2008 Legislative Session: Fourth Session, 38th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, APRIL 15, 2008

Morning Sitting

Volume 30, Number 8

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Page

Introduction and First Reading of Bills

Local Government (Green Communities) Statutes Amendment Act, 2008 (Bill 27)

Hon. I. Chong

Second Reading of Bills

Greenhouse Gas Reduction (Cap and Trade) Act (Bill 18) (continued)

On the amendment

(continued)

A. Dix

R. Austin

G. Coons

B. Ralston

Hon. B. Penner

On the main motion

M. Karagianis

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir

Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Education and Minister Responsible for Early Learning and Literacy

Hon. S. Bond

D. Cubberley

[ Page 11341 ]

TUESDAY, APRIL 15, 2008

The House met at 10:02 a.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Prayers.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

LOCAL GOVERNMENT

(GREEN COMMUNITIES)

STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 2008

Hon. I. Chong presented a message from His Honour the

Administrator: a bill intituled Local Government (Green Communities) Statutes

Amendment Act, 2008.

Hon. I. Chong: Mr. Speaker, I move the bill be introduced

and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. I. Chong: I'm pleased to present the Local Government

(Green Communities) Statutes Amendment Act, 2008. The legislation I'm

introducing today encourages local governments to take leadership in their

communities to achieve sustainability.

This legislation supports local governments to think, to plan and

to build green, and it supports the development of compact communities with

affordable housing and lower greenhouse gas emissions.

Bill 27 will provide local governments with the flexibility to

reduce emissions, to conserve energy and to make communities more socially and

more environmentally sustainable in ways that make the most sense for their own

communities.

Local governments, too, will need to establish how they will

reduce greenhouse gases as part of their planning efforts. The 2007 and 2008

Speeches from the Throne and the Premier's speech at the 2007 Union of B.C.

Municipalities annual convention proposed a range of initiatives related to

climate change and environmental management. This legislation connects with

those important changes proposed by our government.

This legislation means that local governments can make

long-lasting decisions for the benefit of their communities and their citizens,

and this act is about supporting communities across the province to become more

vibrant places to live and work.

I move that the bill, Bill 27, be placed on orders of the day for

second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 27, Local Government (Green Communities) Statutes Amendment

Act, 2008, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of

the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Orders of the Day

Hon. R. Thorpe: Mr. Speaker, in this chamber I call

continued second reading debate on Bill 18, Greenhouse Gas Reduction (Cap and

Trade) Act, and in Committee A, I call estimates of the Ministry of Education.

Second Reading of Bills

GREENHOUSE GAS REDUCTION

(CAP AND TRADE) ACT

(continued)

On the amendment (continued) .

A. Dix: As members will know, we're speaking on the

amendment put forward by the member for Vancouver-Hastings, who has argued that

this legislation…. Let's remind ourselves of what the legislation is. It's an

empty shell. It's an empty shell that isn't ready to be implemented. So there is

time, legitimately, to have a public debate about this.

[1005]

I think it's a very important amendment, a very helpful amendment

to government by the member for Vancouver-Hastings. What the amendment says is

that the subject matter — cap-and-trade — of this bill should be referred to a

legislative committee and that we should not give the bill second reading now. I

think the case for the amendment is compelling.

[K. Whittred in the chair.]

I think that most people, in looking at this…. We've cited the

views of the freedom-of-information commissioner, who has expressed strong

concerns with

section 36 of the bill. I think that a committee looking at this

issue might legitimately ask the freedom-of-information commissioner to come and

speak to the committee and talk about that to see how we can make this system

more transparent so that this isn't a system of private deals between the

government and important players in the B.C. economy and important players in

terms of the climate change debate — but rather than that, in fact, that it be a

more public process and that the public have confidence in that process.

We're asking everybody to take

part in this process, but

apparently the public isn't going to be given the right to know. That's not

according to me; that's according to the freedom-of-information and privacy

commissioner. That's the first thing.

Also along those lines, what it would do is give an opportunity to

people like Darrell Evans from the B.C. Freedom of Information and Privacy

Association. I'll remind you of what he said about this bill. He said: "…yet

another attempt by the Liberals to place corporate information behind an iron

curtain."

So why not, given that the bill isn't ready…? You know how I know

it isn't ready? Because distinguished and well-known British Columbians, not

opponents of the government but rather — I don't think the right

[ Page 11342 ]

term is "employees of the government" — the people working with the

government and getting remuneration for that from the government…. For example,

Dr. Mark Jaccard has said…. And he didn't say this….

Interjection.

A. Dix: The member for Surrey-Whalley is asking when he

said this. Well, Dr. Jaccard said this on April 9, 2008, which was approximately

one week ago. It was less than a week ago, in fact, that he said this.

What did he say? He said that B.C. is "still a long way from

implementation of a cap-and-trade system." It's so much so that he says that

B.C. might decide to take only "an observer position in the western climate

initiative while it sees what the next U.S. federal government will do." What

Dr. Jaccard is saying quite eloquently there, I think, in an e-mail is that we

have time to involve the public in this process. I think it's the reason we

should do that.

I think that what the member for Vancouver-Hastings has done here

is given the government an opportunity to build support and interest and public

involvement in the climate change debate. That's what he's done with this

important amendment at second reading.

He's saying that it's time for the public to have its say so that

this won't be an issue — if I might quote Darrell Evans — "behind an iron

curtain." It's not a debate that will take place between the government and its

financial backers behind an iron curtain — but that the debate take place in the

public. What will flow from that inevitably, I think, is more public engagement,

more public support and more public involvement, of course, on the issue of

climate change — in other words, a good thing.

As my time to speak on this bill winds down…. I think that what

the member for Vancouver-Hastings has done is throw a lifeline to the

government. He's said to them: "Let's have the public debate. Let's have the

public discussion. Let's come back in the fall and debate a real bill, not a

bill that's a regulatory shell, a bill that's an enabling power for the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council — the cabinet — but a bill that really deals with

the issues of climate change and lays out what cap-and-trade will look like in

British Columbia."

I ask all members of the House to support this important motion by

the member for Vancouver-Hastings. I thank you very much for your consideration.

[1010]

R. Austin: I rise today to speak in favour of this

amendment to refer Bill 18 to an all-party committee. I think it's an important

debate for us to have here because, as has been noted by previous speakers, we

are entering a new territory and a very complicated subject.

I want to begin my remarks by stating very clearly on the public

record that I am in favour of a cap-and-trade system. I think it is very

important, as we try to tackle climate change and do our

part in British

Columbia, that we recognize that trying to change the behaviour of the major

polluters in our province is at the very heart of trying to solve this problem.

What we have seen with previous bills that have come into the

House thus far are some details, particularly in the gas tax, as to how to hit

ordinary consumers in their pocketbook. But we haven't really seen the details

of how we would tackle climate change for the large polluters in our province. I

think the reason why we haven't seen a lot of detail in Bill 18 is because it's

complicated, and we don't really know where the government stands and what

they're going to do with this cap-and-trade bill.

It should be pointed out, as has been pointed out, that we have a

bill here that has very, very few details. It's just enabling legislation. All

we are here to discuss is: are we going to give the cabinet the right to go and

decide on our behalf, on the people's behalf — basically behind closed doors, in

secret, with people we don't even know who are part of the discussion — how this

is going to affect all of us?

I think that's the wrong approach to take. It would be better for

us to have a public debate, to engage as many people as possible to answer some

of the very difficult questions. And what are those questions? Well, first of

all, what's the cap going to be? How many permits are going to be issued? What

sectors are going to be covered by all these regulations? We don't know that.

In my neck of the woods we have a large polluter that has been

making aluminum for the last 50 years. They are currently thinking about

modernizing that plant and moving to a much greener plant in the sense of its

pollution output. In fact, I understand that the new plant, if it is ever

actually constructed, will have 90 percent less pollution or greenhouse gas

emissions going into the atmosphere, which is a wonderful thing. But is this

company now going to be allowed to trade that savings in pollution and sell it

so that they can offset it against some of their more polluting plants in

Quebec? Who knows? We don't know that.

How are these permits going to be allocated? Are they just going

to be handed out willy-nilly? What's the price going to be? What are the caps

going to be? Is there going to be an auction for this cap-and-trade system, or

is it going to be decided and allocated? These are all very, very important

decisions which we need to have debated publicly. I think a good place to do it

is in the public realm and then have an open discussion here in the House once

we have details of a cap-and-trade system.

We need to know what the penalties will be for those companies

that break those caps or are non-compliant. Obviously, if those penalties are

not high enough, then we're not going to see the kind of change we need to see

in terms of companies deciding that it's worthwhile for them to actually pollute

less rather than just carry on their behaviour as before and maybe buy an

offset.

We need to know what kinds of restrictions will be placed on the

alternative compliance units, or the offsets. How many offsets are there going

to be? How easy is it to go and buy an offset? Are we going to allow companies,

say, to go and buy a parcel of land that is going to be reforested when that

land may already have been reforested under the forest licence? That wouldn't be

fair. So these are the kinds of things that we need to do.

[ Page 11343 ]

We also need to have a detailed recognition of what kind of

government oversight is going to be there. You know, statistics are bandied

around a great deal in debates like this, but we need to know where these

statistics come from. What is the data? What's the actual detail of where we are

when we start, and how are we going to get to the actual totals that we want to

get to?

[1015]

This bill is really unaccountable to the public. It authorizes

cabinet to introduce any kind of cap-and-trade regime. We don't know what it's

going to be like. For example, in Europe when they started this system a few

years ago, they made mistakes — huge mistakes — and it enabled companies to

profit greatly by selling each other credits without actually changing any

behaviour.

Well, we don't want that to happen here in British Columbia. We

want to make sure that when we set up a cap-and-trade system, it will reach the

public policy goals that we want. We also want to make sure that the big

emitters in this province are actually hit hard and forced to change their

behaviour.

That's a critical thing within this debate, because so far they've

been let off the hook, in large part. What I fear, and what many of us fear on

this side of the House, is that they will get a bit of a free ride or that

they'll be able to negotiate deals behind closed doors that will help them have

a longer period of time in which to try and offset and change their behaviours.

So we need to figure out all of this before we decide how we're

going to vote. The member for Vancouver-Hastings has given us an opportunity

here to create a longer public debate, because this is not an easy matter to

decide. I think that most of the public, when they hear the term

"cap-and-trade," don't really understand what it's about. They recognize that we

have a global warming crisis in the world, and they probably recognize that we

as an industrialized society need to do our bit to solve this problem. We need

to be leaders, in fact — seeing as we have the wealth, the expertise and the

know-how to be able to change a lot of our industrial policies.

Just because the general public views climate change as a huge

matter of concern doesn't mean to say that they understand all of the details of

how we will come across those solutions. When they hear the term

"cap-and-trade," I think most people are completely unaware of what exactly is

involved.

If we are able to put this motion forward and pass it here, we can

then engage the public in a much broader debate that will have more and more

people sitting down and understanding what exactly a cap-and-trade system is.

