bill readings, about consultation and the

importance of it. In the area of consulting with First Nations and

Indigenous communities, we are obligated under the DRIPA. This is what

this government, by putting forward Bill 41, in the way that they framed

the bill, has ensured that we must do. I see example after example where

that is not occurring.

I will certainly take the opportunity to join the member for

Kootenay East and the member for Skeena, I’m sure, and other members to

further consider this bill and consider with the Minister of Energy,

Mines and Low Carbon Innovation the concerns that I am raising here

relating to their lack of consultation with First Nations through that

discussion paper and the impact that this will have on those economic

possibilities for clean energy projects, like the ones that the member

for Skeena and I have been describing.

Hon. G. Heyman: I’m pleased to take my place in this debate on Bill 15, the Low

Carbon Fuels Act, for a couple of reasons. This bill and everything it

represents is a very important part of B.C.’s climate plan — our CleanBC

plan as well as our Roadmap to 2030 — to meet our legislated target. It

is a very significant piece of that, and I will speak more to that in a

few moments.

It also gives me pleasure because it’s demonstrative of our focus

on reducing emissions to meet our legislated targets, our focus on a

climate plan that meets the climate crisis that we see, that meets what

British Columbians expect of all of us, not just our government, but all

legislators, in terms of responding to climate change.

It demonstrates an all-of-government approach. It demonstrates how

we, in my ministry, develop overarching climate policy to both reduce

emissions and stimulate an innovative, diversified economy. Then other

ministries throughout government — in this case, the Ministry of Energy,

Mines and Low Carbon Innovation — bring forward and develop the various

pieces that contribute to this strategy.

It is important. It’s a demonstration to British Columbians, as

well as Canadians, that we’re serious at every level, that we’re not

isolating climate in one ministry, that we are taking the climate

challenge and the climate mandate, and we are making it central to our

government’s initiatives. Whether they are economic, whether they are

social, we are embedding it in our approach to how British Columbians

will move forward together to build a healthy, diversified low-carbon

economy, reduce our emissions, keep our commitment and our obligation to

British Columbians as well as to all global citizens.

[3:40 p.m.]

We know there are many, many measures that need to work together —

whether it is energy efficiency in buildings; whether it is low-carbon

building products; whether it’s a commitment to public transit, to mode

shifting, to encouraging active transportation like biking, walking and

rolling; whether it is shifting the energy use in our traditional

resource industries as well as other industries in British Columbia to

continually look for ways to be more energy efficient, to drive down

emissions through processes as well as the forms of energy that power

these industries; whether it is in personal or commercial

transportation.

We know transportation isn’t just about personal vehicles. It

isn’t just about commercial and heavy-duty vehicles, and it’s not just

about vehicles at all. It’s about how we build communities and enable

people to get to their recreational activities and their workplaces

conveniently through public transit, conveniently through walking,

conveniently through biking, where possible, because we’re focusing on

building diverse and compact communities. That is a process that will

unfold over decades, just as the expansion of public transit will be

revealed and developed and unfold over decades.

It’s critically important that we have a plan, and this bill

before us is a critical part of the plan. We know we want to mode shift

transportation. We also know that people need personal vehicles for

certain activities, and they can’t be replaced. We also know that

tradespeople, commercial operations, delivery services and heavy-duty

trucking all rely on vehicles for transportation, both personal and for

work.

We are not going to make the shift — notwithstanding the strides

that we’ve taken through our focus on clean energy vehicles — to fully

electrified or fully hydrogen-powered vehicles immediately. That can’t

happen. One of the issues, of course, is supply. The other issue is

people making the transition over time.

It is true that a very high percentage — I think it is about 70 to

75 percent — of British Columbians say that they think the current

vehicle they are driving that is powered by gasoline or some other

fossil fuel will be their last one powered that way, that they would

like to own an electric vehicle.

I’m also going to take this opportunity to state that when asked

about it recently, many people on Vancouver Island, in a poll, thought

that it was simply too expensive for them to purchase an electric

vehicle. I certainly sympathize with people making the day-to-day

expenditure decisions for their households in terms of what they can

afford.

