2008 Legislative Session: Fourth Session, 38th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, APRIL 10, 2008

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 30, Number 5

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Page

Introductions by Members

Tributes

Del Laverdure

Hon. S.

Bond

Introductions by Members

Introduction and First

Reading of Bills

Health Professions (Regulatory

Reform) Amendment Act, 2008 (Bill 25)

Hon. G.

Abbott

Public Safety and Solicitor

General (Gift Card Certainty) Statutes Amendment Act, 2008 (Bill 17)

Hon. M.

de Jong

Statements (Standing Order

25 B )

Lilo Petermann

Mayencourt

JET program for disabled persons

Simpson

Air travel between

Prince

George and Seattle

Rustad

Eco-Sense house in Highlands

Horgan

B.C. athletes at 2008 Olympic

Games in Beijing

MacKay

100th anniversary of Hastings

Elementary School

Simpson

Oral Questions

Investigation into tree farm

licence land removals

Ralston

Hon. R.

Coleman

Horgan

Simpson

Simpson

Fleming

Hon. W.

Oppal

Farnworth

Government s upport for women and children in

Bountiful

L. Krog

Hon. W.

Oppal

Thorne

Hon. I.

Chong

Simons

Hon. T.

Christensen

B.C. Place roof replacement

Macdonald

Hon. S.

Hagen

Disclosure of documents in B.C.

Rail court case

J. Kwan

Hon. W.

Oppal

Petitions

B. Simpson

Second Reading of Bills

Greenhouse Gas Reduction (Cap and

Trade) Act (Bill 18) (continued)

On the amendment

(continued)

Sather

Macdonald

Robertson

Routley

Simpson

Karagianis

Horgan

Simons

Gentner

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Employment

and Income Assistance

Hon. C.

Richmond

J. Brar

[ Page 11205 ]

THURSDAY, APRIL 10, 2008

The House met at 1:34 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Introductions by Members

Hon. S. Bond: I'm delighted to say that joining us in the gallery today are two very special people who have an incredible passion for literacy in British Columbia.

[1335]

I'm pleased to let the House know that Dale Saip is here. He is a trustee on the Delta board of education. He's also the vice-president of business development for the Vancouver Giants. With Dale today is Kay Thody, and she's a consultant with the Giants.

I've had the opportunity to be a partner in their program called Read to Succeed, which is a program the Vancouver Giants have put in place. It is wildly successful, and I can tell you when those Vancouver Giants step into a classroom in a very classy way and talk about reading and physical activity, it makes an enormous difference for our students.

We're going to talk a little about that program later today. I just want to commend them. Actually, the Vancouver Giants were named the WHL's scholastic team of the year for some of the great work they're doing. I would ask the House to please make them welcome.

Tributes

DEL LAVERDURE

Hon. S. Bond: On a far less enthusiastic note, on behalf of my colleagues from Prince George North and Prince George–Omineca, I want to share with the House the fact that there is a great deal of sadness in our community today in Prince George. Someone who we care about enormously, who's had a significant impact on northern British Columbia, died yesterday at Hospice House after an eight-month battle with cancer.

The publisher of the Prince George Citizen , Del Laverdure leaves an incredible legacy including his wife Vicky and his children Laura, 24; Ben, 21; and Amy, 16. Del guided the Prince George Citizen as a publisher for the past nine years. More than that, he guided our community as a father, a friend and a frequent volunteer for decades. Among his many volunteer positions as president of the Spirit of the North Health Care Foundation, Del dedicated his time to improving health care in northern B.C.

We want to send our best thoughts and prayers to Vicky, Laura, Ben and Amy and also to the community, who are grieving today.

Introductions by Members

D. Chudnovsky: As recently as yesterday, Mr. Speaker, I reminded you that the two very best high schools in the province are in Vancouver-Kensington. Amazingly, for the second day in a row and lucky for us, we have a group of students from Sir Charles Tupper Secondary School in Vancouver-Kensington visiting with us today with their teachers and supervisors. They are a great bunch of kids. We had a chance to chat before. Again, they represent their school wonderfully. Could the House please make them very welcome.

Hon. R. Neufeld: It gives me pleasure today to introduce to the House Danielle Armstrong, the executive director for the Fort St. John division of Big Brothers Big Sisters, an organization that does great work on behalf of all British Columbians — something we're all very proud of. She's here visiting. I had a brief visit with her this morning, and I'd like the House to please make her welcome.

J. Horgan: All members will know that in the course of our business, we meet very interesting people and forge new friendships almost every day. I'd like to acknowledge one of my new friends since I was elected to this place, Larry Fofonof, who joined me for lunch today. He also helps me on Fridays with casework and answers the phone.

We all have volunteers in our communities like Larry. Would the House please welcome him and maybe pay a tribute to all the people who help us do our work every day.

D. MacKay: It's not every day I get a chance to introduce somebody from Bulkley Valley–Stikine. Looking up in the gallery, I happen to notice that we have the chair of the Bulkley-Nechako regional district as well as the chair of the North Central Municipal Association. I'd like the House to welcome Eileen Benedict to the House.

Enjoy the session that's going to follow here shortly.