Let's face it. The more people who get engaged — the more brains, the more ideas

we have — the better the system will be that we eventually come up with.

There is no debate on that, in terms of both sides of the House

agreeing that we need to bring in a cap-and-trade system. The question is: what

kind of system is it? Can we get the best one? Can we learn from some of the

mistakes that have been made in other countries?

I want to speak for a minute about the

section that deals with

auction or allocation. As I have alluded to, I think it's very important that we

have an auction here in this province and not have it just allocated by the

cabinet. That's what this bill currently allows them to do or may not allow them

to do. We don't know exactly. It's really an enabling piece of legislation, and

we don't know exactly what kind of cap-and-trade system they would bring in.

But if it was allocated, then a company, for example, that

produced 20 percent of the aluminum in this province would automatically be

allowed to have 20 percent of the emissions. Then they would be able to offset

that or to trade it, if they wanted to increase their production and presumably

increase their pollution.

That wouldn't exactly help to make any of the kinds of changes

that we want to do. I think it would be better if we had a free auction. That

way, the price would be set by the market as opposed to it being set by cabinet.

This is one of the mistakes that was made in the early days in Europe where the

price wasn't set correctly, and companies just carried on for several years

without making any of the changes in their industrial practices because they

didn't need to. It just wasn't worthwhile. There wasn't enough of a penalty.

There wasn't enough of a cost to the pollution, so it was easier to just carry

on polluting rather than make those changes early on.

What we are discussing here is really about openness, democracy

and accountability. We have a government that came to power and said that they

wanted to be the most open and accountable government. Here is a bill before us

that's asking us to vote on something when we don't really know what it is that

we're voting on; at least, we don't know the details.

[1020]

If it was as open and accountable as they wanted to be in their

first term — at least, when they came to power in 2001 — we wouldn't be having

this debate because what would be happening is that they would have a fulsome

discussion in an open cabinet. All the details would be there for people to see.

Then we would be able to sit and have a debate here in the House and discuss

those policy details to decide what the best kind of cap-and-trade system is for

us to come up with.

I hope very much that as people make these speeches in this House,

the other side will listen long and hard and recognize that it's complicated.

How do we know it's complicated? Well, with all the resources the government has

behind it…. They've put millions of dollars into this special initiative and

this climate change action team. With all those resources, we have yet to see

any of the details come out, and that tells you something.

That tells you it's so complicated that they don't even want to

make this an open process because they don't know where they're at either. I

think that is further proof that what we need to do is set a time, put together

an all-party committee….

You know what? I would agree with the Premier on this. This is not

a partisan issue. All British Columbians want to try and effect change with

regards to climate change. Here you have both sides of the House agreeing in

principle that a cap-and-trade system is an important

[ Page 11344 ]

piece of public policy that needs to be brought into this province.

That being said, if both sides can agree with that, then surely

not just both sides of this House but all of the general public should have the

ability to see what is being done and have some input into this.

I think that's very important for the government as well. When

you're asking people to make huge changes — whether it be industry or whether it

be individuals — if they can feel that they have had input into the process,

they are more likely to make the sacrifices necessary to make those changes.

These are very fundamental and important changes in our society.

If we don't go ahead with that, if we just have a system where we

pass Bill 18, and the cabinet down the road comes forward and says: "You know

what? We've discussed this with our panel of experts. We've discussed this with

the big emitters, most of whom actually give us huge donations, and here's the

plan we've come up with…."

Then you're going to have a plan that's brought forward without

the support of the general public, which would be a very sad thing because as

I've said, most people want this problem to be solved or at least have some

solutions that lead to bettering this problem or to lowering the emissions of

this province. I think it's actually in the government's interest to go on side

with this and recognize that we need to have a more fulsome public debate.

This is a problem that is of world magnitude, and we here in

British Columbia are only a small part of the solution. However, if we can make

changes in this province that learn from some of the mistakes of the

cap-and-trade systems that have been brought about in other parts of the world,

then surely we are furthering the cause for all the industrial countries that

are trying to move in this direction. It's something that we certainly have a

moral obligation to do when you consider that we have large countries that are

still developing — such as India and China — and are looking to us, the

industrial world, to come up with solutions.

You know, hon. Speaker, we've got it very good over here. We have

a very high standard of living, and that standard of living has largely been

made on the back of the general environment. We have used more than our fair

share of resources around the world to create a very high standard of living,

and now those poorer countries that want to develop just as we have done and

want to have higher levels of education and health care are also following the

same path of industrialization that we have taken over the last hundred years.

Who can blame them? Who can blame them for following the path that

we have taken? But what we are now realizing, which perhaps we didn't realize or

have been very late to realize, is that that is not sustainable. It was never

sustainable for us in the rich countries that allowed ourselves to pollute

around the planet and not have a price on pollution. Now that we see huge

populations in China and India wanting to take the same route, all of a sudden

we're kind of saying: "Oh my goodness, we can't do this; we have to fix this

problem."

What's necessary is for us in the industrialized world to take the

lead and to first of all show those countries that are still developing that

there's a better way to industrialize than the one that was used by the

traditional countries in western Europe and in North America. We have to be able

to say to them: "You know what? There is a price for pollution."

[1025]

Everybody is realizing this. I was reading yesterday in the papers

about what they're going to have to do in China to try and hide the levels of

pollution during the upcoming Olympics. They are planning on closing every

factory in Beijing in order to make the air even semi-breathable. My

understanding is that you'll still be able to see the air before you breathe it.

This is a huge problem around the world.

What these countries are looking for is for the leading countries

who have been the great polluters — in western Europe, the United States,

Canada, Australia, Japan…. They're looking for some leadership here. They need

us to point the way and say: "Look, here's a way that you will be able to

industrialize that will not create the problems that we have created for the

whole world."

So it's very important, as we have this debate, to recognize that

cap-and-trade — while it sounds very simple — is very, very complicated. I think

it's incumbent upon all of us to take the time to go into the details, to go

into the nitty-gritty and understand how we can create a system that actually

effects change — change at the corporate level and change at the individual

level. I'm not sure which is easier to do.

At the individual level, people have to adjust their lifestyles.

They have to adjust their budgets, spend money on different things than they

would have done otherwise and recognize that there's a price on everybody's

pollution level — that we all have an individual carbon footprint that we have

to start to take responsibility for. That's an individual choice, and people

need to be moved by government in the direction of making the right choices.

In terms of the corporate sector, it's much more complicated

because the corporate sector doesn't really have to worry about individual moral

choices. What they have to worry about are the interests of their shareholders.

So when you're talking about pollution at the corporate level — and that's where

the cap-and-trade system will really have an effect — you're talking about

trying to effect change in a sector where people's interests lie in making the

most profit for their shareholders.

We have to have a system that mitigates the actual forces and

tendencies of any corporation. I mean, I recognize that it's a natural and good

thing for corporations to be able to look after their bottom line to ensure that

their shareholders can make a good rate of return on their money. Otherwise,

we'd all be in trouble. They'd all fold.

But at the same time we have to recognize, those of us who are

legislators, that we have a responsibility to bring into place a system that

will mitigate the interests of the corporate sector — one that recognizes they

have to make a good rate of return for their shareholders

[ Page 11345 ]

while at the same time recognizing the role they have to play in the broader

society as a whole.

We need to make sure our cap-and-trade system is a good one, that

it effects change, that it forces companies to not take the easy route and carry

on producing at a level that's producing higher levels of pollution, to find new

ways of creating their products — not only to make them safer for consumers and

not only to take care of the interests of their workers but also to take care of

the general environment.

That is a huge sea change in thought. Prior to this debate,

corporations didn't really have to think about that broad extent. There was no

price on pollution. They could just pollute away and not really have to worry.

But this is all changing, and that's what this debate is all about.

In closing, I hope very much that the government will listen, will

take the advice of the opposition here, will take advantage of the fact that the

member for Vancouver-Hastings actually brought forward this amendment — a very

wise amendment — that says: "Look, the government side doesn't know the answers

to this."

They don't. If they did, they'd share it with us. They don't know

the answers. With all of the brain power, the people behind them, with all of

the university professors, they haven't come up with a solution.

So let's take some time here. Let's get it right. Let's engage the

public. Let's engage this House in an open debate. We shouldn't have to be

looking at a piece of legislation without any details, which just says to the

cabinet: "Well, we trust you. You go ahead and fix this problem, and we'll just

vote for it now. We'll enable you to go and do whatever you want." That's not

right. That's not democracy.

[1030]

Let's do the right thing. Let's pass this amendment. Let's

recognize that the government needs time and the public needs time, and let's

have a debate later on in the House when we all know exactly what kind of

cap-and-trade system the government is proposing to bring into effect in this

province.

G. Coons: I take the opportunity to stand to support the

move to referral of this bill to an all-party committee, which was introduced

here by the member for Vancouver-Hastings. I believe it is an appropriate and

prudent motion to take a second look at what has been proposed here in Bill 18.

Bill 18 is the Greenhouse Gas Reduction (Cap and Trade) Act. I

think it's quite appropriate that we need to examine the whole subject of

cap-and-trade and how we as a province, as British Columbians, intend to use

cap-and-trade not only in British Columbia but how we work with other provinces

and other states.

If we are to achieve the goals that have been set forth in law by

legislation to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 33 percent in the year 2020,

we don't need a good bill; we need a great bill. It must be ambitious, and it

must be a bill that's supported on both sides of the House and by the vast

majority of British Columbians.

We have a great opportunity to push a lot of legislation and a

whole host of issues through a committee structure, and we should use that tool

that we have offered to us in the Legislature. We very seldom do that. We must

ensure that people are informed and that everything is on the table.

I believe that all of us agree that cap-and-trade is one of the

ways we can move forward to deal with greenhouse gas emissions, but before we

fully analyze where we want and need to go with cap-and-trade, we must know, all

of us in British Columbia, what exactly cap-and-trade is and what it involves.

The concept for some out there is fairly simple as long as we are

given the opportunity to discuss how we formulate the end result. We have

emissions that are capped at a certain level, and the government of the day

determines what is appropriate and what is understandable by all. Hopefully,

there is no behind-the-scenes manipulation or lobbying to affect the government

of the day's decision.

We then have the emitters assigned or given pollution permits, and

if a certain emitter uses less than what is allowed or permitted, they can

benefit, usually by trading or receiving cash or other benefits. If they require

more than their assigned permit, there is an opportunity that they can access

more permits by trading or paying cash for the additional allowance to have

their emissions, let's say, neutralized.

We all believe that cap-and-trade is the way to go, and the motion

to refer this is, as I mentioned, a wise and prudent one. The notion of

cap-and-trade is to use market drivers to encourage polluters to be innovative

and change their behaviour. We need to have a much broader debate and offer

initiatives that effect change. As I mentioned, it is widely supported by many,

and by most in this House, as an initiative that can work.

But we must be careful that we have the right legislation, that we

all understand it and that it does work. We must have detailed language about

how such a model would operate. Bill 18 is enabling legislation for a future

cap-and-trade system in British Columbia and, I have to note, a system that we,

all of us, have openly supported.