It is also true that studies have shown that over an eight-year

period, a new electric, zero-emission vehicle will actually cost $20,000

to $30,000 less when you roll in fuel costs, when you roll in

maintenance costs and when you roll in other factors that go to the

life-cycle cost of a vehicle. However, having said that, we know that

that transition will take place over time. We look forward to it. I know

members on all sides of this House support that.

In the meantime, we have people using fossil fuels, and one of the

key things that we can do as part of our climate plan is to ensure that

we reduce the amount of carbon in those fossil fuels. That’s exactly

what the Low Carbon Fuels Act is about. It’s what it was about when it

was introduced in 2008, and it’s what it’s about in this iteration of

the Low Carbon Fuels Act.

When we expand the ambition, we move in tandem with other

jurisdictions in North America, like California, to ensure that we’re

driving down the emissions associated with per-kilometre travel by a

vehicle using a fossil fuel.

[3:45 p.m.]

It’s critically important, and that’s exactly why the independent

Climate Solutions Council — which has representatives of industry,

representatives of the fossil fuel industry, representatives from

academia, representatives from environmental groups, representatives

from labour, representatives from Indigenous nations — made advancing

the ambition of the low-carbon fuel standard a central piece of their

recommendations to this government about our roadmap to 2030.

They were clear. They were unequivocal. This was a cen­tral

piece. The reason for that is that this low-carbon fuel standard will be

the single largest contributor to meeting our CleanBC 2030 targets. It

will account for almost a third, 31 percent, of all reductions that we

have plotted out in the CleanBC Roadmap to 2030.

That’s why it is so critically important, and that’s why it was so

critically important for my colleague the Minister of Energy, Mines and

Low Carbon Innovation to introduce this bill in the House this week.

That’s why it will be so important, notwithstanding the questions that

members have, that we send a signal to British Columbians, and, I hope,

pass this bill unanimously, because of its centrality to moving forward

in addressing the climate challenge.

It’s not just the aspects of meeting the climate crisis that is

important about this bill. It’s not just reducing our dependence on

high-carbon fossil fuels as we transition, ultimately, toward

zero-carbon and zero-emission fuels; it is a slope. Adding biofuels,

hydrogen and electricity are all part of the plan. In this case, this

plan will not only reduce emissions from driving vehicles through

lower-carbon fuels; it also has a huge measure of economic

opportunity.

This bill will power a $600 million expansion at the Parkland

refinery, creating 1,000 new jobs, along with reducing greenhouse gas

emissions. That is why we continually say that our climate plan isn’t a

choice between reducing our carbon emissions and building a strong

economy. The two are completely intertwined because of the opportunities

that are available in a clean energy future as well as various measures

that can reduce emissions in a number of ways through new technologies

and new processes.

That’s why the CEO of Parkland says: “We are grateful for the

British Columbia government’s vision, leadership and partnership in this

area. The expansion of the scope of the low-carbon fuel standard is just

the type of thoughtful policy that can help unlock innovation and

investment in areas that matter to both the environment and the economy.

We look forward to delivering these benefits to British

Columbia.”

There are many, many pieces that have already been introduced,

that will be refined, that will be expanded. Where we see opportunities

to enhance our ambition in any one area, part of our CleanBC roadmap is

that it be an iterative process and that we take those opportunities.

This Low Carbon Fuels Act is a very, very important piece of that

activity, not the only piece but a critical and important

one.

As we go forward over the next years on our march toward meeting

that emission reduction target for 2030, because we’ve heard from

members on all sides of this House about how important it is for us to

take climate change and the climate crisis seriously….

We’ve heard from young people, from students, their concern about

their future; their desperation, in some instances; their need to see

leadership and action. We have to demonstrate that. We have to show that

we’re responsive. We have to show that we’re creative. We have to show

that we are supporting B.C.’s communities, B.C. workers and B.C.

families in the measures we take.

[3:50 p.m.]

So we enhance not just our progress toward our climate targets. We

enhance affordability, we enhance job opportunities. We enhance economic

development opportunities, and we look for ways to take what would

otherwise be waste and convert it into low-carbon energy.