R. Austin: Today it's a pleasure to introduce Ron Craig, who's visiting the Legislature. Ron is a public health officer with the Northern Health Authority specializing in making sure that we all have safe drinking water in northwest B.C. I ask that the House join me in making him most welcome.

Hon. I. Chong: Yesterday I had the honour and privilege of introducing a number of representatives from the Union of B.C. Municipalities executive. Some were able to join us yesterday, and others have joined us today.

I would like to introduce some of the returning members who are here again for a second day watching question period, as well as others. We have today Councillor Sharon Gaetz. She's a director at large, and she represents the city of Chilliwack.

[1340]

I believe Director Susie Gimse, who is the president of UBCM from the Squamish-Lillooet regional district, is here or about to arrive. Mayor Terry Lake, third vice-president from the city of Kamloops, is here.

[ Page 11206 ]

Director Heath Slee, AKBLG representative from East Kootenay regional district, was here yesterday, I think, as well as Mayor Joe Snopek, director at large representing the town of Creston, and Councillor Barbara Steele, Metro Vancouver rep from the city of Surrey.

I hope the House would please make them all welcome once again.

D. Routley: I'd like the House to help me make welcome 37 grade 7 students from Crofton Elementary, who join us in the precinct today. They're joined by ten parents and their teacher Geoff Sutcliffe from Crofton Elementary.

Also, my friend Joy Sheldon-Maxwell is a former teacher in this province, with 25 years teaching the young people of B.C. She joins us here today.

Please help me make them all welcome.

J. Yap: I would also like to ask the House to join me in welcoming to the precincts a group of 52 grades 6 and 7 students from R.M. Grauer Elementary School in my riding. They're here with seven chaperones, including the vice-principal Ms. Catherine Ludwig.

This is a really enthusiastic group of grades 6 and 7 school children. When I met them, I was told that they were looking at me as a celebrity for some reason, and there were all kinds of camera flashes going off. They asked great questions. It was a great meeting.

I ask the House to join me in offering a warm welcome to this group of our future, the students from R.M. Grauer Elementary School.

H. Bloy: It's a privilege to stand up and introduce someone today on behalf of my colleagues from the Tri-Cities. We have someone who has worked tirelessly for all of the Tri-Cities to make it a better place to live for everybody. That's Joanne Granek, executive director of SHARE Family and Community Services.

Would the House please make her welcome.

Hon. G. Abbott: Today in the gallery we're joined by my correspondence and information officer, Laura Hope. She is here with her friend Kevin Romanin. Although Laura enjoys very much the legislative proceedings, somehow she has been able to reconcile in her mind the thought of leaving here and having an adventure in South America. I can't personally understand how someone could do that.

Nevertheless, I'd ask the House to make them welcome and wish them happy adventures in South America.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

HEALTH PROFESSIONS (REGULATORY

REFORM) AMENDMENT ACT, 2008

Hon. G. Abbott presented a message from his Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Health Professions (Regulatory Reform) Amendment Act, 2008.

Hon. G. Abbott: I move that Bill 25, the Health Professions (Regulatory Reform) Amendment Act, be introduced and read for a first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. G. Abbott: I'm pleased to deliver one of government's major commitments in this year's throne speech. During the Conversation on Health, British Columbians told us that one of the ways to address the sustainability challenge in our health care system was to maximize the skills of health care workers. We can widen the scope of practice of nurses, for example, so they can perform some roles presently provided by physicians. We can have pharmacists provide routine prescription renewals instead of requiring a physician's visit.

People want to move to British Columbia, and we want health professionals to move here to practise their skills. With this legislation, qualified health care workers in other provinces will have their qualifications recognized. Internationally trained and qualified physicians will be able to work in British Columbia in their specific areas of expertise with a restricted licence. Qualified Canadian citizens trained abroad will benefit from a new framework to ensure they can work in the health care field for which they are trained.

If we can attract more physicians to B.C. and have them enter general practice, more people will have access to a doctor to manage chronic disease issues before they become acute and end up requiring costly interventions in our hospitals — again, another example of how we can address the sustainability challenge we face.

[1345]

Transparency and accountability are values we heard in the Conversation on Health. We're taking action today by establishing a health professions review board to review individual registrations by health professionals that were not approved by professional colleges.

We can also establish health profession advisory panels that will provide advice on systemwide issues such as entry-to-practice requirements and scope-of-practice expansion requests. We'll be taking action on increasing the transparency of professional colleges when it comes to disciplinary actions regarding their members.

With this legislation, the colleges will now be required to publicly disclose the outcomes of disciplinary proceedings, advise the complainant of the outcome as well as fund counselling programs for victims of professional misconduct by one of its members.

In conclusion, the Health Professions (Regulatory Reform) Act will open doors for health professionals and all British Columbians. This legislation also puts in place a new standard of transparency and accountability in college registration, inquiry and discipline processes.

I move that Bill 25 be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 25, Health Professions (Regulatory Reform) Amendment Act, 2008, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

[ Page 11207 ]

PUBLIC SAFETY AND SOLICITOR GENERAL

(GIFT CARD CERTAINTY) STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT, 2008

Hon. M. de Jong presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Public Safety and Solicitor General (Gift Card Certainty) Statutes Amendment Act, 2008.

