2007 Legislative Session: Third 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)

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 22, 2007

Morning Sitting

Volume 25, Number 2

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Page

Introductions by Members

Introduction and First Reading of

Bills

First Nations Education Act (Bill 46)

Hon. S. Bond

Second Reading of Bills

Greenhouse Gas Reduction Targets Act

(Bill 44) (continued)

C. Puchmayr

C. James

D. Cubberley

J. Rustad

C. Trevena

M. Karagianis

G. Gentner

Hon. B. Penner

[ Page 9395 ]

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 22, 2007

The House met at 10:03 a.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Prayers.

Introductions by Members

Hon. S. Bond: I am delighted to have a number of guests in

the gallery today. We are joined by several representatives from the First

Nations Education Steering Committee. I'd love it if you'd help me welcome Chief

Negotiator Nathan Matthew; FNESC President Tyrone McNeil; interim Executive

Director Marie Matthew; legal counsel Nancy Morgan; Executive Services Manager

Jan Haugen; and Kathi Dickie, representative for the Chalo School of Fort Nelson

and the Fort Nelson First Nation.

We are also joined by the B.C. Assembly of First Nations Regional

Chief Shawn Atleo; Grand Chief Edward John and Chief Judith Sayers of the First

Nations Summit; Penny Tees, the president of the B.C. School Trustees

Association; Trish Rosborough, our Ministry of Education's director of

aboriginal education enhancements; and also Anne Bowers, who is the manager of

our aboriginal education enhancements department.

They are all here, Mr. Speaker, on this historic day for first

nations education in British Columbia. I know all of the members would want to

make them welcome to the precinct.

Hon. W. Oppal: I would like to introduce five members of

our staff from the Ministry of Attorney General, legislative counsel branch, who

are sitting in the gallery this morning to observe the proceedings. They are

Carol Dohan, Gayle Moore, Lisa Lange, Erin Arkesteyn-Vogler and Catherine

Alexander.

[1005]

These people do a fantastic job. On occasion they've even made me

look good. That's how good they are. I know how difficult that is. So let's make

them feel welcome.

Hon. B. Penner: This morning I had a chance to have a

meeting with the hon. Minister Salvatori, the Minister of Research and

Innovation for the province of Trento in Italy. He's accompanied by a delegation

of officials who are helping him. They're in the gallery today. We talked about

our mutual concern around climate change and policies to mitigate the impacts of

climate change to our natural forests, our water systems and the environment

around us. I ask that the House please make them welcome.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

FIRST NATIONS EDUCATION ACT

Hon. S. Bond presented a message from His Honour the

Administrator: a bill intituled First Nations Education Act.

Hon. S. Bond: I move that the bill be introduced and read a

first time now, Mr. Speaker.

Motion approved.

Hon. S. Bond: I am pleased to introduce Bill 46, the First

Nations Education Act. This is a historic moment for first nations across

British Columbia and an important milestone in our province's education system.

Today British Columbia is recognizing the rights of first nations to govern the

education of their children on first nations land.

We are completing years of work between this government, our

partners at the First Nations Education Steering Committee and the government of

Canada. The act fulfils this government's commitments set out in the July 2006

first nations education jurisdiction agreement with the First Nations Education

Steering Committee and Canada and the B.C. first nations education agreement

with the First Nations Education Steering Committee. It is our government's

response to Canada's Bill C-34, and it is part of this government's commitment

to meet the social, cultural and educational needs of aboriginal students.

Today's legislation is more than just recognition. It is the basis

for a stronger, more effective cooperation with first nations as we work to give

the children who learn on first nations land the best education we can.

This legislation also enables on-reserve first nations schools to

have their own system of kindergarten-to-grade-12 education based on provincial

curriculum learning outcomes for core courses leading to graduation. It enables

participating first nations who have granted their own graduation certificates

to apply to have students receive the provincial graduation certificate called

the Dogwood certificate.

It also establishes the first nations education authority as a

regulatory body for teacher certification, school certification and curriculum

and exam standards. It guarantees that the Ministry of Education will consult

with the first nations education authority as part of a general consultation on

education policy, legislation and standards changes that affect first nations

education.

We believe that education plays a crucial role in developing the

tools to succeed in life — tools that every child deserves, no matter where they

live. Together we will become the best-educated, most literate jurisdiction in

North America.

Hon. Speaker, I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the

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

Bill 46, First Nations Education Act, 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.

[ Page 9396 ]

Orders of the Day

Hon. B. Penner: I call continued debate on Bill 44.

Second Reading of Bills

GREENHOUSE GAS REDUCTION

TARGETS ACT

(continued)

C. Puchmayr: As I ran out of time yesterday because of the

bewitching hour, I will continue on where I left off.

[1010]

Yesterday I finished my comments with concerns about this bill and

concerns about how Bill 44 — this six pages that are going to change the

environment in British Columbia and the world — contradicts not only many of the

bills and the legislation that this government has introduced but also

agreements that this government has introduced. One of the agreements is the

TILMA agreement — the trade, investment and labour mobility agreement.

[H. Bloy in the chair.]

The legal counsel for environmental groups, as well as legal

counsel for the Union of B.C. Municipalities, have made comments with respect to

the concerns on the ambiguities and the legal concerns and legal challenges that

could be exposed in the TILMA legislation. I shouldn't even call it legislation,

because it really isn't coming to the House, as opposed to possibly an enabling

act that may be introduced at some time.

The real concern — and it has been highlighted by legal counsel in

the environmental field — is that some of the implications of the trade,

investment and labour mobility agreement could circumvent, affect and expose

legal challenges to environmental initiatives that this province will be

bringing forward or should be bringing forward.

With those concerns being very real and those concerns meaning

litigation and bringing the matter before the courts for a period of time that

could be many, many years, especially when you have challenges that may go as

far as the Supreme Court of Canada…. The delays in implementing environmental

legislation by virtue of agreements that this government is engaging in without

debate could very well have very detrimental effects on this very thin bill here

of six pages.

I just want to back up a little bit about this blue-ribbon panel.

I think the Environment Minister said that they were volunteers, and the Premier

said they were handpicked. I know of people that volunteered to be on that

panel. Organized labour volunteered to be on the panel, and they were not given

a position on that panel. Yet more than half of this province is working people.

Not all are in unions, but they're working people, and they do not have a direct

voice in this legislation.

My experience on the worksite has been that most of the

efficiencies that have come to benefit some of the larger corporations and

industries in British Columbia have come from the working people, from the shop

floor. To have that component not represented in this bill, on this blue-ribbon

panel is to me unacceptable.

Who's on the panel? One of the members on the panel is the CEO of

British Petroleum of Calgary. What interest does the CEO of British Petroleum in

Calgary have in reducing the use of fossil fuel, when fossil fuel is the very

essence or the very component that makes profits for British Petroleum?

We met the day before yesterday with interests in offshore oil and

gas. There currently is a federal moratorium on offshore oil and gas, and there

are incredible pressures for us in this province to develop offshore oil and

gas. Offshore gas and oil will certainly create and add to the concerns of

greenhouse gas.

There are some pressures and some inconsistencies, and there are

certainly people that are supporters of the Liberal government today that would

like to see those moratoriums lifted. There are supporters of the Conservative

government in Canada that would like to see the national moratoriums lifted.

Again, that is certainly in conflict with the six pages of this

bill that's supposed to save the planet. I should submit that this bill is

probably thinner than the ozone layer over the Arctic right now. It's merely a

skeleton.

My comments yesterday were that I'm supporting this because we

propose that we can make this bill better. When enabling legislation, which is

being recommended or floated to us right now, comes forward in the spring, we

will work to make sure that the legislation that comes forward will actually

have some meaning and will have an effect on this bill that will be positive and

that will actually get the results that are necessary to save this planet for

our children and our grandchildren.

[1015]

Bill 43, which was the last bill, is 70 pages of legislation that

takes away the democratic right of a municipality, the democratic rights in the

southern B.C. region to manage transportation. It takes away any environmental

lens. It takes away the lens of the transit user. It takes away the lens of

cyclists. It gives all of that power, including taxing powers, over to corporate

interests that may not necessarily have the same environmental lens that we

should have now as a province in British Columbia.

You have, you know, 70 pages taking away democratic rights and

taking away public accountability on something that is probably more polluting

than anything — that's single-occupancy vehicles — and replacing it with six

pages of a skeleton of a bill that sounds good, but really, there isn't anything

there. This side will certainly work to promote, to ensure that this bill is

going to be effective and that we put some meat on the bones so that we actually

have a piece of legislation that we can be satisfied will go forward in doing

exactly what we need to do.

I know that the only targets in here that I actually see…. I mean,

there are targets for 2020 and 2050, and I submit to this House that 2020 and

2050 are too late. In parts of the world ten years ago was too late.

The effects of global warming are out of control now, and even the

scientists that at one time tried to debunk global warming as just being a

natural cycle are now

[ Page 9397 ]

coming on board and saying: "We were wrong. Global warming is serious. It is

having incredible impacts on this planet, impacts that may already today be

irreversible." And we're talking about targets for 2020 and 2050. Certainly, we

on this side will work towards getting those targets to become realistic

targets.

The reduction, or making government energy-neutral…. You may have

a direct effect — making them energy-neutral and not adding more greenhouse

gases to the government component — but the legislation that this government has

already introduced will have effects that will exceed the savings that are

targeted in this bill. They will absolutely exceed those savings.

You will have more greenhouse gas by virtue of different

legislation, and yet you will make it sound like you are making the government

responsible and making it energy-neutral or carbon-neutral. We certainly need to

address the direction we go with this, and we need to do so in a way that meets

some real targets and that has some real effects.