The reason I support referral is that Bill 18, as it currently

stands, leaves all aspects of a cap-and-trade system up to a regulation and to

the discretion of a ministerially appointed director. Many throughout the

province and in this House are questioning the accountability, the transparency

and the secrecy which seems to go hand in hand with this particular government.

There are major concerns raised by the Information and Privacy

Commissioner. He had significant problems with the bill and urged both the

Minister of Environment and the Minister of Energy and Mines to withdraw

section

36. The secrecy continues with this government.

Referral to an all-party committee is a method to hold us all to

account. As pointed out by David Loukidelis in his letter to both ministers,

section 36 of the bill makes sweeping confidentiality concessions that will deny

freedom-of-information access to previously accessible corporate data and

relates to a market that will be potentially worth hundreds of millions of

dollars.

[1035]

[ Page 11346 ]

Bill 18 deems information as being supplied in confidence, even if

it originates from government, and this applies to commercial, financial, labour

relations, scientific or technical information.

Mr. Loukidelis states in his communication with the Minister of

Environment and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources…. He

basically says, and this is from his letter, "This letter comments on the access

to information implications of Bill 18. In a separate letter…to the Minister of

Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, I have expressed concerns about Bill 16"

— the other bill, the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Act, similar to the ones he has

concerns about in Bill 18.

He has concerns with

section 36 of Bill 18 as it "would override

the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and would deem certain

information to have been supplied in confidence to the government for the

purposes of" freedom of information. He believes that key goals of freedom of

information are "to make public bodies more open and accountable to the public."

We on this side of the House and many in British Columbia believe in the office

of the freedom-of-information officer.

He goes on to say: "Only a relatively small number of these

overrides have been enacted in the 17 years since FIPPA came into force. Bill 18

would unnecessarily add to that number, and this is a matter of significant

concern, considering the importance of environmental protection measures

relating to climate change and the need for openness and accountability in the

monitoring and enforcement of such measures." Referring Bill 18 would ensure

openness and accountability. We need to ensure that freedom of information is

not denied for information relating to Bill 16 and Bill 18.

One last comment from the commissioner's letter: "Given the

fundamental importance of the FIPPA's accountability and openness goals,

statutory provisions overriding or deeming matters otherwise addressed under FOI

ought to be avoided."

This isn't the first time that the commissioner had concerns. Back

in my ferry files, there was another concern, and again, this relates to the

referral motion. We need openness, we need transparency, and we need

accountability. We don't need secret meetings. We don't need behind-closed-doors

chumming around. We need input. We need public debate.

Back in April of 2003, comments on another Bill 18. The Bill 18

back in 2003 was the Coastal Ferry Act. It's a very similar letter to the

minister of the day, Judith Reid. In that, he says: "Thank you for your April 10

letter." David Loukidelis back in 2003, and I'm quoting from the letter:

"My March 13 letter recommended that the

operating agreement should require the ferry operator to 'make available to

the public on a regular and timely basis reports and records relative to the

safety activities and experience of the operating company.' Your letter said

because 'the regulation of coastal ferry service is the responsibility of the

federal government, it is not appropriate to include provisions in provincial

contract.'"

David Loukidelis goes on to say:

"My recommendation is that the operator should be

required contractually to make available to the public on a regular and timely

basis such safety reports as have been created in the ordinary course of its

operations. I believe the public should have access to the records of the kind

described and suggest the operator should make such reports and other

information available to the public."

Once again, when we start looking at the letters…. David

Loukidelis recently, in response to Bill 18, indicated that only a relatively

small number of overrides have been enacted. Again, we have denial of public

information and public access by this government. Because of that, there have

been major, major concerns with the operational safety of B.C. Ferries. We've

had the safety audit that this side of the House pushed for.

[1040]

Finally, B.C. Ferries and the government decided to have the

Morfitt report. In that, there was a litany of concerns with operational safety.

Again, this ties right into the referral motion, where we need public input,

public debate and public information.

If we look at the Morfitt report, one of the recommendations says

that: "B.C. Ferries should ensure that each of the corporate strategic and

business plans includes a strategic goal that pertains directly to the safety

and security of customers…and reinforce that operational safety is the company's

number one priority and that at no time should any other objective take a higher

level of priority." If we had access to safety records of B.C. Ferries, then we

could ensure that the public has a safe, affordable and reliable ferry service.

That's why we need to refer.

This is a continuing and fairly scary Liberal trend. "Hide the

truth, the real facts, so we can get away with crushing the public and any

opposition with the illusion that we care, that we are a kinder and gentler

Premier and government. We didn't really mean to stomp the HEU workers to the

ground like shadflies on hot concrete. We didn't really mean to hold a racist

and divisive referendum against first nations rights and entitlement. We really

are green, as long as our friends and insiders have the fast track and access to

the information, and nobody really needs to know anything about it."

We need to refer this bill so that the public and those in this

House know exactly how it's being put together. If done poorly, there are huge

consequences and massive implications. It is a complicated process to determine

cap-and-trade. It is a complicated bill to move forward with, and we do need a

much broader debate that affects change.

There are many questions out there. Do we have a free allocation

or an auctioned allocation or a combination of both? These are questions that

need answers. Bill 18 needs to have an all-party committee review it, share it,

discuss it with all British Columbians.

What do we see with Bill 18? We see unaccountability. We see Bill

18 authorizing cabinet to introduce any kind of cap-and-trade regime and to

change it at any time without legislative oversight. It leaves even the core

principles of the cap-and-trade regime up to regulation.

Greenhouse gas allocation must be done in a public and accountable

way. The reason we need to refer this and involve the public is because we need

to know and the public needs to know. If you leave these decisions

[ Page 11347 ]

to regulation, what you're doing is leaving it to the inner circle of the

cabinet. Who knows who will have the ear of the Premier and the inner cabinet? I

believe that won't be in the best interest of British Columbians.

As I mentioned before, we are all aware that cap-and-trade is

something that can work, something that we have to have work to deal with

greenhouse gas emissions. Referring this to an all-party committee would allow

members of this House to sit down, work together, relate as legislators in a

meaningful manner to come up with something that works for the province and to

work with our partners in Manitoba and down in the western states.

Being on a committee that did work together, the sustainable

aquaculture committee…. That taught all members of the committee on sitting

together, listening to key issues, hearing from expert witnesses, coming up with

recommendations that are workable and achievable, with no secrecy and with a lot

of accountability. It took hundreds of presentations and a year and a half of

public meetings throughout the province, but the democracy of that process was

worth it — the same as referring this bill would offer us.

It must be noted that sections of the bill leave many, many

unanswered questions. For example, when we look at

section 26(1), it states that

corporations can commit an offence under the act — but "corporation" is not

defined. Who do we want to have that defined by? I would prefer, and most

British Columbians would prefer, an all-party committee to look at that and make

those recommendations. We know who that side of the House wants to have their

decisions made for them, and we have a real concern with that. That isn't

looking after the public interest.

Now, the public has been completely….

[1045]

Deputy Speaker: Minister of Health.

Hon. G. Abbott: I thank the member for giving me this

opportunity to ask for an opportunity to make an introduction.

Deputy Speaker: Proceed, Member.

Introductions by Members

Hon. G. Abbott: In the gallery today are two residents of

Salmon Arm. I'm delighted to have constituents here visiting the Legislature.

I'd like the House to make Alfred and Gertrude Schalm welcome, please.

Debate Continued

G. Coons: I will continue on the referral motion of Bill

18, which is the Greenhouse Gas Reduction (Cap and Trade) Act. The public has

been completely shut out of the process. Every initiative, every plan, every

committee, every hearing that this government has had on climate change has been

under an umbrella of secrecy. All appointments to the climate action secretariat

and the Climate Action Team have been done behind closed doors and not inclusive

to those who are key stakeholders.

If we look specifically at key exclusions, they have been on the

climate action secretariat; the 177 presentations given to the government; the

Climate Action Team and their work; the climate change plan, which is soon to be

released; cap-and-trade negotiations; and all the implementation of the carbon

tax — all fall under the veil of secrecy.

Last April, in 2007, the government excluded the Cabinet's

Committee for Climate Action from the Freedom of Information Act. What are we

afraid to disclose? What are we afraid to share with British Columbians?

In May 2007 the Premier joined the North American Climate Registry

but refused to make the information from this registry public. They've refused

to disclose any documents through FOI to the opposition, or reports or briefings

related to the 33 percent target.

I believe — and I believe most British Columbians understand —

that we can take on this bill in a committee format to come up with solutions.

We can look at the gaps. We can work together to work on a bill that meets the

needs of British Columbians.

We need much broader debate on this. We need debate that effects

change. We need full confidence of the public, all stakeholders and especially

the rest of the world, who are closely watching the developments in this

province.

We have a choice. We can take a path that will move the important

issue of greenhouse gas forward with full confidence, with full input and debate

or take the path of secrecy and being unaccountable, which could create misery

and embarrassment for all legislators.

As it stands, this bill does nothing. It will supposedly enable

the regulations that will come once the western climate initiative has

determined recommendations for a cap-and-trade system. However, that will not be

for quite a while.

Some out there may not know what the western climate initiative

is. Basically, just to fill some people in, it's a collaboration which was

launched in February of 2007 by the governors of Arizona, California, New

Mexico, Oregon and Washington to help regional strategies to address climate

change. WCI, the western climate initiative, is identifying, evaluating and

implementing collective and cooperative ways to reduce greenhouse gases in the

region.

In the spring of 2007 the Governor of Utah, our Premier and the

Premier of Manitoba joined the initiative, and it was applauded. I applaud that

initiative. Montana joined in January 2008, and other U.S. and Mexican states

and Canadian provinces have joined as observers.

Through WCI, the partners set an overall regional goal in August

of 2007 for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. By this August, they will also

complete the design of a marketing-based mechanism to help achieve the reduction

goal. They developed a workplan to guide their work and are seeking public input

through the process.

If we look at the initiatives of the western climate plan, there's

lots of public involvement. On their website we

[ Page 11348 ]

see that stakeholders are involved. There is public input. There is

accountability. There is transparency. There is scrutiny in the legislatures of

the other states that are involved and sharing in this initiative.

[1050]

In a letter from the WCI chair and co-chair from Washington and

Arizona…. There's a letter dated last January to all stakeholders inviting them

to attend in person and participate during the webinar. They had 300 people and

200 people by webcast. There's a website for public review and comment. A quote

from the letter to the stakeholders: "The WCI partners will take the comments

received on the final drafts and work on a final recommendation."

They value public input,

whereas we in British Columbia, contrary

to the way it's being handled with our partners, with the western climate

initiative, deny freedom-of-information access. We have secret meetings. We have

meetings behind closed doors — no public debate, no accountability, no

transparency, no scrutiny and a lack of open, public debate on initiatives that

are very important to British Columbia and British Columbians.

I believe that this bill seems to merely serve the purpose of

misleading the public that some action has been taken to penalize the big

greenhouse gas emitters. While the government was quick to levy a tax on

ordinary British Columbians with their gas tax — and we're hearing the concern

in the north and rural areas, the unfairness of it — there has been no immediate

action to curb greenhouse gas emissions from large industrial polluters.