Hon. M. de Jong: Mr. Speaker, I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. M. de Jong: I'm pleased, on behalf of the Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General, to introduce Bill 17. This bill amends the Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act, Civil Forfeiture Act, Commercial Transport Act, Liquor Control and Licensing Act and Motor Vehicle Act.

The Civil Forfeiture Act authorizes the forfeiture of property gained by or used for unlawful activity. Amendments respond to guidance provided by the judiciary and the legal counsel in the course of the court proceedings in the two years that the legislation has been in force.

The Commercial Transport Act is amended to align legislation with longstanding policies and procedures on trailer licensing and permits.

Finally, amendments to the Liquor Control and Licensing Act will allow temporary licences for Olympic/Paralympic Winter Games–related facilities and services. The new temporary licence category is limited to the period surrounding the games and restricted to facilities that are directly tied to the games and for which existing licence categories are not suitable.

I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for consideration by the House at the next sitting after today.

Bill 17, Public Safety and Solicitor General (Gift Card Certainty) Statutes Amendment Act, 2008, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Statements

(Standing Order 25

B) LILO PETERMANN

L. Mayencourt: This afternoon I had the pleasure of being in the rotunda with the Minister of Employment and Income Assistance and the Minister of Education for an announcement around people with disabilities, which was really very significant.

There were a couple of guys who spoke and told what it meant to them, and I thought to myself: what a cool job we have here as MLAs. We get to meet the nicest, most interesting people that are making a huge difference in our communities. All we have to do is be here, and we meet them. It's so spectacular to do that.

One of the ways that we help our communities grow is by recognizing people who do that kind of thing, where they do something fantastic in the community. We have the B.C. Community Achievement Awards that happen every year. This year Vancouver-Burrard, my riding, is being especially honoured because of a person that we are honouring as a community achiever.

Her name is Lilo Petermann, and she is 90 years old. Her first achievement is that she looks like she's under 60. The other one is that for the past 25 years, she's been teaching seniors how to do yoga in our community, down at the West End Seniors Network, at the community centre and so on. She is just an amazing lady.

She came to visit me a couple of years ago and brought her whole yoga class with her. We had cookies and coffee and tea and all that sort of stuff. Then she presented me with a book she had written — a book on yoga that talks about every friend she had in her lifetime. It was so amazing to see that.

[1350]

When we have people like that, we've got to celebrate them. So I'm going to be very excited to see Lilo Petermann receive the B.C. Community Achievement Award on April 23 at Government House. We have some great people in this province, and it's so nice to be able to be in this House to celebrate, with all of my colleagues on both sides, the kind of people that we really want British Columbia to know about.

JET PROGRAM FOR DISABLED PERSONS

B. Simpson: The provincial government has an explicit goal to increase the number of people with disabilities in the workplace. It's a program called 10 by 10 — 10 percent increase by 2010.

In Quesnel the College of New Caledonia offers a program called the JET program. They've been offering that program for quite some time now — the job education and training program. It offers job orientation to adults with disabilities, assertiveness and interpersonal skills — the assertiveness skills are to ensure that they protect their own space and their own rights in the workplace — and interview skills.

An interesting component is job maintenance skills — not only their ability to keep the job that they get but career pathing and succession, and to be aggressive in pursuing their career objectives when they do get work. Then of course, when they wrap up all of that, they do a job search program. Many of these adults with disabilities get placement. They have a very strong track record. They do a very, very good job.

[ Page 11208 ]

In fact, I was talking to one of the instructors, Dougal Hines, a longtime friend of mine, who told me that just the other day he had a young woman come in who they had assisted to get enough self-esteem and skills to challenge for her driver's licence. She got her driver's licence. Now she has her driver's licence, she has a job, she's excited about life, and her future looks very bright.

Dougal Hines and Jan Gamble, the other instructor, have put their heart and soul into this program, into the people that it serves. Many adults with disabilities have benefited from this, and so has the community — the business community in particular.

Unfortunately, the program will end this year for reasons that we have canvassed in this House. The program will cease to continue, and we have a community group that's come together to try to figure out how we continue to provide services to adults with disabilities so they can be integrated into our workforce.

I would like the House to recognize Dougal and Jan and the contribution the JET program has made to Quesnel.

AIR TRAVEL BETWEEN

PRINCE GEORGE AND SEATTLE

J. Rustad: Prince George–Omineca offers a world-class opportunity to outdoor enthusiasts. Whether it's the fabulous lodges and top-notch guide outfitters or perhaps just sightseeing, camping, mountain biking or snowmobiling, the Omineca region offers it all.

Beginning May 1, visitors will have a new option to visit our area. I'm pleased to inform the House that Horizon Air will provide regular non-stop service from Prince George to Seattle. This is the first regularly scheduled international air service for Prince George and provides a new convenient connection to many popular U.S. destinations, including winter escapes to Hawaii and Mexico. In the reverse direction B.C.'s north can now anticipate further business and tourist visits from Americans and international travellers, as this connection makes it easier for us to access the lucrative U.S. market.