The other legislation that was introduced that contradicts this

bill — and it sounds great — is the independent power production. Sounds great.

You know, who can't support independent green power? We need green power, but

the problem with green power, with the way the bill is introduced…. First of

all, it has bypassed the communities.

Green power companies are going in and taking the easiest run of

the rivers. They're taking some of the most pristine lands in this province

without any community input. They're given a guaranteed purchase price of that

power that exceeds what's being paid on the open market right now.

Those contracts are only contracts for 30 to 40 years. So 30 and

40 years from now, when my granddaughter is 40 or 50, suddenly our children and

our grandchildren are going to realize that this power can now be sold on the

open market. They're no longer obligated to sell it in British Columbia.

Suddenly there could be an incredible need to develop short-term power projects

that could very well be environmentally unsound.

[1020]

In the guise of this great, green power phenomenon, all we're

doing is delaying a hit. In 30 and 40 years, when these contracts expire and

those independent power producers have made a lot of money off this province,

they can sell their power anywhere without us having an ability, other than the

open market. Now we pay them more than the open market for 30 years, and then

we're at their mercy at the end of 30 years.

Again, here is some legislation that really conflicts when we talk

about sustainable, long-term, green energy in British Columbia. This is

short-term, and it's easy run of the river. All the simple projects are being

purchased now. All the close-in projects — close to transmission systems — are

the ones that are being developed now. In 30 or 40 years we're going to be held

hostage by those very power producers that have reaped such a huge benefit from

us. Again, that conflicts with this bill.

The issue affecting our forests. We see what's happening with pine

beetle, but the other thing that's affecting our forests now is that we have a

forest industry that is going for quick solutions, quick fixes. I know that in

the past we had forest industries…. If you tracked the value of forestry and

forest products over the last hundred years, you will see that it spikes up and

down. It's very cyclical.

At times forest companies, when the price of lumber was extremely

high and there were a lot of stockpiles, would stop and retool their plants.

They would sell off the stockpiles while they put money into their plants and

upgraded them, made them more efficient.

Some of the plants were a hundred years old. The property was a

hundred years old, or the plant was a hundred years old on the property. Those

plants were actually high-efficiency, highly profitable modern plants.

One that recently closed in New Westminster was very profitable.

The very company that closed it couldn't get fibre supply, as we're exporting

five million cubic metres of logs a year into the United States. They can't get

fibre supply, so they closed a profitable plant.

Another plant, Canadian Forest Products on Canfor Avenue in New

Westminster, is closing in early January or early February, putting 130 people

out of work. This is a plant that takes wood waste from waste techs — takes

particle, takes pallet boards — and crushes them up and makes veneers. It's a

plant that's been producing since 1938. They used to make products for

airplanes. Now they make high-tech veneers. It's a market.

The margins are small now because of the dollar, but it's still

profitable to run. This company is sitting on massive real estate. They say it's

not their core business. Their shareholders want a good return. That's the

motivation. That's common business sense now.

It's not long term. It's: "Let's get maximum return today, and

don't worry about what's left behind in the community."

Here we have forestry companies that are being given large tracts

of our land to develop and to actually create more urban sprawl, such as what

the Jordan River project could do. We have environmentally sound mills that are

taking wood that would normally end up as waste in a landfill or that would

normally end up being burned in the hothouse industry being produced into

environmental products such as stream protection products that are sprayed on.

We have those mills closing down because of policies of this

government, and we have jobs leaving the province because of policies of this

government. We have logs leaving the province. The equipment in these mills is

going to go across the border, all in the guise of environmentally sound. So

everything is linked.

You bring in six pages of legislation, but all you have to do is

look at the reams and reams of other legislation that absolutely counteract and

contradict what this bill really is. That is a real concern. That's certainly a

concern in my community, and it should be a concern everywhere in British

Columbia.

[1025]

Just the pollutants that are going to be created if you put

single-occupancy vehicles in the Fraser Valley, as opposed to an automated

transit system or more lanes for busing…. Just clogging the roadways again

[ Page 9398 ]

with multi-billion dollars of investment doesn't serve a purpose. It creates

pollutants. It creates a toxic airshed in the Fraser Valley, and it contributes

to global warming all over the world. So I'm really pleased that there is an

attempt at some legislation, because I look at these six pages as really a

double-edged sword.

I'm pleased that the government is trying to look green, because

now we will be able to hold them accountable. We will be able to make true

amendments to this legislation and to any enabling legislation that comes along,

and we'll be able to force this government into putting its money where its

mouth is.

I look forward to seeing other legislation come forward.

Certainly, if you look at all this other legislation, there's a net loss. Even

the goals, even the short-term targets, are going to be eaten up. There's going

to be a net loss of even the short-term targets because of the other legislation

that's brought in. It's not just trying to sound green. There has to be

something concrete and forthright.

I'll close my argument by saying that I'll support this, and I

will work very hard to make it better. You know, even a chameleon is green when

embracing a frog, but once you disengage, all you're left with are warts.

C. James: I rise to discuss and debate second reading of

Bill 44. As other speakers have said before me, as we all know, global warming

is the fundamental challenge of today's generation. There is no greater threat

to our way of life, to the lives of our children, to the lives of our

grandchildren, to the lives of future generations.

I've listened to members of this House speak passionately about

the challenges of global warming, and I'm honoured and pleased that we're having

this debate and discussion in the Legislature. It's critical that we're all a

part of a global movement to take action. This year, as many know, was the

tipping point on climate change.

Many British Columbians saw or heard former Vice-President Al Gore

speak in Vancouver or Victoria about the challenges we face — an incredibly

powerful presentation. He reminded all of us that scientists have been warning

us about this reckoning for over 20 years.

Now, among those scientists, seven of them are B.C. scientists who

were recently recognized by the Nobel Foundation for their work on the

intergovernmental panel — extraordinary expertise right here in British

Columbia. It took a long time, but their work is finally coming to fruition.

While scientists help us understand the challenges of global

warming, what's really bringing home their message is seeing the effects of

climate change with your own eyes. Every year — winter, spring and summer — my

husband and I drive up to Burns Lake, which is his home territory — of the

Carrier-Sekani. Every year as we head north, we're greeted by swaths of red,

dead trees — the pine beetle epidemic.

Global warming means that the beetles aren't dying, but the trees

are. In less than 20 years more than 80 percent of B.C.'s pine stands will be

destroyed — 80 percent.

I've talked with families in the communities that are going to be

most affected. They dread what's going to happen to their towns, to their work,

to their northern way of life.

I've listened to some of the elders from Carrier-Sekani talk to me

about the changes that they personally see. "Two years ago," they said, "there

wasn't any snow on the ground" — the first time in their memory that they've

ever seen that.

[1030]

They're asking themselves what it means for their traditional way

of life — for hunting and gathering, for their families, for their traditions,

for the way of life that has sustained their people for centuries. These

personal experiences have certainly strengthened my resolve to be part of the

solution. Last week I had the pleasure of attending the Take the Lead B.C.

conference. It was a conference where the environmental community, first

nations, business and labour came together to work on our response to global

warming.

No more debates about whether global warming actually exists. No

more argument about whether humans are actually to blame. Instead, this amazing

group of people came together to focus on actually finding solutions to the

problems, to talk about the actions that we must take to reduce greenhouse gas

emissions. They've come to the realization that we don't have another 20 years

of debate about what kind of change is required, and we certainly don't have

another 20 years for government to come to the table.

Make no mistake. While ordinary citizens are essential to the

solution, global warming is not a problem that is simply going to be solved by

individual action. It's not a problem where the solution is volunteerism on any

part of the sector. It's a fundamental challenge that is going to require real

leadership from government.

It's with regret that I stand here today and say that I don't

believe that the government is doing enough in the fight against climate change.

To use the words of the Premier, the legislation that's before us today is a

framework, a promise to take some action decades ahead. Frankly, the public

expected more from this government. They expected that climate change would be

treated as an urgent matter.

We all heard the Premier stand up…. We all heard the throne speech

last year, and we heard this was the most urgent priority, yet here we are

almost a year later with simply a plan to do something in the future. People

expected clear solutions in this legislation. They expected that we would see

immediate action to reduce greenhouse gases today.

The government didn't deliver. Instead, we have targets without

emission caps, targets that don't make B.C. a leader in the fight against

climate change. B.C.'s long-term reduction targets don't even come close to

those that have been set by California, New Mexico and Oregon. They've pledged

aggressive targets: 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. The Premier has

pledged only 50 percent below 1990 levels — a very big difference.

Perhaps one of the reasons why the Premier hesitates to match

these aggressive targets is that he's not really sure how he's going to get

there. He hasn't explained

[ Page 9399 ]

how we're going to reach these targets. The legislation doesn't explain how

we're going to reach these targets. It puts all of that on to the climate action

team. The Premier has given them a monumental task to provide the vision and the

action that this government refused to provide to British Columbians.

This team has their work cut out for them. A recent report that

came out from the Pembina Institute concluded that the details announced in the

Premier's proposals will only reduce British Columbia's emissions by about five

million tonnes — 31 million tonnes less than needed to meet the goal.

We on this side of the House understand that there isn't one

solution to climate change. B.C.'s emissions come from a variety of sources: oil

and gas production, industry, land use, housing and, yes, transportation. The

choices that we make must cross over all sectors, but British Columbians

expected that this government would at least start somewhere, that they would at

least begin with something specific. It's time that the government stepped up to

the plate.