That’s what this bill is about. That’s why it’s so important.

That’s why I’m so grateful to be part of a government where now

virtually every ministry includes in its planning, whether it’s an

economic ministry or a ministry planning infrastructure or a capital

expenditure or a ministry that is planning social initiatives: how do we

reduce emissions? How do we support clean growth in our economy? How do

we support the development of diversified opportunities throughout

British Columbia, throughout the entire province of British

Columbia?

How do we engage with Indigenous people in a way that provides

economic opportunity as well as reconciliation? How do we assist people

with limited means to reduce their carbon footprint without spending

money they don’t have and, in fact, give them the opportunity to save

money on energy, whether it is for home heating and cooling or for

transportation? All of us, in this government, work together to build a

strong, diversified, low-carbon economy and meet our carbon

targets.

I’ll close by simply quoting the president of Advanced Biofuels

Canada, Ian Thomson: “The low-carbon fuel standard is B.C.’s single most

impactful climate change policy, giving British Columbians an affordable

and effective way to fight climate change every day. In the years ahead,

more made-in-B.C. clean fuels will reduce B.C.’s exposure to volatile

global energy markets and create a more diversified, resilient economy

while reducing greenhouse gases from fossil-fuel use.”

I look forward to continued debate on this bill, but I sincerely

hope every member of this House recognizes the responsibility we have to

all British Columbians, as well as to our children and our

grandchildren, to support measures that have been demonstrated to be

tremendously effective in reducing carbon dioxide emissions into our

atmosphere — the emissions that are at the root of climate

change.

There is no magic switch we can flick from carbon-intensive energy

use and development to, all of a sudden, carbon-free energy and a

carbon-free economy and communities. It is a slope, and we are turning

the corner. We are beginning that trajectory toward our targets. This

piece is an important part of the transition. Other elements that are

important to the transition are being brought forward virtually every

week.

We need to work hard. We need to ensure that we have the level of

ambition that this emergency calls for. We have to ensure that we are

consistently responsive to new technologies, to new opportunities, that

we address the challenges and roadblocks and that we learn as we

go.

I want to thank my colleague for bringing forward this bill, and

it’s been my honour to speak to it.

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

debate?

Hon. B. Ralston: I wish to thank all members who par­ticipated in the debate

for their thoughtful and insightful comments. I have noticed where

members have signalled their intention to ask questions at the next

stage of debate, and I will endeavour to prepare myself to meet those

concerns.

With that, I move second reading of Bill 15.

Motion approved.

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

to be considered at the next sitting of the House after

today.

Bill 15, Low Carbon Fuels Act, read a second time and referred to a

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

House after today.

Hon. L. Beare: I request a five-minute recess.

Deputy Speaker: We will recess for five minutes.

The House recessed from 3:55 p.m. to 4:01 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Committee of the Whole (Section A), having reported progress, was

granted leave to sit again.

Mr. Speaker: When shall the committee sit again, Government House

Leader?

Hon. L. Beare: I call it now, in this chamber.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 10 — LABOUR RELATIONS CODE

AMENDMENT ACT, 2022

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 10;

S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.

The committee met at 4:02 p.m.

On clause 4 (continued) .

G. Kyllo: It’s good to be in the main chamber. Just before we relocated in

here, I was asking a series of questions just to have a better

understanding around any limitations on what might, I guess, maybe seen

as influencing the request of a worker to sign a membership card. I

raised a couple of examples and just wanted to put those on the record

just one more time.

Are there any restrictions or limitations anywhere, either in the

legislation or in the regulation, that in any way limit or restrict the

ability of a union organizer or a third party that may be presenting a

union membership card before a worker with respect to taking the worker

out for lunch or dinner or golfing or in any form? I think members and

the general public might perceive this to be potentially influencing and

encouraging that member to sign a membership card.

Is there any restriction or limitation whatsoever, set forth

either in the legislation or the regulation, around what would be deemed

to be reasonable or just or what might be deemed to be unreasonable and

may even, rather than just encouraging, be potentially considered as

coercion?