The new Horizon connection will help diversification and build stronger economic ties in our region with the rest of North America. We can now look forward to marketing our unique opportunities to more of our U.S. neighbours with the wilderness, adventure and cultural experiences of northern B.C. It also helps build the activity and excitement around Prince George Airport's expansion project.

After all, Prince George and the region have a lot to offer an expanded network of visitors. It's a thriving city just ten minutes from pristine wilderness and outdoor adventure. Visitors can enjoy everything from world-class hotels, golfing and arts to hiking, boating, hunting and fishing.

The region is also a growing centre for international investment in our natural resources as well as our emerging inland port and logistics centre. Of crucial economic importance, this new service to Seattle helps build our presence in the global transportation network. Please join me in welcoming the world directly to the northern interior through the new Prince George Airport gateway and in thanking the mayor and council of Prince George for their support of this important initiative.

[1355]

ECO-SENSE HOUSE IN HIGHLANDS

J. Horgan: When it comes to green building technologies and low-environmental-impact housing alternatives, many builders are simply talking the talk, but in my constituency of Malahat–Juan de Fuca one family is truly walking the walk. Just 30 minutes from this Legislature, in the district of Highlands, live trend-setting natural building innovators Ann and Gord Baird.

Known simply as Eco-Sense, Ann and Gord have transcended the commercial green movement and embarked on an amazing journey toward real sustainability and created a multigenerational home that combines green lifestyle and modern building standards. Eco-Sense believes that a home in its system should mimic the beauty and natural functions of the world. This approach creates safe and sustainable living solutions while not taking precious resources away from future generations.

Eco-Sense is North America's first code-approved, seismically engineered, load-bearing, insulated cob house and features solar, PV and wind power, grid inter-tie, solar thermal heating, rainwater harvesting from a living roof, composting toilets, grey water reuse and passive solar design. Constructed from straw, clay, sand and pumice, Eco-Sense is writing the book on how to create housing from the ground up with the most minimal impact on the environment.

One of the challenges for the Bairds has been an inflexible building code that is reluctant to embrace alternative design concepts. To meet the environmental challenges of our age, the new building codes must include these techniques.

Sustainable from conception to completion, grandparents, children and grandchildren are living in my community with virtually no environmental impact. Encroached on by urban sprawl, blacktop and thousand-unit developments, the Bairds have made a home and lifestyle that uses little and returns much.

For the whole story on an incredible family and an amazing adventure in creativity and innovation, I invite all those listening to tune into the Knowledge Network at 7 p.m. on April 14 to watch the documentary A Sustainable Home , or google them at eco-sense.ca and see what ecologically sensible living can truly be.

B.C. ATHLETES AT

2008 OLYMPIC GAMES IN BEIJING

D. MacKay: I rise today to speak to the attention the Olympic Games have been receiving lately. With Olympic protests making headlines in B.C. and around the world, I want to take some time to commend the

[ Page 11209 ]

excellent work of Team Canada in preparing for the 2008 Summer Olympics and Paralympics.

In 119 days it is expected that more than 300 Canadian citizens will be competing in the Olympic events, and there are more qualifiers to come. Our athletes have been hard at work training for what will be for them the biggest event of their lives.

Many of these citizens come from British Columbia. So far, some B.C. members of team Canada include Hazelton's Carol Huynh for women's wrestling; 15-year-old Savannah King from Vancouver, who will be swimming the women's 400-metre freestyle; Haislan Garcia from Burnaby, who will be competing in the men's freestyle wrestling; and Alison Kabush, who will compete in the Paralympic Games playing boccia.

The Olympic movement has a good track record of promoting international understanding and peace and dialogue among people around the world. In Beijing our athletes will stand as examples of the enormous skill and determination that B.C. youth have. They will be the ambassadors for our province's values of multiculturalism and tolerance and will exemplify the belief that by working together, we can achieve great things.

As political representatives, it must be our first and foremost priority to support these men and women who have worked so hard and invested so much in order to represent us on the international stage. I would like the House to recognize the outstanding accomplishments of these fine British Columbians.

100th ANNIVERSARY OF

HASTINGS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

S. Simpson: Hon. Speaker, 100 years ago this May, Hastings Elementary School opened its doors at its present site on Penticton Street in Vancouver. Over the past century this school, one of Vancouver's largest elementary facilities, has developed a wonderful reputation as a school that works and has become an integral part of the Hastings-Sunrise community.

Many of the thousands of students who have come through Hastings doors have gone on to accomplish significant achievements in our society — likely the best known being our previous Lieutenant-Governor Her Honour Iona Campagnolo, who attended Hastings in grades 3 and 4.

Today Hastings is one of the largest, most complex elementary schools in Vancouver. It is a French immersion school with almost a third of its more than 600 students participating in that program, an excellent program that my daughter was fortunate to attend. As a past parent, I can say without reservation that Hastings School served my daughter exceptionally well.

[1400]

Hastings is also an inner-city and community school that serves a diverse and complex population. It is a school that balances a wide demographic, both in terms of incomes and ethnicity, with large populations from Chinese, Vietnamese, Central American Spanish, European and first nations descent. It achieves this by promoting equity, respect and strong character.