Just as we've seen the debate change on climate change, I also

believe that the nature of our work is changing. We're moving from making the

case about global warming and climate change to actually making a case for

changing the way that we live on this fragile planet.

[1035]

As we make that case for change, we as leaders must bring citizens

with us. We must listen closely to people in our communities, to their needs, as

the change occurs. We must listen to them and take seriously their concerns

about the policies that we must develop to be effective on this critical issue.

Concerns that I've heard are around equity, community impact and,

frankly, change itself. We need to do that so that we can actually move together

and move ahead to repair our planet. We don't see that happening in British

Columbia. People in communities are being cut out of the discussion on climate

change.

I said earlier that we'd reached the tipping point on the issue of

climate change. Our citizens are engaged. They know it's the problem of our

time. Poll after poll shows that citizens recognize the problem. They're

demanding action, but frankly, this government is risking that support. British

Columbians have been engaged on the problem, but I fear they're being left out

of the solution.

To date we've seen the Premier keep his plans on climate change a

secret, behind closed doors in the Premier's office, exempt even from FOI.

Consultation with communities and the public is nonexistent. On an issue that is

of such critical importance, no one knows what's coming, no one knows what's

being contemplated, and most importantly, people have no idea of the impact that

they may be asked to bear.

Let's be clear. If we're going to be successful, there will be

impacts. That's a reality, but unless those impacts are understood and accepted,

the constituency that is now ready for action on climate change could actually

come apart.

The Premier, unfortunately, has taken the same approach to climate

change as he has to governing. It's a one-sided monologue that leaves people

out.

Since I was elected leader of the New Democratic Party, I've

talked about the need to deal people in, and this is particularly true about

climate change. If we're going to be successful, we need buy-in from everyone

because the changes that we're all talking about are big enough that we all have

to be part of the solution. It's time — it's over time — that this government

recognize that. If B.C. is going to be a leader in the fight against climate

change, then we need to take action today.

New Democrats have proposed alternatives that would actually do

that. We've proposed an immediate cap on emissions, tough new rules for oil and

gas emissions, an aggressive investment in transit today, not in the future, and

a clear rejection of coal-fired energy. These actions plus adaptation measures

would put B.C. on a path to reducing emissions now.

I challenge the Premier to implement any of the New Democrat

initiatives. As I said before, I welcome government to go ahead and steal the

opposition's ideas. Perhaps we could actually get something done on climate

change if we saw the government move in that direction.

The generations that follow don't care whose idea it was. They

just want someone to do something, and sadly, they're not seeing any details and

specifics that give them that kind of hope in this legislation. The generations

now and in the future will hold us accountable for taking advantage of this

moment. It is critical that we don't let them down.

[1040]

D. Cubberley: It's a pleasure to have an opportunity to

comment on Bill 44. As the House knows, we are going to be supporting this bill,

and we're certainly very supportive of the setting of a binding target on the

province as one step in moving us towards change that reduces greenhouse gas

emissions.

As many members have suggested and the Premier is increasingly

acknowledging, beginning with the throne speech, this is an issue that threatens

the future of humanity, which probably means that it has to be at the top of

everybody's agenda. While at the level of language we see the issue moving up

the agenda, at the level of commitments to real and tangible change, we see far

less happening.

Now, this bill makes an important step in the direction of

confirming the societal objective for British Columbia, and we're fully

supportive of that. What we're concerned about is the lack of concrete actions

to date that actually move us in the direction of change. There's been a lot of

talk, of course, about all kinds of things. But there's a lack of concrete and

tangible actions and a lack, really, of beginning to do the obvious things that

can be done to lessen our impacts beginning today. I want to address my remarks

in that vein.

I want to deal a little bit with the part of the bill that plans

to make the provincial government carbon-neutral. Carbon-neutral is a

particularly enticing term in the

[ Page 9400 ]

world of spin. It's one of those terms that we see showing up increasingly.

I notice that municipalities have begun to use that to frame some

relatively modest initiatives to try and lower some of the emissions that are

created through the operation of buildings or in some cases the operation of a

fleet of vehicles and the like. They use those small steps in the direction of

change to frame a message to the public that they're going carbon-neutral. The

provincial government has framed a set of actions, or at least a commitment to

make itself carbon-neutral, and it's talked about doing some things which are

good as far as they go but which don't, in fact, go very far.

So carbon neutrality for the government is going to look at, you

know, the light that's used in buildings, the heat that's used in buildings, the

kind of travel that civil servants might do in the course of their jobs and the

like. All those things are good, but one of the most glaring and obvious missing

pieces in carbon neutrality, and the one with which it actually couldn't make

the claim of carbon neutrality, would be if you incorporated travel that

involves travel to and from work by the provincial workforce.

The provincial workforce, of course, is significant. I'm sure

there are arguments about this, but let's say, for the sake of discussion, it's

30,000 people every day across the province engaged in highly patterned

behaviour travelling to and from their workplaces. Now, that is probably the

single largest component of government's carbon footprint, and that's missing

entirely from the commitment to go carbon-neutral.

Of course, there are some real concerns with this, because it's

part of the pattern that we see emerging overall, which is that in all the

discussion of greenhouse gas reduction and the growth in greenhouse gases, the

one thing that is never talked about by government or by the climate change

secretariat or by anybody else commenting on this is transportation. This is

very significant in a province where the single largest contributor to

greenhouse gas emissions is mobile sources.

We know that overall for British Columbia 40 percent of total

greenhouse gas emissions are from mobile sources. That means, principally, cars

and trucks in their daily operation on our roads and highway networks. The

largest single source within that sector is peak-hour travel to and from work.

So it's interesting.

[1045]

Part of the pattern of not engaging in a conversation with the

public about what we're going to do with transportation involves deciding around

the carbon neutrality of government not to improve the carbon contribution of

the workforce travelling to and from work. This is obviously not acceptable.

It's curious, as well, given the government's interest in

patterning itself on some of the innovation that's taken place in California.

Personally, I have been strongly influenced by the directions California has

taken over the years. They have been innovators, out of necessity, because of

the level of pollution, principally in the Los Angeles basin, to engage in

reductions —and to force those reductions on sectors producing automobiles and

trucks, in particular — of all forms of pollutants coming from mobile sources.

Of course, that, in turn, does capture greenhouse gases.

The government was very quick to jump on California tailpipe

standards, despite the fact they weren't too interested in that in opposition in

the '90s when the Clark government and its predecessor, the Harcourt government,

were very interested in improving standards from tailpipe emissions and were

looking to California. Those days we weren't looking so much to California but

looking away. Now we're definitely looking towards California, but we're only

engaged in selective seeing of what is being done in California.

How about a little more California on carbon neutrality? One of

the things that California did early on in its attempt to reduce impacts was to

focus responsibility upon employers for the travel impacts of their workforce.

Through the California Air Resources Board, they developed a concept, which is

now integral to all transportation planning and the management of demand for

transportation services, called transportation demand management.

They placed a responsibility upon employers with a workforce of

over a hundred people to develop TDM plans. They're a requirement of law, and

those plans require employers to invest in infrastructure and promotional

programs that shift rides away from single-occupant vehicles and move those

rides into transit, van pooling, walking and cycling.

Now, the experience with that has not been entirely happy in

California in the sense of making the kind of large shifts that they had hoped

for. The principal reason for that, of course, is that they weren't accompanied

by parallel investments in low-carbon infrastructures that enabled the choice.

The one area where there has been success, not surprisingly, is in

relation to public transportation, shifting of rides away from cars into buses

and other forms of public transit, because where that infrastructure exists,

it's possible to do it through a combination of carrots and sticks.

Incentivizing that kind of change is much easier when you are supplying the

infrastructure to support the choice.

Anyway, this isn't part of the government's plan at present, and

it's something that we need to change the government's mind on. We need the

government — this government, in particular, as the major employer in the

province with a workforce of 30,000 — to assume responsibility for the carbon

footprint of its employees, including travel to and from work, to develop itself

as a model employer and to shift trips from single-occupant vehicles to more

carbon-neutral forms of transport.

In doing that, in shouldering that responsibility, it both serves

as a champion for change, an example of leadership. In order to accomplish the

change, it would force itself to make investments in low-carbon infrastructures

that would enable all employers in all urban regions to meet their necessary

commitment to greenhouse gas reductions.

It's significant. You know, in the capital region, because of the

nature of the region, the share of greenhouse gas

[ Page 9401 ]

emissions coming from mobile sources, principally cars and trucks, is over 50

percent of the total greenhouse gas emissions. That is probably true of a great

number of communities on the Island, communities outside the lower mainland and

in suburban areas outside Vancouver — over 50 percent.

One of the conclusions we can draw from that is that no change

will occur that can meet these targets until there's a focus on the

transportation sector.

Now, it's curious to me that the government continues to stress

commitment to targets while neglecting the most obvious things that it needs to

focus on — the principal source, the primary emitters: cars and trucks, travel

to and from work.

[1050]

To claim carbon neutrality for government, you have to include

employee travel. You need to set reduction and offset targets, and you must

invest in low-carbon infrastructures that support the behavioral change that's

going to be required.

I hear a lot of talk about technology. There were a couple of

speeches recently in the House from the other side about how technology is going

to be a significant factor in meeting our greenhouse gas reduction targets. I

think you need to look a little more closely at the research and talk a little

more closely to people who are experts.

I know there are some members on your side who believe very

strongly that the technocrats can help us with this. One thing we should do is

look at their analysis of what contribution technology can make in the mobile

sources sector.