Even the government's climate change consultant is asking

questions about what is happening with the cap-and-trade system that will be set

up in the near future. Mark Jaccard, in response to media on the carbon tax,

says: "Still a long way from the implementation of a cap-and-trade system."

Moreover, he said, B.C. may decide to remove itself to the sidelines while U.S.

states work out their own emission caps.

If that's the plan, fine. But let's be honest. Let's put it on the

table. Let's have public debate about it. Let's refer Bill 18 to an all-party

committee to look at what we may have to do.

Mark Jaccard continues: "B.C. might decide to take an observer

position in the western climate initiative while it sees what the next U.S.

federal government will do." This was in an e-mail in The Vancouver Sun

on April 9.

We must be reminded that our large emitters represent nearly 40

percent of our total provincial greenhouse gas emissions, and it's important

that the cap-and-trade model currently being negotiated effectively deals with

these large industrial emitters.

As I start to move through my support for referral of this, again,

there are many questions that need to be answered — questions about how many

permits will be issued, what sectors will be covered by regulations, how permits

will be allocated, how big the penalties will be for a non-compliance. So I

believe that this referral motion is something that can work for us in this

Legislature to get answers and for the public to get answers and get a grasp of

what Bill 18 is actually about.

Darrell Evans from the B.C. Freedom of Information and Privacy

Association has other concerns about Bill 18. He says: "Yet another attempt by

the Liberals to place corporate information behind an iron curtain. It's vital

that our democratic values not be abandoned by the creation of a rapidly growing

quasi-governmental grey zone where the government and private sector mix."

He continues: "Transparency and accountability should prevail

wherever public work is done and taxpayer funds are spent." In The Vancouver

Sun that was said by Darrell Evans. Again, I relate it back to the

quasi-privatized model — denying FOI access — with Bill 18, the Coastal Ferry

Act. Exactly the same process is happening, and I have concerns about that.

Stephen Hume, writing in The Vancouver Sun , reiterates what

worries Loukidelis and should concern the rest of us. Stephen Hume, on April 9

in The Sun , says: "What worries Loukidelis and should concern the rest of

us are the sweeping confidentiality concessions offered private corporations

that might benefit hugely from selling carbon credits acquired by meeting

emissions targets."

[1055]

On the same day that Stephen Hume had his

article in The Sun ,

there's another concern. This is a quote from The Sun on April 9: "Hide

from public scrutiny the details of who is reaching what targets and how

emissions are monitored, and the process seems ripe for abuse by the

unscrupulous."

British Columbians do not want the process to be ripe for abuse by

the unscrupulous, and we need to refer this bill to a committee for full debate

to fill in the gaps and inform the public.

As I mentioned before, the key unanswered questions that must be

in the public realm, that must be on the table…. We need to know about the

issuance of permits. Will there be a limit on these? How are the largest

industrial sectors connected in the bill? What sectors should be covered by the

cap-and-trade program? Within each covered sector, what point of regulation is

most appropriate? Should all sectors be covered by the program on the same

launch date, or should there be some added over time? If so, we need the reasons

why.

What about the allocation and distribution of permits? Who will

set the penalties? How high will they be for non-compliance? What restrictions

will be placed on the alternative compliance units — for example, any offsets?

What sort of government oversight will there be in the cap-and-trade regime?

What types of permits are we using — auction or free allocation or a combination

of these?

There are many, many questions that need answering. There's much

debate on what works and what method we should be using. These are the questions

that referring this to an all-party committee could take into account.

This actual bill is an enabling bill, which allows to set

regulations but doesn't set it by legislation. It's not only very concerning to

many on this side of the House but very concerning to many British Columbians

who would like to know what a true cap-and-trade is. Is it merely a

cap-and-trade that everyone looks at, at first glance and says: "Hey, we need

it, so let's do it"?

[ Page 11349 ]

We need to know exactly what it does. What are the triggers? What

are the penalties? Who's making key decisions? Is the public involved? Are

decisions made behind closed doors? We need to know and hear the answers to

these and many more questions.

In conclusion, we need to break away from this veil of secrecy. I

believe British Columbians want and expect three things from this government:

scrutiny, transparency and accountability in this Legislature. I would ask all

members of the House to support this move to referral to ensure that these three

key issues are put to the test with Bill 18.

B. Ralston: I rise to speak to the amendment to Bill 18

proposed by the member for Vancouver-Hastings that Bill 18 not be read a second

time now but that the subject matter be forwarded to the Select Standing

Committee on Legislative Initiatives.

I rise to speak in support of that amendment to the bill. This

debate arises out of the budget put forward by the government wherein 40 percent

of the greenhouse gas emissions that are currently going up into the atmosphere

in British Columbia were not covered by the gas tax introduced by the Finance

Minister in the budget this spring.

At that time, in the budget document on page 13, the minister

referred somewhat obliquely to other emissions, including those resulting from

industrial processes such as the production of oil, gas, aluminum and cement,

and emissions from landfill and other sources, which will not be subject to the

tax initially — that is, the gas tax or, as the minister prefers to call it, a

carbon tax.

[1100]

Initially in the budget, the major polluters faced no consequences

whatsoever while ordinary citizens and those in rural and suburban British

Columbia in certain industries and sectors increasingly see the apparent

unfairness of the application of the tax that the Finance Minister has proposed.

The major polluters, the major emitters, were given a free pass in the budget.

This legislation is introduced to begin, at least, the appearance of imposing

some form of greenhouse gas restraint upon major emitters in the province.

Why this referral motion is particularly important is because it's

very apparent not only from the comments of Dr. Jaccard…. He is recommending to

the government that they wait at least until next year, until the new federal

government in the United States is in place, before taking any steps. To merely

attend the western climate initiative of the American states and some Canadian

provinces not as a participant but as an observer suggests that the time horizon

for the imposition of this kind of a system and the resulting tax on major

emitters is far in the future.

This bill that's before us, therefore, gives us some leisure to

consider the important step that this kind of scheme would involve and would

bring to British Columbia to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

[S. Hammell in the chair.]

Because this covers 40 percent of provincial greenhouse gas

emissions, it's important that this proposed system be the right one. If this 40

percent is not captured, it won't help reduce pollution. It would have negative

consequences for reducing pollution — for the public confidence in any scheme to

reduce greenhouse gases — and would damage British Columbia's reputation down

the road. So it's very important that this system be set up properly, that we

get it right and that there be some public input into that process.

The bill that's been introduced — as has been pointed out by the

member for Nanaimo, the member for Vancouver-Kingsway and other members on the

opposition side — is really but a shell. It's a shell that really gives the

government the opportunity in cabinet — or, as the formal term, as the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council — to really put the guts of the bill together.

The legal term for this is delegated legislation. It's legislation that is law

made not in parliament or the Legislature but by the executive under the powers

delegated to it by parliament.

Many legal observers have, over recent years, become very

concerned about that tendency to delegate to the executive, away from the

Legislature, increasing powers to make regulations, including the power to tax

and a number of other important areas of law that affect many citizens,

companies and cooperatives in the economy and in society.

In 1929 Lord Justice Hewart called this delegated legislation —

law made not in parliament but by the executive — the new despotism. It has

become increasingly a feature of many countries in the Commonwealth. One of the

basic principles is that, according to Westminster-style parliamentary theory,

taxation requires the financial resolution of the House of Commons.

So what we see here is the potential for very sweeping legislation

which will affect major industrial sectors — not only the management and

operation of those firms, but those who work in those firms; those who buy and

use the products of those firms, or the services of those firms; and those

communities that are affected by the presence of a plant in their community. So

this is very important economic legislation. It's the sort of thing….

[1105]

You can already hear in the press the various industrial sectors —

the cement industry, the oil and gas industry — raising concerns, granted, and

understandably, from their perspective. There was a story recently in the

Globe and Mail about the Chevron Refinery in Burnaby. The manager or

spokesperson there wondered what impact a cap-and-trade system might have upon

the operations of that refinery.

These are important questions, but it's clear that the government

in this bill — at least what is enunciated by this bill — does not wish to

discuss those details. Those details are the nitty-gritty of the bill, the

essential matter of the bill. They don't want to discuss those publicly. What

they want to do and what this bill would enable them to do is take the

legislation, head into the cabinet room under a veil of secrecy and begin to put

together the regulations that would make this system work or not work.

There are very basic questions that this bill should be answering.

The principles of legislative drafting

[ Page 11350 ]

suggest strongly…. I looked at A Guide to Legislation and

Legislative Process in British Columbia , prepared by the office of the

legislative counsel and a guide to preparing drafting instructions.

What they recommend is that when the government is putting

together a bill, from the perspective of the legislative drafter, they should

know in advance what the regulations are going to be in order that the bill be

properly designed if regulations are meant to be subordinate to the main

legislation. If the proposed regulations are not known, it makes for a potential

problem, in that the proposed regulations may not be consistent with the

legislation that's being put forward.

Now, either the government knows what the proposed regulations are

here and has discussed them and chooses not to reveal them, which in my view and

the view of the opposition is a real problem, because this issue is very

important and deserves a full public airing…. There's lots of help that could be

given to the government. Many people — certainly citizens, experts and affected

communities — have views on how this legislation might work and should be given

the opportunity to offer their advice.

If the government knows what those regulations are, in my view, it

has an obligation to release them. On the other hand, the government may not

know what the regulations are, have given an incentive to the legislative

drafters just to "put this legislation together as fast as you can because we

are" — speaking as the government — "under…."

Their view may be that they're under such pressure to introduce

this legislation that most of the details aren't ready, have to be left out and

an empty shell has to be put forward to the Legislature in order to simply have

something on the record that may convince the public which, if they don't

scrutinize this legislation, chooses to believe that something is being done on

cap-and-trade to regulate and reduce the greenhouse gas emissions of the major

emitters in the province.

Either the government knows the regulations and is choosing to

hide them, or they don't know and they're choosing to hide that fact. Neither

option is a particularly palatable one, in my view. The government, I think,

could seize this opportunity put forward by the member for Vancouver-Hastings

and help work its way out of the dilemma that it has put itself into by rushing

into the Legislature with this shell of a bill.

There are some important aspects to what is being proposed here,

but the veil of secrecy that surrounds this bill is not merely confined to the

legislation itself, the presence or absence of regulations. In the body of the

bill, this legislation proposes to take the secrecy even further.

[1110]

This is where the Office of the Information and Privacy

Commissioner and Mr. Loukidelis came into play. He wrote a letter directly to

the minister responsible for this piece of legislation. This is a very unusual

step. This is the Information and Privacy Commissioner, an independent officer

of the Legislature. He is completely independent, appointed by an all-party

committee. No one is entitled to, nor would attempt to, interfere with his work.

He views the legislation independently and has chosen of his own accord to come

forward and express some very, very serious concerns about this legislation.