It is a school that successfully challenged bullying. It is a school that has provided a true haven of stability and support for many children who otherwise face difficult challenges in their lives. It is a school I am proud to say is part of Vancouver-Hastings.

On May 23 the Hastings School community will come together to celebrate a rich and important hundred-year history. Classrooms will be decorated in the decades of the school's history. In support of those efforts, they are collecting memorabilia that reminisces life at Hastings, whether it be newsletters, sports day ribbons, photos and much more. Anyone hearing this statement who could contribute to that collection would be most appreciated and welcome.

We all know the essential role that our schools play in developing our children and establishing their foundation as young adults and leaders of tomorrow. Hastings and its many teachers, principals, support staff, parents and children have contributed a century to that objective. I urge all members to join me in congratulating Hastings.

Oral Questions

INVESTIGATION INTO

TREE FARM LICENCE LAND REMOVALS

B. Ralston: The Minister of Forests has never explained his decision to unilaterally grant Western Forest Products its request to take 30,000 hectares of land out of its tree farm licences on Vancouver Island. That decision was worth millions of dollars to Western Forest Products, with no return to the public.

Can the Attorney General now confirm a report published by the Dogwood Initiative that employees at the B.C. Securities Commission are investigating the possibility that insiders were leaked the Forests Minister's pending decision before it was publicly announced?

Hon. R. Coleman: The decision was made in January of 2006 or 2007 — whatever it was. The decision was made based on advice by staff after a report to me that made the recommendation. The decision stands.

The member's comments about the Dogwood Initiative…. He might want to do a little more research with regards to who that organization is and also might want to check with the B.C. Securities Commission and the fact that they don't actually make public what they might be reviewing with regards to an investigation.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

B. Ralston: I'm not sure if the minister remembers just when he made the decision, but it was made in January 2007. Just prior to this decision, trading in Western Forest Products stock spiked. Trade volume was 6.5 times greater than the monthly average. Harbert Management Corp., Western Forest Products second-largest shareholder, bought an additional three million shares on January 12, 2007 — just two weeks prior to the minister's decision.

[ Page 11210 ]

Again to the Attorney General: can he advise this House if an insider-trading investigation is underway, and can he tell us the scope of the B.C. Securities Commission probe?

Hon. R. Coleman: I do know that Western Forest Products has provided an explanation with regards to the particular incident that the member outlines. I don't know what the outcome of that discussion will be.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a further supplemental.

B. Ralston: Well, the minister can disparage the Dogwood Initiative. They did meet with the investigators from the B.C. Securities Commission, so I think that speaks at least to their credibility.

This gift to Western Forest Products was made behind closed doors and without any public input or approval. To the Attorney General: can he advise the House if he is aware if a special prosecutor has been appointed to provide legal advice to the investigators, given the politically sensitive nature of this investigation?

Hon. R. Coleman: It's clear that the members opposite still want to ride an old horse with regards to rights of people that own private land in the province of British Columbia. This wasn't a behind-the-door decision. It was a decision that was made, which was processed by my ministry — it was brought by the recommendation of my very professional staff — to allow the exclusion to take place. The decision was made, the document was signed, and the deal was done.

[1405]

J. Horgan: Well, that old horse the minister refers to is the heart of my constituency. That old horse is first nations that weren't consulted. That old horse is now before the Minister of Community Services with a downzoning application for thousands of landowners in and around the region because this government mismanaged the file.

Again, a simple question to the Attorney General — the minister responsible for the Securities Commission, if he looks at his dossier there: is there at this time an ongoing investigation into potential insider trading with respect to the government's giveaway of private land assets to Western Forest Products with no compensation to the Crown?

Hon. R. Coleman: We've canvassed this in the past. The member knows full well what the process was. He knows that it was a statutory decision made by the Minister of Forests. These lands were private lands. They weren't public lands. They were in tree farm licences.

There has been a longstanding ability for people to actually apply to have them removed. They did. The recommendation was made by staff, and the approval was given.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

J. Horgan: What we do know is that the Auditor General is investigating the activities of the minister and the government of British Columbia with respect to its dealings with Western Forest Products. We know that. What we do know is that Securities Commission investigators interviewed individuals with respect to the deal that took place in British Columbia on the 12th of January. Three million shares traded on that day.

The Securities Commission has thought enough about it to talk to the Dogwood Initiative. Have they thought enough about it to talk to the Attorney General? Is there an investigation going on at this time into the activities of the Minister of Forests and Western Forest Products?

Hon. R. Coleman: Again, this decision was a statutory decision made by the Minister of Forests after recommendation by his staff.

B. Simpson: The issue at hand here is whether or not the minister gave advance notice, and were there people in Western Forest Products that benefited from that? We have canvassed this — the minister is right — in this House. We dispute the minister's claim that the private lands in the tree farm licence are privately held. That's what a tree farm licence is: public and private lands as one entity.

This is going on right now. The Pope and Talbot tree farm licence in the Kootenays is being sold separately — the public lands — to Interfor. The private lands have already been sold, and the money is being held in escrow. Will the minister commit today…? Has he signalled to Pope and Talbot that those lands will be released from the tree farm licence? Is that why they've been sold and Pope and Talbot is making the profit that it is?