Some good work has been done on it already. You know what the

result of that work is? Check with the climate change secretariat on this. A

maximum of 10 percent of the reduction, using everything from the hydrogen

highway, which isn't going to happen, to plug-in cars and hybrid vehicles to

biofuels and alternatives — a maximum of 10 percent of what you need to get from

mobile sources as a reduction — is going to come from new technology.

So 90 percent is going to come from behavioural change. It's

inevitable. You have to focus on it. I really would encourage government members

to ask themselves why this bill is not focused on that.

The 90 percent that remains — how are we going to get it? I have

to say that what I see going on — it's very interesting at a larger level, here

— reminds me a little bit of the Socred era. If you remember the Socred era,

when there was this massive….

Interjections.

D. Cubberley: The member opposite remembers. Oh, several

members opposite remember the Socred era — fondly.

They were very smart. They had this social problem with clearcut

logging of old growth forest. They had massive public opposition to it. They

needed to keep that forest industry going, for reasons we don't have to go into.

They engaged in a very smart process. "Talk and log" is what the

environmentalists called it. Talk and log. They set up talking shops. They had

the old-growth protection strategy. They had various tables where

environmentalists could meet with representatives of the Ministry of Forests.

They talked about targets. They talked about protecting species. They talked

about biodiversity. They talked and they talked and they talked, and they logged

and they logged and they logged. Nothing happened, but the public felt that

something was going to happen.

I see a parallel here with that. The public is being encouraged to

think that something is going to happen, but there's a lot more talk than there

is walk. So it's talk and emit. We need to shift that focus. We need to shift it

because this is a real issue. Where the focus needs to be, in my view, is on the

transportation sector, because it's the primary sector, and in this case, on

affecting how government employees commute to work and to move them in the

direction of low-carbon options.

I think there's a lot of unwarranted pessimism on that side of the

House about this. It's undisclosed. They don't talk about it in public. I think

there's also the problem of the primary contradiction that their whole agenda on

transportation is towards higher emissions. We can't look at that. We can't look

at the fact that the Gateway project, the 25-year-old project which has not been

redesigned for the climate change era, is going to drive towards higher

emissions. We can't look at the fact that a lot of the growth that's planned, to

the extent that it's planned in the sectors where it's being boosted, is going

to raise emissions and not lower them.

No one on that side…. I haven't heard anybody, not a single person

on that side, ever talk with any passion or conviction about public transit and

investing in public transit. No one ever talks about cycling and walking as

transportation.

This is a province, as rich as it is, that puts a grand total of

$1.7 million per year into bike lanes. Bike lanes happen to be magnets that draw

people out of their cars — exactly what you have to do to meet our targets in

the mobile sector. But in the blink of an eye, this government, and without

telling the public, can find $25 million a year to give to private liquor

distribution every year. Ka-ching. Ka-ching.

Oh yes, Member. You look at me quizzically, but those are the real

priorities, or how unaligned the priorities are, in British Columbia.

On the one hand, you have a mode of transportation that, if

invested in, can carry as many rides per day as public transit, which gets a

grand total of $1.7 million a year. On the other hand, you have an industry,

which as regards to climate change…. I can't imagine the connection between

drinking more at lower prices — or higher profitability for liquor distributors,

which is what it's really about — and bringing down greenhouse gas emissions.

[1055]

Maybe people are being driven to drink because the government is

doing so little about bringing down greenhouse gas emissions that they have to

deal with their…. It's the narcotizing impact that we're subsidizing here:

"Don't worry; be happy. Go to sleep, and if you can't, well, buy a bottle."

[ Page 9402 ]

Anyway, one wonders at times if all of the members opposite are so

entirely car-dependent in their own lives, so completely automobile-dependent

that they can't think outside that paradigm, that they can't think about modal

shifting. I've never heard anybody mention modal shift. There will be enormous

modal shifts required, of an order unprecedented in North America, in order to

achieve the government's objectives by 2020. In order to do that, you need to be

investing now, and the fact is you could be investing now.

Let's contextualize this a little bit. Look at the capital region

a little more closely, to grasp both the magnitude of the challenge and the

opportunities for modal shifting amongst government employees and amongst all

employees, who this legislation, again, should treat as a possible model for the

changes that have to occur.

They would welcome it, by the way. I have some experience in this

area with government employees, which I won't go into in detail, but I can tell

you that they're more prepared than most workforces to make the kind of changes

that need to be made. They would welcome government investing in the

infrastructures that would allow them to make those changes.

I just want to give a snapshot of regional weekday travel for

automobiles and passengers — all modes of transportation in this region as

measured in the past year. For the whole region, 78 percent of all trips are

automobiles and passengers. This is in a region with very high levels of cycling

and walking, as you will see, but of all the trips occurring, 78 percent are

automobiles and passengers, and most of those are single-occupant vehicles. That

is your challenge. It's our challenge, but you're the only ones who get to say,

so it's your challenge.

Transit, which is supported in the order of $75 million worth of

investment in operating and capital cost per year in the region, carries 6.4

percent of trips currently. That 6.4 percent is not small, and when we look at

the peak-hour market, we will see it's much more significant. But compare that

with 78 percent, and you have a measure of the distance that we have to travel.

You have to probably achieve in this region a tripling of transit ridership to

meet your greenhouse gas targets, and that will take sustained investment in

rapid transit — investment of an order that you are not currently making, that

you are loath to make and are not talking about.

Walking in this region comprises 10 percent of all travel. That 10

percent is more than transit, and if you think about it, the money it takes to

sponsor that 10 percent of walking — to operate the infrastructure, to make new

capital investments in it to replace it — is far lower than what it takes to get

that 6.4 percent of trips on transit. They're different trips. That's one of the

reasons. But think about the potential to grow that mode with sustained

investment.

Bikes in our region carry 3.2 percent of all trips. That sounds

relatively small, but it's over three times the rate in most urban regions in

North America. The automobile is clearly dominant.

[K. Whittred in the chair.]

Transit — if we look at it over five years, which is what these

figures are measuring against — is holding its own despite not having adequate

investment and no new investment for climate change. It's not gaining, however.

Walking remains respectable regionwide and shows great potential.

One of the tragedies is that as a vehicle for getting to and from work, it has

fallen in the past five years. The reason it has fallen is principally the

consolidation and closing of schools. That is the principal reason people are

walking less in Greater Victoria — because fewer people can now walk to and from

school. That's identified through very careful analysis.

Cycling, regionwide, is up by 0.75 of a percent. That may not

sound like much, but I can tell you: for transportation planners to achieve a

1-percent modal shift is enormous. And that has been done with relatively small

investments of funding into low-carbon infrastructures, principally bike lanes

and some bike trails. Each of them has to grow in this region by three times

what they currently carry to meet the targets.

[1100]

Each of them can do exactly that. Each of them can do exactly that

if they receive sustained investments in supportive infrastructure, which

government is not talking about. They are talking, I can see, but not about

that.

That can begin tomorrow. There's no need to wait for the climate

change secretariat. We don't need them to tell us to do it. We don't need the

panel of experts to tell us. We know we have to go to that sector.

The growth strategy plans in place in the major urban regions tell

you what the next steps are in order to get to rapid transit in the region. They

tell you what the next steps are for walking and cycling. All you need to do —

you who take an enormous share of the 92 cents of every dollar collected in tax,

the 92 cents of every dollar flowing to provincial and federal governments — is

take a share of that and begin to invest it in low-carbon infrastructures

directed at behavioral change in the travel market.

Let's look at the peak-hour markets, because that's the

bread-and-butter market for transportation — prime travel times when the

commuting government employees are travelling to and from work. That's the

market that principally needs to be changed to really reduce government's carbon

footprint, the footprint this bill neglects while calling itself carbon-neutral.

Transit numbers. Transit gets 12.12 percent of that market, which

is nearly double its share of total trips. It's a very focused market, and

transit can perform in that market to take people to and from work. That's why

we need rapid transit. That could as easily be 25 percent as what it is today,

but it requires sustained investment in order to get there.

We'd like rapid transit in this region, but we can't get there

with the money this government puts into transit. We need many times that

amount. We need a share of the fuel tax revenues. We need a regional

[ Page 9403 ]

transportation authority. Every major urban region in this province needs a

regional transportation authority.

By the way, you promised it in 2001. You promised to give regional

transportation authorities in 2001, and nothing has happened. What you're really

doing is undermining the sole transportation authority we have, TransLink in

Vancouver, and that's a shame.

If you look at the bike share in the peak-hour market, it more

than doubles. It's carrying 7.7 percent of trips regionwide in this region.

That's one in five in the core, because in the core, where it's more

concentrated, it would easily be 20 percent. It might even be that a quarter of

all trips are being made on bicycles in the peak-hour market.

That's up, over five years, by 1.6 percent. That is probably the

most significant modal shift, outside of a transit system bringing on a new

rapid transit component, that's been effected anywhere in the history of the

country in a five-year period — in the direction of positive change.

Is it of interest to the government how that happened? I would say

no. Certainly, no one has ever looked into it. No one has ever approached me and

asked: "How did that happen? Maybe we could apply it somewhere else."

One would think that a government that professes concern for the

future of mankind and sees an imminent threat would be interested in how

something like that could be accomplished, how it could be multiplied and

spread. Why is it happening in Greater Victoria? Principally because this region

has done more to accommodate cycling to work, chiefly by building bike lanes and

other specialized infrastructures like commuter trails that connect to

destinations like work and home and school, and that make cycling a feasible

transportation choice.

It's not rocket science. It's investment in low-carbon

infrastructures. Investing in a sustained way in low-carbon transport

infrastructures is the principal building block for transportation modal shifts

that will allow us to meet greenhouse gas reduction targets.