Not only does this legislation delegate to the government in its

proposed regulations, which may be already written in draft or may not be — one

doesn't know — but in the operation of the bill, which ordinarily the public has

the right to find out…. Through the Freedom of Information and Protection of

Privacy Act, they have the right to make requests.

Even if the government chooses not to release the regulations,

even if the government chooses not to share with the public some of the

considerations that have gone into the making of a piece of legislation, or the

operation of a piece of legislation, that act gives the public the right to make

requests under the act and to have some of that information provided and made

public.

What the freedom-of-information and protection-of-privacy

commissioner, Mr. Loukidelis, is concerned about is that unlike an ordinary bill

— and the Freedom of Information Act, with all its restrictions and all the

attempts that the government has put to slow down or block the release of

information — this legislation would incorporate statutorily a number of

provisions that would prevent any release of information at all about the

operation of this act.

These are very, very sweeping proposals. Mr. Loukidelis refers to

section 36 of Bill 18. I'm going to just read briefly from his letter.

"It would deem information to have been

'supplied,' even where the information has been generated by government

officials through inspection…. It would deem information to have been supplied

'in confidence,' thus…eliminating the requirement, in the circumstances of a

given case, to prove confidentiality under

section 21(1)(b).

"Section 22(1)(

a) would protect 'information with

respect to a trade secret,' not simply a 'trade secret,' thus broadening the

scope of protection that may be available under

section 21(1) of FIPPA."

Those are very, very sweeping restrictions.

The government, even if it supplied the information itself…. That

would be barred from public review. It would employ the infelicitous and

ambiguous phrase "information with respect to a trade secret," which creates a

very broad and unclear ambit of protection from public scrutiny of anything

relating to a trade secret. All of those provisions have attracted the attention

of the commissioner, and the minister is aware of this letter because it's

addressed to him personally.

It's unusual to receive it thus far, either in his introduction of

the bill…. Given that there's very little, if any, debate from members on the

government side, there appears to be no acknowledgment of this problem that the

commissioner has pointed out, no commitment to at least even examine those

provisions, no prospective amendments — nothing. Complete silence on this issue,

which suggests that the government is hoping that the public will not be

terribly concerned about this and

[ Page 11351 ]

will be able to blow by it and introduce it as part of the legislation that's

before the House.

That ought to concern all of us. Many commentators have put it in

perhaps more simple language and more direct language, which really expresses a

measure of alarm that one rarely sees attached to legislation that comes before

this House.

[1115]

I'm looking at a piece by Paul Willcocks, who's a commentator on

B.C. politics. He says:

"A cap-and-trade system is a good way to reduce

greenhouse gas emissions, but if I were an MLA — pause here for a shared

shudder of horror — I couldn't vote for the…government's bill setting up…the

system. It's vague and so short of details that MLAs of both parties really

can't know what they're voting for."

He goes on to say:

"Even supporters of this principle should be

nervous about this legislation. MLAs are being asked to give the cabinet huge

power to impose rules that could mean ruin or riches for companies and

communities in B.C.

"The legislation doesn't say how the caps will be

allocated, either by sector or by company. Who will set the critical quotas,

and on what basis? Will they be auctioned or awarded by cabinet? The bill

doesn't even say which sectors or industries will or won't be…. It all

matters, and none of the answers can be found in the legislation.

"It's naturally making businesses nervous. What

new costs might they face? Can they even measure their emissions accurately

enough to make the system work? Some worry that costs will put them at a

disadvantage compared to out-of-province suppliers."

Should it be important, for example, that Prince George MLAs have

at least some information on the likely caps and costs for the forest industry

before they decide if they're prepared to support the bill?

So there's one commentator, admittedly — one whose views are

regularly followed by many members of the public — who's expressing real and

profound concerns about what's in this legislation and what's not in this

legislation.

The government's record on the secrecy that surrounds all of the

climate change initiatives is really quite extraordinary, when one compares it

to the western climate initiative that the MLA for North Coast referred to just

a moment ago in his speech, where the public is invited to attend the meetings,

most of the proposals are up on their website, there's an important dialogue,

and people are brought along in the democratic process, as they should be.

Granted, the proposals are evolving, but there's the opportunity

to incorporate suggestions from the public. There's an expectation that business

will be interested, but their representations and their interest is a matter of

public record so that people know what's taking place, what compromises might be

being made and what deals might be being worked out, all with a view to passing

final judgment on the ultimate result.

This process, which would take all of those important questions

and give them to a committee of cabinet, presumably, is completely consistent

with the veil of secrecy that has surrounded these initiatives right from the

start, right from the moment the Premier had his epiphany on the beach in Maui

in January 2007.

The public has been completely shut out of the process — every

initiative, plan, committee or hearing the government has had on the climate

change. All appointments to the climate action secretariat and Climate Action

Team have been done behind closed doors. Labour is completely left off the

Climate Action Team. The exclusion from the FOI application has been to the

climate action secretariat — the 177 presentations made to government, the

Climate Action Team and their work, the climate change plan, cap-and-trade

negotiations and the implementation of the carbon tax.

In April 2007 the government excluded the Cabinet's Committee for

Climate Action from the Freedom of Information Act. In May 2007 the Premier and

the government joined the North American climate registry but refused to make

the information from this registry public. The government has refused to

disclose any documents through freedom of information to the opposition on

reports and briefings related to the 33 percent target reduction.

So there's a history of moving forward in stealth and secrecy.

Just why is not clear. This is an important matter of public concern.

A cap-and-trade system is one of the potential legislative

solutions that's been examined and put in place in Europe. Initially, the

cap-and-trade system there was perhaps not as successful as it could have been,

due to the way in which permits were allocated. More permits were given than

emissions that were being put into the atmosphere, and the system collapsed. But

that was apparently a growth pain, and the system is back on a more effective

track now.

[1120]

Those are the kinds of public concerns that need to be debated and

discussed so that the public can be drawn into it, so that interested parties

can be drawn into it, so that business can be drawn into it, so that

environmental groups can be drawn into it, so that labour can be drawn into it,

so that affected communities can be drawn into this process, rather than just,

as this legislation would, take the empty shell of the bill in behind closed

doors and, under the veil of secrecy, work out what system might come forward.

There are very real questions to be asked about any cap-and-trade system.

The minister in his…. I took the opportunity to review his very

brief introduction of this bill at second reading, and his remarks are terse and

clipped, to say the least. There's very little information in his introduction

and very little to guide the debate here in the chamber.

None of the questions that have been posed here by members of the

opposition have been answered by any member on the government side, and there's

ample opportunity to stand up and debate. Government members have not availed

themselves of the opportunity to debate this bill, with very few exceptions, and

those who did didn't provide any answers to those key questions. Very important

unanswered questions that this committee….

There is time, as has been made very clear. There's no rush on the

part of the government to implement this system. They've publicly signalled that

very strongly. This system, if it is to be implemented, might not be

[ Page 11352 ]

implemented by 2009 or even 2010. So there is time to consider these basic

questions and for the government to give some sense to the public of what this

system might look like, what their panel of experts have advised them.

There are a number of experts who are retained and are being paid

to provide some answers to these questions and who, I'm sure, would be quite

willing to share what they've decided and the areas where there is some real

need for broader public debate. For example, how many permits will be issued?

It's a very basic question.

What will be the cap? How will the cap…? That's the limit on

overall emissions from this sector, the 38 so far. It looks like it might apply

to the 38 major emitters who emit more than 100,000 tonnes of greenhouse gases a

year. That's because Environment Canada requires that there be a record kept of

that. But is there a plan to lower that limit? That's a reasonable question.

That's a legitimate question. That's part of the debate. Is there any answer?

Will we hear anything from the Ministry of Environment before we're called upon

to support, or not, this legislation?

What sectors will be covered by these regulations? The WCI, the

western climate initiative, has what they call a scope subcommittee. As the name

suggests, the very work of that committee is to decide the sectors that would

fall under the program, the emission sources that would fall under the program,

the greenhouse gases that would fall under the program and the points of

regulation where the program would be enforced.

Those are all pretty basic questions, pretty legitimate questions.

If you're a business operating and you're one of those 38 businesses, major

emitters, those are questions that you'd want to know, that you'd want to have

answered. You'd want to know the answers to those questions. This legislation

doesn't provide that. The government hasn't offered any detail on that —

completely silent.

How can businesses plan effectively? How can they decide whether

they want to support the legislation? How can the communities where these plants

are make plans for their future? How can the workers and the businesses that

depend on the economic activity that's generated there know what the future

holds for them?

This is a major intervention into the economy. I support a

cap-and-trade program in principle, but in order to effectively implement one,

these kinds of questions have to be dealt with. This government is not prepared

to do that at all.

[1125]

The issue of how the permits will be allocated. There is huge

debate about the process by which permits would be allocated. Do you simply

assign them? Or what some prefer and some economists have suggested, and a view

that I myself am inclined to, is that an auction of permits should take place.

That way, it's an open market. There's a market principle involved there. In

addition, you generate money for the public treasury by that auction process.

That enables businesses, through the auction mechanism, to put a

price on carbon and send the market signal to the new market in permits that

might be created through this western climate initiative and the cap-and-trade

system. The very essence or principle of a cap-and-trade system is to bring the

market principles to bear on the price of carbon, to create a market for

permits, to incent innovation and incent businesses to reduce their emissions,

therefore creating the savings that result from that — and also to further

incent them because they'll be able to sell the permits that they have got and

receive some income from that as well.

The system is designed to do that if an auction system is put in

place, but we don't have an answer from the government on that. We don't even

have an inkling of what the government is thinking on that — complete silence

from all the leaders in this debate.

Madam Speaker, that's why the member for Vancouver-Hastings has so

wisely put forward this amendment that would send this bill out to the Select

Standing Committee on Legislative Initiatives.

We could hear before that committee. That committee could travel

the province — I've been on the Finance Committee; it sometimes does that — and

hear from the public on how to make this cap-and-trade system work in the way

that we want and how to have it be an effective solution for what is the

greatest environmental challenge of our generation and how to have this

legislation work for the interests of all British Columbians, not just for those

who have access to the confidentiality and privacy of the cabinet room where

deals might be worked out to solve individual problems for companies, rather

than all the problems of all British Columbians.

With that, I conclude my remarks on this. I urge the government to

take this opportunity to support the very wise amendment from the member for

Vancouver-Hastings.

Hon. B. Penner: Just speaking to the motion that's been put

forward by the members of the opposition, the government will not be supporting

this motion. Effectively, it's a delaying motion.

One of their members, I think, put it quite succinctly. The member

for Surrey-Newton said that the government needs to take a slower look at the

climate change initiatives of government. We're not going to be supporting this

motion. In fact, one of their other members said something quite contradictory.

The member from Vancouver-Fairview said that it's important that governments

collectively around the world take quicker action on climate change, not take a

slower look, as the member for Surrey-Newton suggested.

So I don't think that the members of this side of the House will

be supporting this motion.

[1130-1135]

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, the motion is on the amendment:

"Be it resolved that Bill 18 not be read a second time now but that the subject

matter be forwarded to the Select Standing Committee on Legislative

Initiatives."