Hon. H. Bains: I will not answer that question again, because I’ve already

answered that question.

I will say there are people in the gallery, and they are wondering

what is going on here. We have what we call one of the legislation that

is being debated. It’s at committee stage, and the opposition is going

through clause by clause to answer questions about what they actually

mean and how they will be applied.

I would welcome you all into the House and hope you will enjoy

this. It’s not the most exciting debate you will hear here, but

nonetheless, it’s important debate that we engage in. It is a part of

the process of passing the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I’ve already answered that question.

[4:05 p.m.]

G. Kyllo: Well, as a matter of fact, the minister actually did not answer

the question previously. So from the non-answer from the minister, I can

only assume that there is no restriction or limitation either in

legislation or regulation that in any way limits or puts caps on the

amount of money or influence that a union organizer could utilize in

order to encourage a worker to sign a membership card. That is

unfortunate.

When we talk about the rigour which the minister indicated is

around this card-check system, this current system where workers are

presented with a membership application form and encouraged to sign a

specific union, is, at the very least…? Is it a legislative or

regulatory requirement that the member, in signing and making that

determination to move forward and join that union through signing a

membership card or a card check…? Is there, at the very least, a

requirement that a copy — a carbon copy or a photocopy — be provided to

the member?

Hon. H. Bains: All of that is in part of the regulations that we have debated

over and over — what the requirement of the union organizers is and what

it must contain on the application form. Then the board has…. I read on

the record what the board must follow: a process to determine the

appropriateness of the unit and whether there is sufficient support in

that unit. That’s the process that the board goes through. So we have

canvassed this, and I think it has nothing to do with

section 4

anyway.

That part of the process isn’t being changed. It is still the

decision made by the board, and they are the ones who follow their

regulations and their procedures as they have established. They’re an

independent body. We are debating

section 4, which has nothing to do

with the question that is being asked.

A. Olsen: I don’t know that you can separate what is required…. We’re

talking about changing the certification process, correct? New

certification. We’re talking about how a union will certify.

Currently, there is a two-step process. We’re moving to a one-step

process — the union certification. I’m not sure how that process isn’t

applicable now that we’re debating the change of that

process.

I’ve been following the debate, and the minister has continued to

say that it’s not applicable to the debate. But in reality, the rigour

around how you achieve a signature, how that is accomplished — the

process, the forms, the recordkeeping, all of the review…. The

minister’s response has been consistently that it’s up to the Labour

Relations Board to determine whether that’s all in place. I think, in my

belief, it is applicable, when the minister is asking the change to be

made in this House, to outline what that process is and what’s required

around it.

[4:10 p.m.]

Maybe I’m missing something, because what the minister read into

the record in the other room doesn’t actually respond to the questions —

some of them, at least; maybe some of them it does — that have been put

on the table.

The member asked the question about whether or not there is a

carbon copy that is kept. What is the recordkeeping process of a card

certification process, signing that card? What is that requirement in

the regulation?

Hon. H. Bains: I thank the member for the question.

I think we have debated this issue right from the beginning. Yes,

the bill is…. Through the bill, Bill 10, we’re changing from two steps

to a single step. But how members sign that membership card…. That

requirement is still the same. The board still has to satisfy, whether

it’s two steps or a single step, whether the cards were signed within

the rules of the labour code and the regulations that they

have.

The only difference is, in the two step, they still have to

determine the percentage of membership signed. That requires the board

to go through and follow the process that they have established to make

sure that those cards were signed within the rules. They must be

satisfied before they will order a vote.

Now, there are challenges to membership. Then the board may call

hearings to determine whether that particular member’s card should be

considered legal or not. That process doesn’t change. That rigour is

there now. That rigour was there before. It will continue on. How the

unions approach a member or the members approach unions…. That part

hasn’t changed.

I have read into the record what the board will do. I can do that

one more time. Before we left the other House, I read it. No coercion,

no intimidation, no enticement. All of that is prohibited under the

code. The board must satisfy itself that none of that happened, that

everything was done according to the code and the regulations. Once they

determine that, then they will make the next move.