Hon. R. Coleman: There has been no indication given to anybody whatsoever with regards to the disposition of those lands. There's a process of consultation going on, and there's been no report given to the minister.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

B. Simpson: Maybe the Securities Commission needs to look into this one again or the Auditor General will roll up his report and look into this, because this stinks.

How is it possible for a legal entity to be subdivided without the minister's approval? How is it possible that financial transactions can occur without this minister's approval, unless the minister has signalled to the parties involved that it's a done deal, that it's going to happen?

Again, my question to the Attorney General: is the Securities Commission investigating the Western Forest Products deal, and if so, will it be expanded to include what's happening with Pope and Talbot?

Hon. R. Coleman: The member knows that Pope and Talbot went through a CCAA, which is covered by

[ Page 11211 ]

federal statute. That process can go through. Somebody can make an offer and subject-to and put money in escrow if they wish. That doesn't mean the minister has given anybody any indication of anything, which I have not.

[1410]

S. Simpson: This issue around the sale of the Western Forest Products lands is a serious matter. The suggestion that it may be investigated by the Securities Commission is an extremely serious matter. The issue around whether there's insider trading or insider information here is a serious matter.

The question goes to the Attorney General, who has responsibility for the Securities Commission. Will he tell this House: is there an investigation being conducted by the Securities Commission into this sale — yes or no?

Hon. R. Coleman: To the member opposite: if there was or there was not, nobody on this side of the House would comment on an ongoing investigation by another statutory or legal entity.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

S. Simpson: What's inappropriate is for the Minister of Forests to be answering these questions when his ministry and office may be involved in this investigation. That's what's inappropriate.

The Attorney General has responsibility for the Securities Commission. The Attorney General has the responsibility to this House and to the people of British Columbia to be forthright on this. Will he tell us: is there an investigation by the Securities Commission or not? Yes or no.

Hon. R. Coleman: As far as I'm concerned, I am confident in the integrity of my professional staff in my office. I will put that on the line at any time, along with my own integrity.

R. Fleming: You know, this is the process that we're in now in British Columbia, when we had to find out from the former Solicitor General that he was the subject of a criminal investigation. It took the media to ask the questions of the Attorney General's ministry whether there was such an investigation.

So here we are now in regard to the Securities Commission. They're investigating Western Forest Products for suspicious share activities. So my question is to the Attorney General. Has a special prosecutor been appointed to investigate this matter?

Hon. W. Oppal: I would have thought that with the exhaustive discussions we've had in this House regarding the appointment of a special prosecutor, the member opposite would know better than to ask that question.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

The member has a supplemental.

R. Fleming: I can recall this very Attorney General telling us that they won't reveal any such details until they become known in the public. Now we are aware in the public realm that there is a Securities Commission investigation into this land deal.

My question again to the Attorney General, under his own advice that he has given to members of this House before, is: can he advise if he is aware of a special prosecutor being appointed to provide legal advice to the investigators, given the politically sensitive nature of this issue?

Hon. W. Oppal: Well, it's clear that the member opposite only listened to half the discussion. What we said during the last discussion that took place in this House….

Interjections.

Hon. W. Oppal: What we said when this issue was last raised in this House regarding the appointment of special prosecutors and when that appointment is made public is that when that matter is in the public realm, it will be for the criminal justice branch that appoints the special prosecutor to make that appointment public. It is not for the Attorney General to do so.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

[1415]

M. Farnworth: No one has asked the Attorney General to appoint a special prosecutor. We've been very clear. We're asking the Attorney General if he is aware that the Securities Commission may be undertaking an investigation into that financial transaction. Is the Attorney General aware that there may be an investigation taking place into that financial transaction involving those shares?

Hon. W. Oppal: No.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue, Member.

M. Farnworth: Well, the Minister of Forests indicated that the Securities Commission had received an explanation. Can the Attorney General then confirm that we won't be finding out about this tomorrow afternoon at about 5:30?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

[ Page 11212 ]

Hon. W. Oppal: How about five? I can't answer that question.

GOVERNMENT SUPPORT FOR

WOMEN AND CHILDREN IN BOUNTIFUL

L. Krog: Recent events in Texas that saw hundreds of children apprehended from a fundamentalist Latter-Day Saints community are hitting home here in B.C. People across the province are concerned for the women and children in Bountiful. The people of B.C. are tired of talk. They want to see some action to protect those women and children from potential abuse and human rights violations.

Has the Attorney General and this government finally made a decision? Is he going to refer the issue to the courts, appoint a special prosecutor or prosecute?

Hon. W. Oppal: The issue of Bountiful has been with us for a number of decades, and it's been the concern of past Attorneys General. The reason for that is that there are difficult issues of law, and there are difficult issues of fact. Those issues, unfortunately, over the decades have not been satisfactorily resolved.

I can tell this House, and I think it's well known, that since 2005 we have made it clear that we want to do something and that we will do something about Bountiful. So what we did was ask the RCMP to reopen their investigation, which had been inactive for a number of years.

The RCMP did that. We got an extensive report from the RCMP, and we then commissioned a special prosecutor to look at it. That special prosecutor gave an opinion. We had another prosecutor outside look at it. That was Mr. Doust.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

L. Krog: The delay is cold comfort to the women and children of Bountiful and people in this province who care about human rights. This problem is not going to solve itself. We need to get on with it because, in the meantime, the potential sexual exploitation of young women continues.