[ Page 11353 ]

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 31

S. Simpson

Fleming

Farnworth

James

Kwan

Ralston

Cubberley

Hammell

Coons

Thorne

Simons

Puchmayr

Gentner

Routley

Fraser

Horgan

Lali

Dix

Trevena

Bains

Robertson

Karagianis

Evans

Krog

Austin

Chudnovsky

Chouhan

Wyse

Sather

Macdonald

Conroy

NAYS — 40

Falcon

Reid

Coell

Ilich

Chong

Christensen

Richmond

Bell

Krueger

van Dongen

Roddick

Hayer

Lee

Jarvis

Whittred

Horning

Cantelon

Thorpe

Hagen

Oppal

de Jong

Campbell

Taylor

Bond

Hansen

Abbott

Penner

Neufeld

Coleman

Hogg

Sultan

Bennett

Mayencourt

Polak

Hawes

Yap

Bloy

MacKay

Black

Rustad

On the main motion.

M. Karagianis: I rise to speak to the main motion here. I

have to, first of all, voice my great disappointment that the government didn't

seize upon the opportunity that was given to them here to actually support the

amendment that was just defeated. That, combined with the government's total

lack of response so far with regard to the debate on this bill and the issues

that have been raised throughout the amendment debate, give me a great deal of

concern.

In fact, this is a monumental piece of legislation that will have

long-reaching implications into the future, will have huge implications on the

economy of this province, will have huge implications on the whole issue around

climate change and our need in this province to engage and change our behaviour.

So the lack of response on the government side to all of the very legitimate

questions that are being raised here by the opposition gives me a great deal of

concern.

The issue around creating an effective carbon-trading system is

something that governments are grappling with around the world. We've seen that

the initial endeavours by the European countries have had some failures, have

had some successes. From that, there is an enormous amount of things that could

be learned. At no point are we hearing from the government that, in fact, they

have given long and hard consideration of the concerns that are being voiced

about carbon-trading systems and the success or failure.

In standing and speaking to the main motion here, again, I would

draw to the government's attention the very legitimate concerns that not only

the opposition members have for this. In fact, the environmental community

itself, the business community, certainly many of those who will be most

affected by a cap-and-trade system have themselves voiced some concerns.

[S. Hammell in the chair.]

So I think it's fair for us to expect that government would give

us some assurance that they understand the complexities of creating an effective

carbon-trading system and that they are willing to engage in a public dialogue

to disclose exactly how they are going to approach this.

Given the occurrences around the world that have failed with

regard to how the carbon-trading system was set up, I think it's imperative for

government to actually pay attention and to respond, and to respond in the

debate process here, as well, to let us know exactly what kinds of things they

are thinking. It is this complete absence of any kind of detail or information

that has given us the most concern.

[1140]

A strong system, an effective carbon-trading and cap-and-trade

system, has to be secure, with no loopholes. That is one of the biggest concerns

that's occurred here around the issues with lack of detail on this bill. We

don't know what kind of caps are going to be set. We don't know what kind of

loopholes, if any, might occur.

We don't know what kind of system the government is going to base

this on. Are they going to look to the European model? Are they going to learn

from the mistakes and errors that have occurred there and create a system built

on that, or are they looking at something new? Where, in fact, are the details,

that we can see, on what kind of cap-and-trade system the government is

expecting to implement?

The issue around including the appropriate sectors, not only in

the discussions but certainly in the caps and relative to exclusions, I think,

is a huge concern. There have certainly been plenty of examples with some of the

existing proposed legislation by the government that…. The exclusions around

some industries, I think, are inappropriate.

Certainly, if we leave out the aviation industry, if we leave out

B.C. Ferries, if we leave out the oil and gas industry, if we leave out some of

the major polluters in

[ Page 11354 ]

this process — not only in the process of compiling and setting up an

adequate and appropriate carbon-trading system — and if we exclude them from

their need to comply within this, then I think that there should be some very

grave concerns here raised by the public, raised by business and, certainly,

being voiced here by the opposition. I think government has a duty to listen to

those things and to respond to those things.

We've just very recently seen the disclosure around corporate

donations to the B.C. Liberal Party. There's no doubt in my mind that there are

some significant ties here to government's behaviour and their allegiance to

those donors. I know that The Tyee has done an analysis here and said

that those corporations that have given money to the Liberals in the past have

benefited from policy shifts in the past. We've seen considerable changes within

some of the regulations around some of those industries. The implications are

there that they certainly get value for their investment.

The mining sector's lobbying efforts after the 2001 election

resulted in amendments to the Environmental Assessment Act, removing

requirements for sustainable development. There we have right there…. If the

government is willing to compromise the Environmental Assessment Act, take out

sustainability as a key part of their expectations of that for the mining

industry…. There's a pitfall right there that, I think, is an example of the

kind of concerns that the public and the opposition have a right to voice.

We look at some of both the major donors and major polluters, and

there are certainly some ties and relationships to the B.C. Liberals and to this

government. Canada Forest Products and West Fraser Timber Co. and Weldwood of

Canada, which no longer exists, gave huge contributions. In fact, we've seen

such significant shifts in forest law that you have to actually draw a very

close line and you have to draw that connection, and you have to be very

concerned about that connection.

When we look at other corporate donors — Teck Cominco, Goldcorp,

Elk Valley Coal, EnCana, Highland Valley copper — there would be absolutely no

surprise whatsoever that these organizations will fall very much at the top of

the list of emitters and polluters that will be most directly affected by how

the cap-and-trade system and the carbon-trading system are set up.

I wouldn't be unduly suspicious to say that large donations there

and the placement and priority that these companies will have in the list of

those who will be the uppermost in consideration of the cap-and-trade and the

capping system…. We see in the list here of top polluters in this country and

this province that Alcan themselves have been ranked as one of the top air

polluters here in the province. The oil and gas sector: responsible for 1/5 of

B.C.'s total greenhouse gas emissions.

[1145]

It would be of great concern, I think, to the opposition members,

to the environmental community, to the citizens of British Columbia, if these

very top identified polluters in any way were given exclusions under the

cap-and-trade system that we're setting up here. But we have no response from

government to our concerns. We've got no details whatsoever on how the

cap-and-trade system will be set up, and so we have no choice but to continue to

be very concerned and to voice our concerns.

The issue is around permits and how they are going to be

distributed. How many are going to be distributed? Previous speakers have

outlined the experience in European countries around this that, certainly, they

were far too lavish in their original number of permits. That resulted in the

collapse of the cap-and-trade system that was initially set up there. There were

great hopes, I think, in that system and watching how that system developed.

Certainly, around the issue of how distribution will be done,

whether that is, again, going to be something that is going to be left to the

whim of the executive council of cabinet and what direct relationship that will

have on both the previous comments I made on who were donors, who are the major

polluters, who will be excluded, who will not and what those expectations will

be….

The government has given us no indication whatsoever whether they

will take the recommendations that have come from all kinds of experts in the

field — and certainly, with passion from the opposition side here — that we

expect and demand that there must be an auctioned permit system put in place.

Those permits must be auctioned so that absolute fairness takes precedence here.

Limiting offsets and setting the penalties for non-compliance. One

of the failings of some of the cap-and-trade examples coming out of Europe is

that emitters were able to buy their way out without any significant, real and

physical responsible change to environmental compliance. So where are the

details here on limits to offsets and penalties?

Frankly, none of this, in any way, would contravene this enabling

legislation — to have some of these things clearly outlined. How is the system

going to be built? How are they going to set caps? Who's going to be in, and

who's going to be out? Is it going to be absolutely unilateral and fair? Are we

going to identify the top emitters and polluters and make sure that they're not

excluded? Are we going to auction permits? How many will be distributed? What

kind of limits to the offsets and what kind of penalties for non-compliance will

be levied?

Those are all very real questions that need to be answered. I

don't think that they are, in any way, questions that are out of keeping with

the kind of details that are expected on any legislative actions within this

chamber.

I'm very disturbed, and I spoke to this during the debate on the

amendment, that the western climate initiative and our government's proposal to

take a really passive role in discussions there…. I think that those are very

key initiatives that will be set. Time frames and caps will be determined by

consensus by the members of the western climate initiative. Often consensus

leads to the lowest possible thresholds set so that there's no discomfort level

for all parties. For us to simply sit and take a passive role while declaring

that, somehow,

[ Page 11355 ]

we're taking a leadership role here, federally, provincially and

internationally, is a complete sham.

If we want to be real leaders, we will not take a passive role in

that discussion. We will not let the consensus be determined by a whole number

of other players and then take what's left on the table and say: "Well, we've

got the lowest common denominator. Meanwhile, we've had a lot of pressure from

our own donors, funders and friends, and therefore, we're going to come in with

a watered-down carbon-trading system, much of which will be developed in private

and in secret." The public will only get the vaguest kind of idea of whether or

not the large emitters and polluters are complying. Forty percent of the

pollution problems in this province come from these specific sort of corporate

entities.

[1150]

So Madam Speaker, this issue around the secrecy…. We know that the

freedom-of-information and privacy commissioner has flagged very, very

specifically the issues around secrecy here on this act. Frankly, setting the

caps and disclosing that publicly and being very transparent to the public, I

think, is an imperative part of this bill.

If the government wants support for this, if they want compliance

with this, we've got to see all of that — the setting of the caps, the

determining of who is or is not in and out and what the penalties and

non-compliance provisions are going to be. All of that is of keen interest to

the public, and we would expect that the government should be forthcoming with

that.

Tracking and reporting out on the behaviours and compliance or

non-compliance of major polluters needs to be another part of this. So far, the

government has been silent on what kind of reporting program we will see here.

Anytime any of these actions take place in private — in secret, behind closed

doors — then I think we have grave concern, and we have a right to voice that.

We have a right and an expectation that government will answer us on this.

In the case of this kind of enabling legislation, where government

says, "Trust us. We'll do the right thing. We'll do it behind closed doors, but

you need not worry," frankly, I and many of my constituents don't necessarily

have a lot of confidence in the government's ability to follow through on any of

their promises.

We have seen, from 2001 until today — seven years of a B.C.

Liberal government — broken promise after broken promise, some of them with

devastating consequences at the end of the day. So for the government to rely on

the fact that this enabling legislation, which is a fundamental key to a

paradigm shift here in our behaviour in the province of British Columbia…. It's

a part of a key initiative that we, frankly, support.

The climate change initiatives, cap-and-trade — a real effective

system — and some of the other components here that allow us to move forward

into a new future that is very conscious and responsible to climate change…. We

support that. But for the government to simply say: "Well, trust us. We'll do a

good job, and you need not worry yourself about that. We don't have to come

clean with the public. We don't have to be transparent with the public on any of

the components of this carbon-trading system…."