That's what we need government to be doing — not refusing to give

Victoria a regional transportation authority, as the "minister of cars and

trucks" has done, saying, "No, no. We need the congestion that comes with half a

million people before we'll consider that. We don't want you to jump the curb,

despite the fact mankind is threatened by climate change. We don't need that";

and not refusing Victoria access to fuel tax revenues and the borrowing and

planning powers required to create rapid transit, bring light rail transit here.

The plan is already in place. We know how to do it and could begin doing it

tomorrow.

It will take seven years to get it done — six if you really rush.

Where does that put us on your time lines for reduction by a third?

[1105]

We need to start today, and we know we need to do it. We don't

need a climate change secretariat to tell us that. We need political will on the

other side of the House. That's what's missing. Not by refusing, turning down

every year projects to build bike lanes on roads and to build dedicated overpass

structures for trails because there's a measly $1.7 million available in the

province of British Columbia for dedicated cycling infrastructures, when

megamillions are being spent precisely on those modes that create greenhouse

gases and that are growing the problem we have….

We're going to have 700,000 additional people moving into British

Columbia in the time frame that we're talking about — by 2020.

Interjection.

D. Cubberley: It's wonderful, Member. It is a wonderful

thing to bring more people here, but that will more than offset any of the

changes that you were talking about yesterday from technology. Those 700,000

people will more than offset any change that's achievable by substituting a

lower carbon technology within the automobile frame.

I think government needs to step up its game a little bit on this

stuff. The problem is as big as the Premier says it is, but you need a plan

which is up to the scale of the problem, not a plan which is scaled down to the

lack of conviction that we see on the other side. We do need government to

become carbon-neutral, and we need it to become truly carbon-neutral. We need it

to do that by managing the demand that its 30,000-member workforce creates for

travel choices. We need to move them away from high carbon towards low carbon.

That's going to take commitment, and principally, it's going to

take investment. That means overcoming a degree of ignorance about

transportation and overcoming a degree of reluctance and pessimism on the other

side of the House about transportation and our ability to shift people to

lower-carbon rides. It's going to take learning from experience in jurisdictions

that have already done that.

Victoria is a jurisdiction which has done a considerable amount of

it. The city of Vancouver has done a considerable amount of it. Look at the walk

share in the city of Vancouver. Look at the cycling share in the city of

Vancouver. Not as impressive as Victoria's, but a much bigger city, coming to it

much later in the day, much more difficult to accomplish. It has done remarkably

well.

Could members on the opposite side of the House learn something

from local government? Ask the Minister of Transportation. He seems to have his

mind set against learning anything from anybody about anything.

You know, Victoria could be a model, and the government workforce

could be a model if you looked at it, because it's the government workforce that

we have most managed to shift to cycling and walking to work and to transit use.

They're already a model, and if you cared to look at how that's being done, you

could elaborate that lesson for the province as a whole. You could focus your

attention on shifting the rides to work. It isn't recreation, though.

An Hon. Member: ActNow.

[ Page 9404 ]

D. Cubberley: Yeah, well, I'd like you guys to act now.

What I see is "act later." You should change the slogan. It's "talk now." Let's

act now. I agree with the member opposite.

But I'll tell you, Member. Rather than, as the Premier did on the

weekend, lecture British Columbians about how we're energy gluttons — that's

what happened on the weekend: "British Columbians are energy gluttons" — why not

work with us to provide the low-carbon infrastructures we need to change our

lives?

How does behavioral change occur? Is that an individual consumer

choice? We're all capable of doing something differently, irrespective of the

environment, the context in which choice occurs. That's too much the implication

of ActNow B.C. What we need is to change the context to facilitate behaviour

change.

That's the prevention intervention I was talking about in the

health field the other day, which again government seems very reluctant to

engage in, preferring to try to induce individuals to take moral responsibility

for change, but without enabling the change to occur.

An Hon. Member: How about some "lead now"?

D. Cubberley: Yeah, how about "lead now B.C."? Oh, don't.

They'll start a new brand, and there will be an ad on TV, and nothing will

change.

What we really want is the employer — government in this case — to

champion change by showing leadership and to begin to manage the transportation

carbon footprint down by helping employees make carbon-neutral travel choices.

It's simple really. You know, show us the beef. Don't lecture British Columbians

about being energy gluttons. Don't invoke doom on how everything is going to

fall apart if we don't change, and then don't change your spending and

investment patterns to enable change to occur on the part of society.

[1110]

And please, please, don't bring spin into the House and suggest

that the government is going carbon-neutral with the fluff that's in this bill.

B. Lekstrom: And you're voting for it?

D. Cubberley: I'll tell you what I'm voting for, Member,

and we'll see if members on the other side are voting for it. I'm voting for

amendments, and we'll see if you vote for amendments that put some teeth into

this legislation and actually get something done in this province.

J. Rustad: I'm very pleased today to have an opportunity to

rise to speak to Bill 44. When you think about trying to set goals, when you

think about trying to do things in this province and move this province forward,

you have to develop a plan. That's exactly what this bill is part of. It's part

of a plan that's going to move us forward to a 33-percent reduction in carbon

dioxide and greenhouse gas emissions by the year 2020. Those are real, set, hard

numbers that are now going to be in legislation.

I heard the members opposite, and they've been debating this now

for a number of hours, both today and yesterday. They say we need to be doing

all kinds of other things in this plan. There needs to be money in this plan.

There need to be other types of…. Quite frankly, I'm not sure exactly what it is

they're calling for.

What they seem to be calling for is recklessly approaching

something that is very, very serious. I wanted to remind the members opposite

that their reckless approach to things like solving ferries with fast ferries or

solving the forest industry with Skeena Cellulose led this province to an

unbelievably bad situation where we flatlined and actually had economic decline

through the '90s.

In order to be able to actually make progress, in order to be able

to do things right, you need to take the time and make sure you put things in

place. We came out last budget speech. We said very boldly that we are going to

move forward on greenhouse gas emissions; we are going to move forward on our

environmental plan.

Eight months later we've now brought it into the House. We've

brought it in as part of legislation setting out those targets. We've announced

the climate action team. We are moving in the right direction on this bill.

When you're talking about greenhouse gases, when you're talking

about the environment, you have to think about…. At least, I have to think about

issues that are going on in my riding, issues that are happening in my end of

the woods. When you look at the mountain pine beetle epidemic and look at the

challenges around that, environmental changes have had a significant impact on

that epidemic.

I mean, there was the lack of action coming from that side of the

House, the NDP, during the 1990s which, quite frankly, could have helped to

minimize some of the impact. But besides that point, there is no question that

we did not have the cold winters we needed to be able to see the epidemic

abated. Why did that happen? Well, there are questions as to whether that was a

natural process or whether that was part of a man-made process, but clearly

there has been an impact.

This year the community of Vanderhoof had 198 homes on flood

evacuation alert for more than two months because of changes in weather

patterns. That sort of thing has been unheard of in the last 50 years. Now,

maybe this is a one-in-200-year event, but there are some analysts saying that

this may become a much more frequent event.

The evidence is that our climate is changing. I'm not a scientist,

but the evidence is that our levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are

increasing and have been for the last hundred years — increasing significantly.

The largest source of those greenhouse gases going into the

atmosphere come from our industry, come from actions that we undertake. It's

incumbent upon us to take steps to leave the world a better place for our

children, for our nieces, for our nephews, for our grandchildren, because they

need to be able to have the same kind of opportunities we have to be able to

build a bright future in this province.

The opposition — quite frankly, sometimes it's hard to keep up

with some of the places they decide to try to

[ Page 9405 ]

go — is talking about only a $1.7 million investment in cycling. That, of

course, being leveraged will create a tremendous amount of benefits in cycling,

creating more than 100 kilometres of new cycling opportunities.

[1115]

Why is that important? It's important because we need to be

changing the way people think about how they interact with this world. We need

to be changing the way people think about the carbon footprint that they have.

Then, through the Gateway program, there will be an additional $50

million going towards cycling infrastructure throughout the lower mainland.

That's a huge investment that is planned for this province, unparalleled by

anything any government has done in the past.

The members opposite, when we're talking about Bill 44 and setting

targets, talk about transit and the fact that we need to be encouraging more

people to get in buses. They seem to think that somehow you could just tell

people to get on buses, and it will happen.

That's not the way it works. There need to be effective ways for

transit to be able to move so that when people look at it, they're not going to

be thinking that they're going to have to spend extra hours taking a bus, but

that it will in fact actually save them time. That's how you encourage people to

change their habits.

For example, with some of the things we're doing with the Gateway

and the rapid bus service plan, it's estimated that it will reduce more than

10,000 to 15,000 tonnes of greenhouse gases per year, which is, of course, a

huge component towards meeting our targets in transit. It will increase

transportation choices.

For the first time since 1990, transit will be available across

the Port Mann Bridge. You can't put buses on the Port Mann Bridge today. You

need to be able to build the infrastructure to be able to do that. Clearly, the

opposition doesn't quite seem to understand that, as they seem to be opposed to

having a new bridge and having those opportunities.

HOV lanes are so that you could have those high-occupancy

vehicles, you can have people in them, and you can encourage that through

allowing them to be able to move faster. It's a huge part of being able to

change the way we look at our world and our carbon footprint, but you can't do

that unless you have infrastructure investment in terms of transportation.

Yet that side of the House seems to be opposed to it. I can't

quite understand why, but for some reason they seem to be opposed to it. Maybe

they want to go back to their record in the '90s when they saw a 24-percent

increase in greenhouse gases from 1991 to 2001. That's their track record.