In Utah, Warren Jeffs, leader of the Fundamentalist Latter Day Saints Church, was convicted on two counts of accomplice to rape. In Texas authorities have acted to protect hundreds of children from alleged abuse. Here in B.C. we're still waiting for this government to act.

To the Attorney General: whether it's a prosecution or a referral, when is he going to do something?

Hon. W. Oppal: Well, this is hypocrisy at its best or at its worst. I don't mind telling this House that one of the real legal issues we've got here is that nothing was done for the last 25 years. An opinion was given to the Attorney General in the '90s. That member should know the opinion. Nothing was done in the '90s. That, in our view and in the view of some of the lawyers who have looked at it, gives some kind of legal comfort to those people who are committing those acts. If something had been done in the '90s, we wouldn't be in this dilemma now.

[1420]

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

D. Thorne: Yesterday B.C.'s Representative for Children and Youth raised concerns about children and women who are exposed to domestic violence and abuse. She said that we need better financial and institutional supports for safety plans for women to help them escape domestic violence.

In Bountiful there is no support and no coordinated response for the women and children who might choose to leave. My question is to the Minister Responsible for Women's Issues. Will she commit today to work with the children's representative to improve supports for women and children who are facing domestic violence, including the development of safety plans on the front lines?

Hon. W. Oppal: We've made it clear to the women and children of Bountiful that we as a government are prepared to help them. We've made the same offer to the children of Bountiful that we are there, prepared to help them.

Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental.

D. Thorne: With all due respect to the Attorney General, who answered the question I put to the women's ministry minister, we see problems with services for women and children in British Columbia right now. There have been so many cuts over the last six or seven years. We're not even anywhere close to the kind of funding and supports and service provision that we had in 2001.

This is the government that got rid of the Ministry of Women's Equality. It's also the government that gutted victim services, cut all funding to women's centres and also to child care programs.

Again, I ask the minister for women's services: will she commit today to increase funding and services to all communities, including Bountiful, to help women develop safety plans?

Hon. I. Chong: Well, the hypocrisy on the other side is absolutely ridiculous. Since 2001 the services, the financial programs, that have been available for women and children who are fleeing abuse and experiencing abuse have gone up 45 percent. We have provided additional dollars for training, which our front-line workers need. We have provided dollars for outreach services to ensure people are aware of services. That was never there before.

In addition, last year we provided additional resources to ensure that every single one of our provincially funded transition houses has 24-7 staffing — never before under the previous administration.

[ Page 11213 ]

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Member, just take your seat for a second.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

N. Simons: The problem we have here in B.C. is that resources for women and children who are facing violence, abuse or oppressive living situations aren't that well coordinated between agencies. What happened in Texas is an unfortunate consequence of government's failure to address well-known problems.

My question specifically is to the Minister of Children and Family Development. What programs are available through his ministry that are specifically tailored to offer support and assistance to women and children who wish to leave Bountiful and the FLDS sect?

Hon. I. Chong: As I indicated previously, we have provided outreach services which were previously never there. Communities around the province now have people that go out to ensure women and children who are fleeing abusive relationships, who are experiencing abuse, are aware that there are services available and that they can find a safe place to go when they are looking for a safe place to be away from their abusive relationships.

[1425]

When I hear members opposite, particularly the critic, indicate that there are one-time-only dollars, that is absolutely false. Our budget has gone up 45 percent. That is an annual amount that is now there.

I have travelled around the province. I have visited virtually every community. I have visited over three-quarters of the transition houses and met with front-line workers, and they have said: "Thank you for providing the resources." You know, Mr. Speaker, at the end of the day, that opposition voted against it.

Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

N. Simons: Well, that was the wrong minister answering the wrong question. My question is specifically to the Minister of Children and Family Development.

The issue at hand is that the supports need to be in place for families. If they choose to leave a community or a situation that isn't appropriate, they don't have access to that. Forty-six women's centres in this province were closed under this government's regime, and that's a fact everybody seems to know except for the members opposite.

My question again: does the Minister of Children and Family Development recognize there's a problem, and does he recognize that specific programs need to be put into place to address the specific issues that we're dealing with here today?

Hon. T. Christensen: I don't doubt the member's desire to try and address the situation in Bountiful. It's a desire that's actually shared by all members of this House. But as has been pointed out today, those members had a decade to start taking those steps. It wasn't done.

It's a complex matter. I can assure the member of this. Front-line workers from the Ministry of Children and Family Development are available to investigate any concern around a child that may be in need of protection. Resources are available through a combination of the Ministry of Children and Family Development as well as resources funded by the Minister Responsible for Women's Issues to ensure that there are support networks available for any woman who chooses to flee Bountiful with her children or any child who chooses to leave Bountiful on their own.

B.C. PLACE ROOF REPLACEMENT

N. Macdonald: Two years ago the NDP asked this government if the roof of B.C. Place needed to be replaced before the Olympics, and we were assured that the roof was fine. Subsequently, it has collapsed. It is discoloured. It has recently had water dripping from it.