This is a government that has had to be forced each and every step

of the way to do the right thing. We have seen so many broken promises from this

government, where it is only upon public pressure from the general public; from

the opposition; from the courts, in the case of Bill 29; public outcry over the

child death reviews; the ongoing pressure that seniors are feeling as the

government has still not delivered on their promises around long-term care

beds…. It's only after enormous pressure from the opposition and the public that

we see the government forced, in some cases, to do the right thing.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Let's be very clear. In almost every one of those cases, the

government takes the path of doing the least possible. I'm frankly not fond of

the saying "It's the least we could do." I think we should never strive to do

the least we can do. In the cases where government has had to be forced back to

the table to reassess things, like the institution of a new children's

representative, like having to revisit Bill 29 only at the pressure of the

Supreme Court, like the promise not to sell B.C. Rail — and now it's embedded in

a huge and very costly, scandalous lawsuit…. All of these things should say to

us that you can't just simply say, "We trust government. They'll do the right

thing," and walk away from this.

I think it is fair and right that we demand some of these answers

with regard to this kind of legislation, that we do not blindly trust that

something as key as the climate change initiative and a bill that is going to

have the biggest impact on the economy, on corporate behaviour, on corporate

responsibility — that is, in fact, going to determine a key part of the business

community's role in climate change, hand in hand with whatever is going to be

imposed on consumers….

I think it's imperative that we get these answers, and it's not in

any way unjust for us to demand those before we determine if it's good or bad

legislation. How can you know that when you don't have any of the details? Until

I hear from the government some reassurance here and some response, then we're

left thinking this is all a huge mystery, and we can only surmise that we may or

may not be doing the right thing.

[1155]

M. Karagianis moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Committee of Supply (Section A), having reported progress, was

granted leave to sit again.

Hon. R. Thorpe moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 this

afternoon.

The House adjourned at 11:56 a.m.

[ Page 11356 ]

PROCEEDINGS IN THE

DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF EDUCATION

AND MINISTER RESPONSIBLE FOR

EARLY LEARNING AND LITERACY

The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); H. Bloy in the

chair.

The committee met at 10:08 a.m.

On Vote 25: ministry operations, $5,675,357,000 .

The Chair: Would you like to make an opening statement?

Hon. S. Bond: Yes, please, very briefly.

I want to begin by doing probably the most important thing we do:

recognize the incredible staff that we have working with us. I am pleased to

have a number of staff with us today. I'll introduce the ones that are going to

start, and then we'll have various others working their way through this process

over the next couple of days.

First of all, to my right is my deputy minister, James Gorman. To

my left is Rick Davis, who is one of our superintendents of achievement, and

just behind me is Doug Stewart, who is our assistant deputy minister in our

resource management division.

There are a number of other staff joining us in the room today. I

want to just pay a compliment to all of them. It's a pleasure to work with them

on a daily basis. Also, they are terrific at what they do. Delighted to have

them here. I know they'll be helpful in providing information to the members

opposite as they ask their questions.

I want to just very briefly remind people today that in the recent

Speech from the Throne, in fact, government laid out a clear vision not just for

education in the province. But for the province of British Columbia, education

continues to be one of the top priorities of this government. I think,

certainly, that both sides of the House would agree that that is an important

priority for whoever makes up government.

Today we want to talk about some of the initiatives and

investments, and I'm sure there will be specific questions related to some of

them. We've been clear. We recognize that British Columbia has an excellent

education system, and our job is to ensure that it continues to improve and that

we allow all of the children in British Columbia to have a top-notch educational

opportunity.

[1010]

The facts are very straightforward. This budget creates an

increase in education funding of 3.3 percent in 2008-2009. In fact, that's an

increase of $181 million. This year's budget also includes further increases of

$103 million in 2009-2010 and $44 million in 2010-2011. When you look at that

cumulatively over the last number of years, in fact we see an increase in our

budget from $5.494 billion in 2007-2008 to $5.822 billion by 2010-2011. That is

a $1.2 billion additional increase in education funding since 2000-2001.

In 2008-2009 our per-pupil funding will actually increase in

British Columbia to $8,037 a year, which is an increase of more than 29 percent

since 2001. When you look at the statistics and how we put that in context,

Budget 2008 also represents another year of record funding in the province.

At the same time, we continue to lose students in British

Columbia. We have actually seen a decline of more than 50,000 students since

2001. This is the tenth consecutive year of declines in the province. That trend

continues — of increased funding and decreased enrollment.

We know that we want to be very strategic about our investments,

and we will continue to focus on student achievement with boards of education

across the province.

One of the things very exciting to us, certainly in our work, is

the commitment to expand StrongStart centres in British Columbia, a program

which looks at early learning and early literacy resources both for children and

their families.

One of the unique factors in those programs is that they are

placed in schools which have excess space. One can imagine that if you have

50,000 fewer children, you're likely to have some excess space. So I was

delighted that in the Finance Minister's budget we saw a $38 million investment

in StrongStart centres in British Columbia, and we are extremely pleased. We

think that will make a difference also in our completion rates — when you look

at investing in those early years.

We intend to continue to invest in aboriginal student achievement.

Adult learners are also an important component, and we also want to work with

boards of education to look at green school buildings, buses, programs to help

our students understand the environment and the sustainability issues that

they're so keenly interested in.

With that, I think we've been clear in our throne speech. We have

reflected the principles that we presented in the throne, backing that up by the

financial commitments in Budget 2008. I know that I look forward to continuing

to work with boards of education and educators across the province — all of our

partners — to ensure that British Columbia continues to have an excellent

education system.

With that, we'd be delighted to begin to respond to the questions

that the members opposite might have.

D. Cubberley: I'd like to add my voice of welcome to all

who are participating in today's events and to the ministers. I'd also like to

join the minister in thanking staff for their contribution to my performance in

the House, and they bear no blame for any lack of performance on my

part in the

House. I'm capably seconded by Carson Fennell and Iain Reeve, and I would thank

them for their contribution to the questions that I'll be asking.

I would just make some preliminary remarks before jumping into

questions, to respond a little bit and indicate the obvious agreement that we

would have with education being a top priority.

[ Page 11357 ]

We know that education is the single best way to redistribute

opportunity to individuals, to ensure that they can meet their maximum

potential.

We also know that the achievement of education is the single most

important determinate of health of any — irrespective of background and

predispositions that might suggest that someone would be less advantaged in

health terms. If they achieve an educational outcome, if they complete high

school, statistically they are much more likely to enjoy a productive lifetime,

to secure more wealth for themselves and their family, to live in more stable

family arrangements, to produce children that are healthier and happier and live

longer themselves, and to live free of disease for longer than individuals who

do not complete high school.

That should, I think, stay in front of us at all times when we're

talking about the importance of trying to improve on the performance of our

school system.

[1015]

I think part of the focus on this side will be to try to engage

discussion about how we can do more and better for those who start behind and

who struggle in school, while ensuring that we improve overall performance for

those who are more developmentally ready and can perform at grade level from the

outset. I want to try to put a focus on where and how we can improve. I look

forward to having some good, engaged discussion about that.

I would have to say, in a broad sense, that while the minister

paints a generally rosy picture about the school system we have and while it's a

very fine system, I think that the picture is a little more complex on the

ground. I know that in the period of time that I've been critic, I've

experienced trustees, teachers and communities wrestling with the fallout of

funding instability that has come from repeated changes after budgets have been

set. I know that this doesn't accord with the official narrative from the

government on this, but they certainly experienced declining real funding

relative to mandated program.

They wrestle with the fact that, in a time of declining enrolment,

they simply cannot wind the fixed costs of delivering education down in

proportion to the loss of students — a loss which, I would have to hasten to

add, is complicated because of the outflow of small numbers of students into the

private school system. That's something that we will need to look at a little

more closely, because it certainly worsens the situation of school districts.

The Chair: Member. I have to remind all members that when

they have the floor, there is no use of electronic equipment.

D. Cubberley: Oh, I'm sorry. I thought for opening notes

that I could. Okay.

The Chair: No, it's still only paper. We're working on it.

D. Cubberley: I'm sure everyone will put their BlackBerrys

away. Anyway, I understand, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Member, it's only when you're standing. You can

use it for research in between questions.

D. Cubberley: Obviously, rural school districts continue to

struggle to deliver equivalent educational opportunity to their more dispersed

populations, and that is exaggerated as we continue to see outflows of

population toward urban areas. We want to be certain that those districts are

being given the kinds of resources that they need to address their particular

problems, their special problems, some of which include a much higher incidence

of various kinds of special needs kids and complicates very much what they have

to deal with.

programs. We continue to see evidence that the outcomes, which were very, very

good in the 1990s and in the early part of the new century, are now beginning to

be something that we can't count on as much. There are things that work, such as

the change in the composition of the immigrants to the province, that are

clearly having some impact on the teaching programs in the schools and their

success rate. That is something that we need to look at.

The government has set and has taken some steps in the direction,

in a framework sense, of setting priorities to improve literacy. As regards

schools, in particular, one of the populations that is most important is to try

to address those kids who are not developmentally ready, who struggle at school

and who frequently go on to be non-complete. There is, however, a bit of a gap

between the stated intention to address those kids and the programs that are

actually being put in the field. We will want to look at that.

The closure of schools is an issue that communities across British

Columbia wrestle with, that is extremely painful and that can rip the heart

right out of them. I have many, many contacts with parents in school districts

across B.C. who are wrestling with this and who are very, very angry at the loss

of what they view as public assets. Many of them — or a number of them; I

shouldn't say "many," because it isn't a one-for-one relationship — find that

the first thing they discover is that the school is being closed.

The second thing they discover is that the land is going to be

sold. The sale of school lands is an issue that is very divisive in communities,

and it's one that we will want to try to air during the course of the discussion

as well.

The last area that I might just highlight, which I think would

benefit from lots of discussion on our part, is that of special needs kids,

which are a very, very high priority and a substantial portion of the enrolment

in public schools.

[1020]

There's very clear evidence that the supports in place in the

classroom are, in the minds of many people, parents and teachers in particular,

inadequate to the challenges being faced.

We have the benefit — and I know that the minister has had a

chance to review this — of a report done in Langley school district that I think

can be the basis for a

[ Page 11358 ]

useful discussion of both the problems and perhaps some of the directions for

change that could help to alleviate that situation.

Having said all of that, I would like to pass into questions. To

begin with, I thought we might just look at some general issues of funding and

start there, and then go into some other topics.

I was interested in the $181 million figure that the minister

presented. I wonder if she could just break that down for me and tell me what

the purposes of that are, and we'll go from there.

Hon. S. Bond: In fact, over $161 million of the $181

million is going to educational programming. That includes both public and

independent schools. And $20.9 million goes to debt and amortization.

D. Cubberley: Perhaps we could unpack the $161 million.

What portion of that is going to private schools, and what is that for? What

portion to public, and what specific activities would that be funding? How much

of that would be committed to negotiated salary increases rather than for new

programs?

Hon. S. Bond: The amount of the $161 million that goes to

independent schools is $20.4 million, and the rest of the dollars, as the member

opposite would know, are provided to boards of education in block funding. It's

not assigned to a particular program or a particular area. It is, in fact, block

funding. Boards of education receive those dollars and make the decisions about

how those funds are used.