Let's maybe have a look and see what our track record is. Between

2000 and 2004 the B.C. government emissions of carbon dioxide equivalent, or

CO 2 , from sources were reduced by 23.9 percent — reduced; not increased, such as

in the 1990s. According to data from Environment Canada, greenhouse gas

emissions in B.C. for 2005 decreased by 2.4 percent.

I think I'd be happy, quite frankly, to be able to match our

record versus their record on actions on climate change and where we're going.

When you look at the targets that are written in Bill 44, when you look through

that kind of action, it's clear that we do have a plan in place. They are firm

numbers, they are going to be aggressive, and they may be difficult to reach.

But by putting them in legislation, it's the commitment that says: "We're going

to do that."

It's the same kind of commitment we made when we said that we're

going to have a balanced budget, and we're going to have balanced-budget

legislation. Now we have done that, and that side of the House was unable to do

it for decades.

The member for Vancouver-Hastings talked about the targets that we

had set and threw out some numbers there — that our targets would only be a

58-percent reduction relative to 1990 levels. It's interesting. It seems to be

just more NDP math like their fudge-it budgets.

The reality is that when you take into consideration 2007 levels

to 1990 levels and that decrease we're proposing, it will actually represent a

74-percent reduction relative to 1990 levels. That's phenomenal.

When I look at this bill and think about what we need to do with

this…. There are some people in my riding who say: "Global warming? Sounds like

a pretty good idea." When you live in a northern climate, when it's cold and

stuff, some people say: "Well, it wouldn't be bad if we had a little bit warmer

winters and perhaps some warmer summers."

[1120]

The reality is that that change will not be good for us in our

province. It will not be good for us as a country, and it certainly will not be

good for us as a planet. The world that we need to leave for our children — I

think it's incumbent upon us to make sure we try to leave it a better place.

When you look at these targets and what this does, it's also going

to be about our personal responsibilities — taking personal responsibility for

being able to meet these targets and taking our own actions. Just simple things,

Madam Speaker, like turning off TVs or turning off computer monitors when

they're not used, unplugging a charger instead of leaving it plugged into a wall

when it's not being used. These things can save incredible amounts for us.

The reason why I'm saying that is, as a province, for generations

we were used to exporting energy. We were used to creating more energy than we

needed and being able to take advantage of that and sell some of that power.

Over time, particularly through the 1990s, there was virtually zero investment

in new production of energy despite the fact that we saw an increase in demand

for power.

So now we're in a situation where we are actually importing a

significant amount of the power that we need in this province; 10 percent to 14

percent of that power is being imported. Every time we have brought forward

ideas to generate clean power, such as through run-of-the-river projects,

through wind projects, the opposition has actually stood up and opposed that.

By opposing going forward with those kinds of projects, are they

really suggesting that they're happy about us importing power from coal

generation? Are

[ Page 9406 ]

they suggesting that is the future that this province should be?

Quite frankly, it's really quite amazing to hear the rhetoric that

they have been coming out with over the past couple days in debating this bill

compared with their actions and the way they vote and the way they do things

around this House.

We're seeing an unparalleled amount of private investment in power

generation in this province — commitments going forward to help us meet our

energy needs. We're going to be seeing increasing focus, through our targets and

through our energy plan, on how we're going to be able to generate and actually

be able to meet and hopefully exceed the demand that we have in our province so

we can again be proud of being energy self-sufficient. Those are the plans that

we brought forward, and this opposition has voted against those initiatives.

I am pleased to see that the opposition will ultimately be

supporting Bill 44, will ultimately be voting for it here in second reading.

They have said — at least all of them that I've heard who have gotten up to

speak — that they plan to support this bill, despite the fact they can't seem to

find anything positive about it.

It leaves me to wonder how they can be so negative about a piece

of legislation that is so progressive, which is leading in this country. Yet for

some reason, they find lots of reasons to be opposed to it. But once again,

their actions ultimately won't match what their final results are.

The environment is certainly important to all of us and

particularly for the people in my riding. The pine beetle epidemic has left many

areas with a question mark about the future of the forest industry. I believe it

will create opportunities as well, but there's no question that things will

change.

One of the biggest things we need to be looking at is reforesting

those areas, because reforesting an area…. Every tree that you plant takes a

tonne of carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere over its life. We have a huge

opportunity now to be making a real difference in this province towards reducing

carbon dioxide. Even though the member for Cariboo North seems to think that

scientists are wrong and that putting trees in the ground is not necessarily a

benefit for carbon reduction, scientists have proven that is the case. It is

something that is so very important for us to be able to see moving forward,

particularly for the future of forest industries, but especially also for the

environment.

[1125]

One of our great goals was to lead the world in environmental

management. Our throne speech and the concepts that were laid out in the throne

speech followed up by this bill, followed up by our targets and our actions, are

doing just that.

Interjection.

J. Rustad: As I mentioned before, I really do wonder…. The

member opposite is laughing with regards to that. I really do wonder why they

seem to be opposing trying to be world leaders in something that is so important

for all of us.

I want to once again go back to the area of personal

responsibility, because I also think it's important for all of us individually

here to set that example. What I mean by that is we have to be thinking about

how we can do business, how we do our jobs, how we live our lives so that we can

reduce our carbon impact.

I've taken some steps — and I've been fortunate to have been able

to do this — to add insulation, to change out windows. I'm changing out

lightbulbs in the house. I'm trying to encourage my family to make sure they

turn off lights in and around the house when they're not needed. I've encouraged

us to take our thermometer and drop it down just by a degree to reduce our

amount of energy needs.

You need to do these things, because ultimately it's us — our

demands, our desire for consumption, our desires in our lifestyle — that are

having the greatest impact on this planet. If we take personal responsibility

through our actions, we can make a real difference.

In order to meet our targets going forward, it's going to take

that. Yes, we are going to be working with industry. Yes, we are going to be

working with all kinds of groups around the province to try to get everyone on

side, rowing in the same direction. But it can't just be left up to others to

think about. As individuals, we need to be thinking about this. We need to be

taking actions that are going to be able to make a difference.

As I say, I am pleased to stand today supporting Bill 44. I'm

pleased because this is groundbreaking. This is leading. I'm also very

encouraged that this will soon pass second reading here, despite some of the

opposition's comments, and that we will see a bright future for the people in

this province not only economically, not just socially, but also

environmentally.

Real leadership is about doing just what we have done by bringing

this bill forward.

C. Trevena: I am pleased to be standing here today to speak

about Bill 44. As my colleagues are, I am in favour of the bill and will be

voting in favour of it. But I have a certain number of reservations, some of

which have been explored by my colleagues and some which I'd like to pick up on.

Before I go into my concerns, I'd just like to respond to a couple

of items that the member for Prince George–Omineca was talking about. He was

talking about the opposition being reckless in their opposition to this and what

they're saying.

I have to admit that I think the government has to be accused

perhaps of being reckless as well, because we have a very serious issue. I think

nobody can question the importance of climate change to this generation and to

future generations. This has been talked about by all members who have stood up

here in the last few hours while we've had this very brief opportunity to debate

this.

I think it's reckless for a government to come up with a document,

a bill, that is so thin for something that is so important.

[ Page 9407 ]

Interjection.

C. Trevena: I'm going to vote in favour because we have to

have certain steps. We have to make a start. With the years of information that

has come down on climate change and with the opportunity we've had, there should

be a lot more substance — not just thin targets, distant targets, but a plan. We

have no plan, and that is one of my greatest concerns.

[1130]

The member for Prince George–Omineca was talking about the

problems of flooding in Vanderhoof. He was talking about the issues of pine

beetle. If this government was really prepared to work on climate change, they

would be acting on this, and they would be providing the province with a

detailed plan of how we can seriously tackle climate change. This document is a

step, it is a move, but it is clearly not enough.

I would like very quickly to pick up on two more items from

previous speakers before I move on to some of my concerns. I have to admit that

I've also been quite concerned about the level of debate on something that's

been such a serious issue. Yesterday the House fell into heckling and

catcalling, which was really not very helpful when we are dealing with something

that is so important for our communities, our province, our country and for the

world.

If we don't take this seriously, if we don't all act responsibly

on this, we are failing future generations, and we are failing the globe.

Heckling is not helpful — and talking in clichés about what previous governments

did and didn't do. We keep hearing and have heard many times about what the

previous NDP government did or didn't do in the '90s on climate change. I would

like to remind the members opposite that climate change actually wasn't a hugely

defined issue at that stage.

I'd like to remind the members opposite that their own Premier,

their own leader, refused to sign on to Kyoto. He refused to sign on to Kyoto

back in 2002, when anybody who was serious about climate change, anybody who

cared what was happening to our planet, thought that Kyoto was not strong

enough, that Kyoto was a sellout. Here we have a Premier who thought: "Oh, it's

going too far."

Now, fair enough, we've had the Pauline conversion. We have a

Premier who is aware that climate change is the most important issue for our

province. Great. I'm really glad about that. But why, in that case, do we have a

bill that is so thin, whose targets are well below other jurisdictions, whose

targets are based on a 2007 baseline? Why not go back to the '90s, as other

jurisdictions are doing, as the European Union is doing, as states in the United

States are doing? We are looking at 33 percent of 2007 levels by 2020 — not

1990. This is not realistic.

I come back to the fact that we are also not seeing many details

here. We're not seeing a plan.

We have a climate change team that has been appointed, and I know

there are some very good people on that. There are some people who have real

concerns about the climate. I don't want to underestimate their hard work that

we hope will come. But we have to look at the government's serious commitment

when we have people from British Petroleum, an oil and gas exploiter, there on

the team. It is a concern.