Under the new rules, if they determine that 55 percent of a unit

has signed a membership card, then the certification will be granted.

Under the old rule, they would go for a vote then, after that. The

process of determining the legitimacy and the unfair labour and

interference…. Those procedures are still there.

A. Olsen: I appreciate the clarification from the minister.

What I would say…. I think the job I have, as a member of the

opposition, is to understand. When you’re removing a step in the process

that currently exists…. You have all of the framework in place that

currently exists, and you have a second step where the actual members

who are being recruited into a union will go and vote. When you remove

that second step, it’s the job of us in the opposition to ensure that

all of the steps leading up to the certification have a robust enough

framework to protect those workers.

Many of the questions I’ve heard, which I’ve felt haven’t

necessarily had the level of response that they could have, frankly,

are…. Just the basic accountability and transparency of the process, the

ability to follow up and go and make sure that the person whose name is

on the certification card is the person, all of that. It feels like

there may not be the level of rigour around that certification process.

The job for us, on this side, is to test that and to ensure.

[4:15 p.m.]

If the government, which the government is doing in this case, is

saying we’re going to remove a step of the certification process, I

think it’s completely within the realm of the work of the opposition to

ensure that the new process is robust enough to protect all of the

concerns that someone might have around accountability, transparency, to

make sure that there’s enough paperwork, enough of a paper trail to be

able to hold the organizers accountable for things that may be there and

to satisfy, if the Labour Relations Board needs to get involved in

something, that you can actually track who the recruiter was, the day

that the recruitment happened, the witnesses that were there and the

process that unfolded.

I don’t think that the questions around how rigorous that process

is are unfair. If what we’re doing is taking a step out, it would be

totally reasonable to say that maybe that card-signing process needs to

be more rigorous than exists today. I think that’s the spirit of some of

the questions that have been asked. At least that’s what I’ve been

hearing in some of the questions that have been asked around this, to

say: “What is that system currently? How does it exist? Is it strong

enough?”

Members of the opposition could propose to amend that to

strengthen it. Without clarity on what that is and without clarity on

how that process and accountability are achieved, it makes it very

difficult. I think that’s my main concern on this.

Does the minister feel — obviously, I guess he does — that the

process to get the card signed is rigorous enough and that there is a

strong enough and robust enough paper trail behind that for the Labour

Relations Board to actually do the work in holding those people who are

organizing accountable, as well as — as the minister has said repeatedly

— holding the businesses accountable for not inserting themselves into

this process? We need to make sure that the organizers are doing this in

a way that can be accountable to the worker as well.

Hon. H. Bains: When the member signs to join a union, a worker signs a membership

card to join a union, they have every right to withdraw or revoke that

application. It has happened, and no one will even know about

it.

If the worker feels that they were not given proper information or

they were given wrong information or they have a second thought, “The

union isn’t for me,” they can withdraw that application. So that

protection is there for the member.

[4:20 p.m.]

What kind of accountability and who is held accountable is the

union that is applying for certification.

The board will make a decision based on the application that is

being made. They have a number of checks to go through, whether the

appropriate and the right members of that particular union are the ones

who signed this card. It’s their responsibility to ensure

that.

Members don’t have to justify why they are withdrawing an

application. It was asked earlier: if they don’t know who signed them,

how can they make a case against them? All they have to do is say,

“Look, I am not satisfied with the way someone approached me. I’m not

satisfied with the information given to me,” and they can withdraw that

application.

The board will know that. Then the board will determine the

remaining applicants. If they meet the threshold, the board will make

that decision, but the employer on the other side has every opportunity.

Once the union makes the application, the board will inform the employer

— almost the same time, same day. Then the employer has rights to

challenge whether the membership signatures were collected correctly or

not, if they have any information.

They will also be approached by the labour board officer to go

over their payroll, to match the names. They determine whether all of

those signed cards should be part of the unit or not. Should any one of

them be excluded?

The employer will also say, and this is normal: “In our payroll, I

have X number of employees.” The union may only have so many members

signed, and then the decision is made whether those employees that the

employer is presenting to the officer should be counted or not — all of

them or not. If someone came there and worked six mont