D. Cubberley: Were all of the negotiated settlements fully

covered in block funding prior to this increment, or is a portion of this

increment intended to cover off money still owing for negotiated salaries?

Hon. S. Bond: This funding provides for the negotiated

settlements that were provided and reached with teachers across the province.

Boards of education determine how to extend those funds, including how much

staff they actually hire. Those funds cover those costs.

D. Cubberley: Could the minister explain to me just a

little bit on the $20 million in debt retirement money? What is that for? What

level of debt is that?

[1025]

Hon. S. Bond: In fact, that money is critical to our

capital program. It covers the prepaid capital advances, and that includes the

debt service and amortization. So that would cover things like seismic and

buildings. It is the prepaid capital advance part of that $181 million.

D. Cubberley: I wanted to ask next about the level of

capital funding allocated for this year — whether it's an increase over last

year and by how much. And maybe, just because I'm curious about this, the

minister could tell me why the prepaid portion of capital expenditures is paid

out of the operating moneys, as opposed to having a stand-alone. Why wouldn't

that be included in block capital funding — the capital allocation for the year?

Hon. S. Bond: The cash flow for capital this year will be

$305 million. The $20 million that we referred to earlier is actually the

operating cost to service the debt. So that is, in fact, an operating cost. The

$305 million is the cash flow on the capital side of the envelope.

D. Cubberley: I had asked whether that was an increase over

last year, which I believe it is. So perhaps the minister can comment on that.

At the same time, let me ask: is there a portion of that which is

allocated for the seismic upgrade program, or is there new money for seismic

upgrading being included in that? Perhaps that's the best way to ask that

question.

Hon. S. Bond: Yes, seismic is included in that. Last year's

cash flow on the capital side would have been $256 million, and this year it's

$305 million.

D. Cubberley: I just wanted to ask the minister how they go

about formulating the capital budget for the year. Is it based on a preapproval

of projects? Is it a

schedule of projects that the minister intends to see

completed in the year? And does it include a mandated contribution from school

districts for each of the individual projects?

[1030]

Hon. S. Bond: Well, we have an extensive capital planning

process in the ministry, and districts across the province rank their

priorities. It is a multi-year process. So at any given time in a capital

planning process, we have buildings that are entering the planning phase, doing

feasibility studies. We have projects that are actually under construction, and

we have projects that will be completed. It is a multi-year plan — in fact,

extensive investment in capital over the last couple of years — and no, it is

not mandated that boards bring resources to the table.

D. Cubberley: Does it represent an acceleration of the

seismic-upgrade process — the new money? Can you give me an idea of how many

seismic upgrades you plan to complete in the next year?

Hon. S. Bond: This is not an acceleration. It is basically

an ongoing 15-year project that is incredibly aggressive and intensive. I will

give the member opposite the current project status. The commitment was to make

sure that the high-priority schools, 95 of them, were in process during the

three-year period when the commitment was made.

The project status is that 13 are completed; 14 are currently

under construction; 36 will commence in 2008; 16 will begin in 2009, but the

preliminary work for that begins now with project agreements, etc.; and 19 are

pending school district review for priority to proceed.

[ Page 11359 ]

We still have challenges as we work with boards of education. In

fact, we've had boards come to us and say: "This project — we don't want it to

go ahead. We have others that we want to move through." So this is a

collaborative approach with boards of education.

We will see a significant number commence this year, but there are

also 14 currently under construction.

D. Cubberley: I thank the minister for the information.

The minister said that the three-year commitment was to have the

95 in process. I'm perhaps misrecalling it, but it seems to me that in the news

release I read, it was to complete the 95 projects in the three years. I'll have

a look at my files on the break and see. I believe that it was the 95 and that

there were some additional ones to be added. There was a further process to look

at adding additional schools.

I think that the completion was a promise going into the 2005

election campaign, as I recall. I understand that it's turned out to be more

complicated than perhaps the enthusiasm of that moment suggested it might be. It

looks as though some of this will not get done in the three-year window. But I

do thank the minister for the information.

The minister said a few moments ago that the ministry doesn't

require school districts to bring any resources to the table in order to get a

capital approval. What I hear from school districts is that their ranking,

relative to the ministry's ranking, of priority for a capital project is one

thing if they are not bringing resources to the table and that it changes

dramatically if they do bring resources to the table. They can shave many years

of waiting off getting a new facility if they bring money to the table.

[1035]

I don't hear that from just one place. I hear from many places

that that is the discussion with the ministry. I would just be interested in the

minister's comment on that.

Hon. S. Bond: Well, first of all, I want to clarify a

couple of points.

It is not required that boards of education bring dollars to the

table. We have an aggressive capital process that continues as we speak. So we

will have seen literally billions of dollars of investment in building schools.

In fact, despite declining enrolment…. The other side of the argument that

actually doesn't get presented is that we have built new schools, we continue to

renovate schools, and that continues to take place.

Of course we're going to take opportunities to work with schools,

school districts across the province and boards of education to reinvest what is

public investment in assets. So we require that boards now, as a government,

declare what they consider to be surplus in their districts.

Let's be clear about that. They make choices about what they

declare to be surplus before any disposal is considered. The new process that's

in place actually requires that government has the first option to look at that

public asset to see if there is another public use that might be appropriate for

that building. The second step in the process is that communities, municipal

levels of government and others, have the chance to look at the asset before

it's disposed of, and in the event that it is disposed of, it has to be

reinvested in educational infrastructure.

I think taxpayers would find that a fairly reasonable process.

D. Cubberley: I heard the minister say that the requirement

is that boards declare what they consider to be surplus, and then prior to

disposal — and I understood this part — the province, another ministry, has a

look at whether it be an appropriate place for a government building to go or

some other government use. Then, after that, the minister suggested that

communities can look at it before it ever being offered up for sale.

The interesting thing there is…. In my experience — and I went

through this as a local councillor a number of times and have gone through it as

an MLA — communities certainly could have a look at it, but they were told that

they could only have a look at it if they were willing to pay highest and

best-use cost or willing to pay those prices for the land.

Perhaps the minister could comment on that, because it was not

available, as I understand it, on a less-than-development-value basis to

communities. At least I'm certainly not aware of that occurring, so I'd be

interested in that.

Hon. S. Bond: Well, the member opposite is correct. There

certainly is a process, and he articulated that correctly. We do now in

government actually have a look at assets that are currently owned.

We need to be clear here. The assets are owned by the boards of

education and are investments that public taxpayers have made. So we do expect

there to be a thoughtful process. How we look at that…. Government gets the

first opportunity to see if there's some type of match.

A couple of key points that I also made earlier. The fact of the

matter is we expect boards to look at long-term planning, and we don't assume

they will dispose of either property or buildings if, in their long-term plan,

there is an anticipation that that building will be required. That would not

make sense either from a taxpayer or a board of education's perspective, so of

course we expect them to do that.

[1040]

In terms of what they can do — communities…. Yes, there is an

expectation that it be at fair market value, but I need to point out to the

member opposite that across this province today there are amazing partnerships

that are taking place with excess space. It doesn't simply require that boards

immediately assume they need to sell a property or a building. In fact, in many

cases that's not happening. I can name probably three examples of it in my own

school district alone, where a hub centre has recently been created in

partnerships with the school district. The city of Prince George, the Northern

Health Authority and the Family Y have taken advantage of excess space and

turned it

[ Page 11360 ]

into something incredible. So there are a number of options for boards to

consider.

D. Cubberley: Just to explore a little bit the concept of

offering it to communities at fair market value. This is kind of a curious term

to me, especially the fair and market side of it. These lands are zoned in

official community plans as school zones. In all the planning I have done, there

has been an aura of permanence around the designation of those lands. Both the

buildings and the sites are integral in the planning that is done around

community development.

They provide all kinds of things — for example, recreational

opportunity both for students and for the community and for teams to use — at

all hours of the day. They are typically in official community plans not on a

development path. They are not looked at one day down the road as being

disposable assets. Therefore, it seems rather curious to load a term like "fair

market value" into them, because what it sounds as though we're doing is saying:

"You can have them on the grounds that you're willing to pay what they would

cost after you've rezoned them for use that currently isn't allowed on those

lands."

I would just like the minister to comment on that, because it

pumps up the cost to a community to a point where it is prohibitive if we're

talking about urban situations. It's absolutely prohibitive to buy these lands

at the cost of RS-6 zoning or something even more intense than that. So I'm just

interested: fair market value.

Hon. S. Bond: I'm going to profess right upfront that I'm

not a zoning expert, but I do know this. What I can reiterate are the basic

principles that we expect boards of education to look at.

I think that, for one thing, we want to be clear about this

message. We're not expecting or asking or, most importantly, requiring boards of

education to dispose of excess property or buildings. We're asking them to plan

thoughtfully and carefully for their future. We're asking them to recognize that

you have 50,000 fewer children in British Columbia's school system today, and

that will continue to decline.

We are seeing extraordinary partnerships created around that

excess space. In fact, the government itself has been clearly designing programs

to look at how we take advantage of some of that excess space to the benefit of

families in British Columbia.

So the most important message that I can give to the member

opposite is the fact that we're not requiring boards of education to dispose of

things or insisting how that would be done. It is certainly not a requirement

when looking at replacement for capital infrastructure.

D. Cubberley: Well, it may not be a requirement, but

certainly, in my conversations with school trustees, many feel that they can

move their projects up the order very quickly if they bring money to the table.

Given the straitened circumstances of most boards — relative funding, relative

to scale of program being undertaken — really the only source of saved money

would come from land sales.

So on the ground there's a very clear message. There are

incentives in the form of quick approvals, if you will, for capital projects if

you bring resources to the table. That can be as much as: "On our planning

horizon, yes, this school would need to be replaced, but we would probably not

normally approve this for another seven to eight years. However, if you can find

$8 million and bring it to the table, we'll approve it for next year."

Now, that's an experience that I have had shared with me. So

that's happening. Whether it's ministry policy or not, that is happening. But I

want to explore it more from not why boards are doing it or why they might do it

but how this impacts a community that has had a relationship with a particular

school as a place and the land surrounding it as public spaces, in the way it's

unfolding currently.

[1045]

There are some real problems with it, because it's a kind of

potentially toxic process at the community level, especially if it follows upon

the heels of a fight over the closure of the school. The double whammy is when

it's sold off and the way in which it's being managed.

You know, I'm not trying to develop it as a black-and-white issue,

but I think we have to be realistic. School districts have not been in the

business of land use. They have not been in the business of zoning land, and

they're not in the business — apart from planning schools within the framework

of the school site — of planning communities and where development should occur.

But when they go into the marketplace with lands that they

consider developable, that are surplus to requirements, there's a whole array of

impacts as a result of that process. It causes concern all the way down the

chain of decision-making — from the council that will ultimately deal with the

situation that lands on their doorstep, to the community which is going to have

to live with the impacts of the decision.

There are some things about the way the process is working right

now that are highly uncomfortable and, as I say, at the community level can be

toxic. I see this in my community, I see it around the region, and I see it in

other parts of British Columbia, in the urban areas. You know, part of the

pro