I also would like to ask the government how they are planning to

make some of these targets, how they are going to be doing this, how they're

going to be looking at carbon neutrality, and how they're going to be achieving

this when we are seeing continued exploration of oil and natural gas, when we're

seeing offshore oil and gas being promoted. Even today the Minister of Energy

was talking about how we can have offshore oil and gas — how this is an

opportunity for us.

On the one hand, we talk about offshore oil and gas. On the other

hand, we talk about climate change. Does this government not see the

contradiction? Yes, we can have carbon neutrality in government ministries, in

the government offices. Great. Let's turn off those light bulbs. Let's turn off

those personal computers. Let's unplug those chargers, as the member for Prince

George–Omineca said. We can have the Oil and Gas Commission carbon-neutral. It

can happen in its offices. Yet, we are still willing to exploit oil and natural

gas.

Personal transportation. My colleague from Saanich South was

talking about the need to invest in public transportation, and I agree.

Investing in public transportation doesn't necessarily get people out of their

cars and into public transportation, but it goes much further than we are seeing

in this plan.

[1135]

We need to make sure that there is public transportation. We need

to have the plan to get people out of their cars. Some 14 percent of emissions

come from personal transportation.

What concerns me about this bill is, as I say, the lack of

details. There is no vision on what can be done. There is "Carbon Neutral Public

Sector," "BC Greenhouse Gas Emissions Targets," "General Provisions." There's no

discussion about…. Possibly, are we going to be looking at carbon taxes? Are we

going to be looking at charges for carbon? How are we going to make sure? What

stick are we going to use as well as the carrot?

What are we going to do as well as amuse people with B.C. Hydro

ads, where you get the cheers and the rah-rahs for people turning off the light

bulbs? What are we going to see that will really make a difference?

I say that we have to have a vision, and we have to go a long way

in achieving our vision — through the carrot-and-stick approach; through issues

such as carbon taxes; through serious caps on carbon emissions, with a plan with

details; through carbon charges; through carbon trading.

It isn't just us. It's not just us on the glorious west coast of

Canada or on the glorious west coast of North America. This is something that

involves the whole world. It involves the world in the way that we look at what

we're doing to try to stop climate change, to try to put a halt on it, but also

in the impact it's going to have on the whole world.

We have to have a vision that looks at what the gateway really

means when we are buying very cheap products from China and shipping them over

here,

[ Page 9408 ]

when we are also talking about trying to deal with climate change. We have to

look at what impacts our lack of action…. Our double standards are saying: "Yes,

let's go and exploit offshore oil and natural gas while we're going to have nice

carbon-neutral office space." What impact is that going to have on the Third

World?

The paucity of this document really is unbelievable. It's not just

that we have seen Al Gore and the Nobel peace prize. It's not just that we've

seen Thomas Homer-Dickson. I know that was referred to by other colleagues —

some of his quotes.

This has been going on for some time. If I might quote from

Nicholas Stern, former head of the World Bank, who did a very detailed report

for the British government. The British government now has a very detailed

climate change bill in front of their House, with serious actions, serious

targets.

Making climate change an economic issue, building in climate

change budgets, is a very serious issue. What Nicholas Stern said is that it is

a global issue, and I think we cannot get insular on this. We cannot look at

this having an effect just on us. When we are looking at our vision, which is

lacking here, we have to look at a global vision.

If I might quote Nicholas Stern. He says: "While all regions will

eventually feel the effects of climate change, it will have a disproportionately

harmful effect on developing countries and, in particular, poor communities who

are already living at or close to the margins of survival."

This isn't just an issue for us. It isn't just an issue for our

communities. It is an issue for the globe. If this government was serious about

this, they would take that responsibility seriously. They would come with a

serious plan, not — and I know it's been said before — a thin piece of hot air.

The opposition has suggested ways forward on climate change, and

it would be great if the government would act on them. It would be great if the

government would take it further. Sadly, the government isn't taking it further.

The opposition has also committed to principles of a sustainable

B.C, which is a visionary document. It would be great if the government would

look at this document and see how we can be a sustainable B.C. for the

betterment of all people within British Columbia — on our environment, on our

economy, on our resource conservation, on our food security, on the vision of

the commons.

But sadly, we get a very small bill with very little substance, at

a time when we need vision and we need someone who is going to stand up and say:

"I will be the leader. I will take B.C. through a very difficult time, and I

will look after our communities, our province, work with our colleagues and have

the responsibility for the rest of the world."

[1140]

With that, I will pass on to other colleagues, who I know want to

speak. But I think that this is a hugely wasted opportunity, and I look forward

to seeing a real plan to deal with climate change.

M. Karagianis: I'm happy to stand today to talk to Bill 44.

As tempting as it may be to kind of push back on some of the comments and

arguments that have been put forward this morning by government members, I would

have to say that in fact I view climate change as the crisis of the 21st

century.

Somehow to trivialize this as being about turning out the lights

seems to me to be treating this disrespectfully. In fact, I think that what is

required at this point in time is less of this trivialization of the situation

and much more depth and substance. Standing here today and looking at the

content of the bill before us, my biggest concern is that I do not see the

substance and depth here that is required of a crisis of the 21st century.

Instead, I hear members standing up and saying if you unplug your chargers and

you turn out the lights, somehow this is going to satisfy a crisis of such

monumental proportions.

I don't think that anyone in this House can view the film by Al

Gore or read documents by climate change scientists such as Dr. Thomas

Homer-Dixon and not feel profoundly compelled at this point to take this issue

much more seriously and to try now to move forward with much more substantial

application of legislation and the powers of government in order to effect a

change in human behaviour.

In fact, what we are clearly hearing from scientists is that what

is expected here is such a significant paradigm shift in our behaviour as human

beings on the planet that we are looking now for true leadership to be driven by

the kind of messaging we're hearing from the scientific world.

What concerns me greatly about Bill 44, as I see it before us

today, is that it lacks resources. It lacks any significant, detailed resources.

Certainly, I understand we'll hear about these in the spring. But to have a plan

in our hands at this point, when the public is demanding it, when the universal

consciousness around this issue is growing every single day…. To bring forward a

plan that doesn't give us anything substantial till months away…. It makes it

very difficult to take this as seriously as we should.

I can understand why government members are trivializing their

approach to it because the government document itself trivializes the approach

to this. That concerns me a great deal. Since the day I was elected, I've stood

in this House and talked about a number of emerging solutions to this paradigm

shift that is going to be created.

I have talked to the government here about getting on board with

actions like bioheat for all government buildings. I've talked in this House

about the government getting on board for things like using biodiesel in the

B.C. Ferries fleet. I've seen here in the last couple of days that the

government has already stepped out and said that for a major government polluter

like B.C. Ferries, rather than engage them in a solution to climate change,

we're going to exempt them.

In fact, there's not an exemption necessary at all. There are

clearly some other options. They may be bridges to the future, but we could be

running ferries

[ Page 9409 ]

on biodiesel right now and reducing their carbon emissions by 20 percent

today if we had the willpower to do it.

for alternative lifestyle uses like solar power at home, heat pumps and all of

those things. What is required at this point is a monumental shift in the

lifestyle of human beings upon this planet, and those of us in the most

civilized and highly developed and richest countries in the world need to lead

the way. British Columbia, for sure at this point, is in the top of the list of

categories of affluent lifestyle that should very significantly be able to

engage in this multimodal, significant shift in lifestyle.

[1145]

In the anticipation of this bill, I've thought of the many

substantial resources that could be identified and many of the substantial

legislative changes that could already be indicated and hinted at in this

document — certainly, with budget resources to follow. I'm disappointed that I

see, again, a very thin document, a thin veneer on what is a very significant

and profound issue. From the perspective of the Transportation critic, I would

say that what I see here shows that — up to and including today in this House —

the government's actions on all fronts are not leading us into any of the

climate change solutions that are proposed in this new document.

You know, Dr. Andrew Weaver says that to meet an 80-percent cut of

GHGs by 2050 will require the elimination of the transportation sector's use of

fossil fuels. We're not even talking about reduction; we're talking about the

entire elimination. We are talking, in a very short span of years, of a complete

shift away from the fossil-fuel dependency we have right now. That is a huge,

huge sea change in the behaviour of human beings here in British Columbia — of

commuters, of the transportation sector, of goods and services and of shipping.

All of those things need a significant alteration in behaviour to meet the kind

of challenges and the kind of goals and targets that we're seeing here.

What I see is that the government, in fact, is not viewing any of

their transportation infrastructure planning for the future through a lens of

sustainability at all. We are still on the same old track. We are still using

old-school, outmoded transportation solutions — 20th-century transportation

solutions to a 21st-century crisis. That is not going to get us there.

How do you turn that around when we are currently engaged in such

huge, fundamental shifts? The TransLink bill is moving transportation

infrastructure management away from public accountability into private sector

hands. We are seeing a huge, monumental megaproject of the government like the

Gateway project — based strictly on more cars, more vehicles and more dependency

on transportation — when we should be weaning ourselves away from that.

Without that kind of substance behind the bill, I see it so

completely trivialized that I am shocked that the government is not embarrassed

to have put before us such a thin document with so little accountability in it

and with so little substance to it. What we need is a real, deep and fundamental

commitment here and actions that move us towards those solutions. If we really

are seriously going to fight the crisis of the 21st century, climate change,

then we have to stop using the solutions that have brought us to this crisis

point, and that is our dependency on automobiles. That is our dependency on

old-school, old-world approaches to the solutions here.

We need to be putting a substantially different spin on every

action that government takes. If we believe that we are going to find ways to

move the public in more efficient, effective and affordable ways, then we have

to get away from the dependency on the car and the highway and move into much

more advanced public transit options. We need to be looking at every one of our

actions through the sustainability lens and reviewing everything that we're

doing.

You know what? It might mean that government has to make some

changes. It might mean that government has to make some fundamental alterations

in its current behaviour. It might mean you have to rethink things like the

Gateway. You might have to rethink how transportation infrastructure is built in

the future in this province and put the brakes on right now, put a halt to it

and say: "We are serious about climate change, and therefore, we will put real

actions behind our words."

When I see that, then I will view this document more seriously.

Fundamentally, we do believe that we can change. Government will have to stop

its own actions, halt them now and rethink them through sustainability and

climate change initiative lenses before we move any further.

[1150]

G. Gentner: It's somewhat with reluctance that I stand in

support of this Bill 44. I have to begin by suggesting that the NDP years were

very progressive years. In fact, it was the Minister of Environment who was

leading the way, a guy by the name of Moe Sihota, who brought forward to this

province AirCare — very, very progressive legislation. We now have a government

that is trying to tear it apart.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

We have an ability here to expand the capability of caring for the

atmosphere through provisions to look at truck, diesel, etc., and this

government here is finding ways to tear it down. I think it's shameful,

absolutely shameful.

We also have the ability, through the Insurance Corporation of

British Columbia, which is a monopoly until this government changes it…. This is

an ability it has to create distance-based insurance to reduce air emissions —

another possibility that's going to be lost with this government.

We have some impacts here. Some very big impacts to climate

change. The health impacts, of course — the mortality rates relative to

infectious diseases, air quality–induced respiratory effects. Agricultural

impacts. We're seeing the hypocrisy of this government relative to the demise of

the agricultural land reserve. Some 225 acres will be taken out for the South

Fraser perimeter road.

[ Page 9410 ]

That's going to create even greater greenhouse gases in the Fraser Valley.

We're seeing the forest impacts — the impacts of the beetle and

the various destruction. It's a huge, billion-dollar industry itself. Water

resource impacts — changes in water supply, timing, water quality, increased

competition for water, coastal area impacts, erosion of beaches, etc.

In fact, I can tell you, on a personal note, that I have property

up the coast, and I have lost six feet in the last five years of my foreshore. I

used to have a well that was 20 feet from the foreshore. It is now about 14 to

15 feet from the foreshore.

Residents up and down the coast are worrying about those types of

things. Of course, the biggest one we have to worry about, besides ourselves, is

the impact to the ecosystems themselves and how it's destroying habitat and

coral reefs elsewhere.

You know, I was aware of what was happening here about 20 years

ago when I was with the director for the museum here, for B.C. nature, Mr.

Hebda. We walked in the Burns Bog. We came across an orchid that was only seen

in Costa Rica. His position was: "Obviously, there's a new bird that's flying

its way up here."

I also came across, interestingly enough, about ten years ago

something called the barred owl. It had had a northern extremity of Oregon, but

in just ten years it's now found its way into British Columbia.

There are lots of indicators out there. The mackerel has now

invaded the west coast of Vancouver Island. It is eating the herring, and it's

causing depletion to the salmon industry. Speaking of the salmon industry, we

know that the heating of the rivers, particularly that of the Fraser River, is

going to dismally affect and impact spawning capabilities. You know, when this

was started, basically, it was also kind of the minimum forces of the B.C.

Liberal Party, sort of a predator of its own kind that's certainly taking care

of our vulnerable species.

I want to talk briefly about the impacts to infrastructure. The

insurance corporations, companies, are well aware of what's happening here, and

they themselves would, under their breath, tell you that this legislation being

proposed isn't good enough.

On Haida Gwaii a highway along the coast collapsed last year in a

storm — severe repair costs of a million dollars. Oyster Bay recently had

another depletion of a road on the Island Highway. Hydro costs, major insurance

claims are increasing. We saw, in my own community, dikes that are in disrepair.

A $2 million increase in infrastructure costs not only for dikes but for new

flood gates. We're seeing Holland realizing that they have to let some of these

diked areas go because of the groundwater increase. They can't control what's

happening with climate change.

What I'm concerned about is this patchwork attempt here — this

very small, inept bill, frankly. It's interesting that it came at a time during

the throne speech last year…. Here we are in the dying minutes of the

Legislature of this session to put something together that was proposed in

February.

What's interesting, though, is the Premier himself — his

disparaging concern for the climate. He had this epiphany all of a sudden. It's

interesting.

[1155]

The day before the House came back on February 13, 2004…. On

February 12 — it was that day that he decided to unload his shares in NOVA

Chemicals Corporation, Trinidad Energy Services, Savannah Energy Services, Husky

Energy Inc., Imperial Oil limited and TransAlta corporation. Shell Canada was

also done on February 12. I mean, such an epiphany here. Nova Chemical Corp.

We've got Trinidad Energy Services. On and on it goes. Suncor Energy Inc.

Now, here is a Premier who, you would think, would be on top of

the throne speech. It's his throne speech. He knew what was coming out in the

throne speech, but it wasn't until the day before it came down that he realized:

"Uh oh, I've got to look green. I've got to dispose of these assets."

Talk about hypocrisy — or perhaps it was sort of like an

afterthought. Maybe he came back from holidays somewhere in the Pacific and

decided: "My God. Reading a book — this is cool. Let's do something wonderful

here. Let's call it sort of 'smoke and mirrors.' I'm going to be green all of a

sudden. Let's put this in the throne speech." And one of his advisers told him,

probably the day before this was all going to happen: "Premier, you have major

interests in the hydrocarbon industries."

This man has very little substance. You can just see it when you

read what's being proposed here today. When you look at the other bills that are

happening in the rest of the world, namely in the U.K.… When you look at the

ordinance of the Governor of California, who has real targets — and it's a guy

that we brought here to British Columbia, and we paraded around — this is the

way we're going to find….

If you look at the baseline that's being produced there, by 2050,

it's at least 80 percent lower than the 1990 baseline. Then you look at how

shameful — how disgusting — this government baseline is. It's not even

comparable, yet they want to parade the Terminator around this province as the

means, as something to showcase.

When we look further regarding the budgetary period for carbon,

including for 2012, it doesn't even come close to that of California. The

budgetary period, including 2020 — you look at California — should be that of

1990 baselines.

This bill is a joke. It is a complete joke.

Interjections.

G. Gentner: You wait and see.

Mr. Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, the Minister of

Environment closes debate.

Hon. B. Penner: I'd like to conclude debate with just a few

summary comments. First of all, acknowledging that we are the first province in

Canada to bring

[ Page 9411 ]

in legislation to set out greenhouse gas emission reduction targets in

legislation….

I also want to acknowledge some of the comments I've just heard

from the members opposite. I hope that the NDP members, especially the last

person who just spoke from Delta North, has a good chiropractor or

physiotherapist because, quite frankly, he's been bending over backwards and

twisting himself into a pretzel to try and find a reason to criticize the bill.

His party says they're going to support the bill. Frankly, I think

the members opposite are being rather hypocritical if they're trying to be this

negative about the bill, and yet they say they're going to support it.

I would like to address a couple of the comments that came

forward in debate because I think they're worthy of response. Members have made

some comments about the targets that are set out in this legislation. Well, take

a look at the NDP's so-called plan from earlier this year. What year is the NDP

using as a baseline for where they say they will freeze B.C.'s emissions? The

year 2007.

Clearly, they haven't even looked at what their own leader has

said or their environment critic. They are talking about a baseline year of

2007, just as we are. I want to acknowledge that Dr. Andrew Weaver is a

world-renowned expert on this. Here's what he had to say yesterday about the

opposition's criticisms of our targets. He said this on CKNW yesterday with

Christy Clark.

"While the MLA for Vancouver-Hastings, who is the

environment critic, did a release and argued that B.C. was actually projecting

only a 58-percent reduction relative to 1990 levels, I think he actually made a

simple arithmetic error in his calculations because that's not correct. The

reality is, if you take 80-percent cuts at 2007, that translates to 74-percent

cuts relative to 1990.

[1200]

"Frankly, whether it's 70, 80 or 90 percent, the fact is

that you've got to push it above the threshold for existing technologies so that

they have to be replaced, and either 70, 80 or 90 percent does it. So it's a

moot question."

The NDP has expressed incredible hostility to the private

sector. Even in the late 1990s their government was lowering water rental rates

to encourage IPPs, cutting water rental rates, saying that they're good for the

environment. Former Environment Minister Joan Sawicki said that.

Mr. Speaker: Minister, noting the time.

Hon. B. Penner: We are proud of this legislation. We're

going to support it. I'm not really sure what the opposition is doing, because

they've done nothing but speak against the legislation. Now let's see what they

do.

At this point I move second reading.

[1205]

Second reading of Bill 44 approved unanimously on a division. [See

Votes and Proceedings .]

Hon. B. Penner: I move that the bill be referred to a

Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting of the House

after today.

Bill 44, Greenhouse Gas Reduction Targets Act, read a second time

and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next

sitting of the House after today.

Hon. B. Penner moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 this

afternoon.

The House adjourned at 12:08 p.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Hansard Services publishes transcripts both in print and on

the Internet.

Chamber debates are broadcast on television and webcast on the

Internet.

Question Period podcasts are available on the Internet.

channel guide • Broadcast

schedule

Copyright ©

2007: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada

ISSN: 1499-2175