The question is simple. The chair of the board responsible for B.C. Place says the roof needs to be replaced. He says the roof will last a maximum of four years, minimum undetermined. He says it should be replaced before the Olympic Games. The question: is the provincial government committed to replacing the roof of B.C. Place before the Olympic Games?

Hon. S. Hagen: Mr. Speaker, I can't tell you how pleased I am to receive the question from that member, because that member had never been inside B.C. Place until three weeks ago when I arranged a tour for him.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. S. Hagen: I can tell you that the chair of the board of VCCEP is preparing a number of alternatives for government. Government will consider those alternatives and move forward.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

[1430]

DISCLOSURE OF DOCUMENTS

IN B.C. RAIL COURT CASE

J. Kwan: On Monday the B.C. Rail corruption trial resumes in Vancouver. In an extraordinary move,

[ Page 11214 ]

government lawyers are trying to place significant restrictions on the single document that the judge says goes to the heart of the "innocence at stake" principle. In an affidavit filed by the government lawyers, the government says it will release the document to the defence to see it. But they want the defence to sign away various rights to use the document, and the government wants five days' notice if the defence plans to use it in an attempt to prove innocence.

My question is to the Attorney General. What are the B.C. Liberals so afraid of? What is in this document that they don't want anyone to see it, and they don't want the defence to be able to use it in the trial?

Hon. W. Oppal: First of all, the B.C. Liberals are not running the lawsuit. Secondly, we're not going to comment on what's going on in the courtroom.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Member has a supplemental.

J. Kwan: This document, according to the judge, goes to the heart of the trial, to the heart of the "innocence at stake" principle. Why are the government lawyers trying to put a blockade on it? Why are the government lawyers putting conditions for this document to be released by the defence? What does the government have to hide? What do the B.C. Liberals have to hide?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. W. Oppal: The issue is before the Supreme Court. I'm sure that Madam Justice Elizabeth Bennett will make that decision without any advice from anyone in this House.

[End of question period.]

Hon. R. Thorpe: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

Introductions by Members

Hon. R. Thorpe: Some 37 years ago the young daughter of Cora and Paul Vander Velden was married. I would ask all members of the House to join me in congratulating Edna and Mr. Speaker on their 37th wedding anniversary. [Applause.]

Mr. Speaker: Thank you.

Happy anniversary, Edna.

B. Simpson: Congratulations.

I stand to present a petition.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

Petitions

B. Simpson: I am presenting a rather unique petition from laid-off forest workers and many other concerned citizens in the Kamloops region. Since these forest workers have been given their pink slips with no support from their MLA, they have signed a pink slip for the MLA for Kamloops–North Thompson.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: I call continued second reading debate on Bill 18, Greenhouse Gas Reduction (Cap and Trade) Act, in this chamber, and in

Section A, I call Committee of Supply — for the information of members, beginning debate on the Ministry of Employment and Income Assistance estimates.

Second Reading of Bills

GREENHOUSE GAS REDUCTION

(CAP AND TRADE) ACT

(continued)

On the amendment (continued) .

M. Sather: It's my pleasure to continue the debate on the referral motion that was made yesterday by the Environment critic, the member for Vancouver-Hastings, to refer Bill 18, the Greenhouse Gas Reduction (Cap and Trade) Act, to the Select Standing Committee on Legislative Initiatives.

[1435]

[S. Hammell in the chair.]

There's a very good reason for that. It's reminiscent of Bill 16, which we discussed earlier and which we had a similar motion for. I must say that since I've been elected anyway, I don't recall the opposition making such a motion before. The reason is that these bills are entirely inadequate. They don't give members of this House an opportunity to discuss the meat of the matter, because there is no meat, in fact, in the bills.

That's a real problem, and that's why we've asked all members to open up this discussion and have it inclusive of the real issues at hand. There are a lot of questions around Bill 18 that could be addressed very nicely by this motion and with the cooperation of all the parties involved.

I wanted to start by continuing on a theme that the member for Vancouver-Hastings mentioned yesterday towards the end of his two-hour speech, and it's about industry with regard to this bill. The other day The Vancouver Sun listed the top….

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Excuse me. Members.

[ Page 11215 ]

M. Sather: The other day in The Vancouver Sun the ten top greenhouse gas emitters in B.C. were listed. They included three gas plants, two cogeneration plants, Alcan, two cement plants, a refinery and a pipeline.

There are a number of questions unanswered around not only this legislation but also the carbon tax legislation that is going to be coming forth, which the Finance Minister has talked about. She said, for example — in fact, she promised — that industry would not be hit twice, once by the carbon tax and once by the cap-and-trade regime that's coming in now.

It hasn't been explained, though, how it will be the case that industry won't be hit twice. They're asking for answers to these questions, and I think it's incumbent upon the government to provide some of those answers. That's why this motion, a referral, would give us an opportunity to do that.

Competitive advantage is a question that industry is asking. If they're going to be subject to these environmental laws…. We support cap-and-trade. Certainly, it's a tool that can be used to bring down greenhouse gases. But industry is asking if they're going to be subject to these measures, now that they're already dealing with a high dollar. They're dealing with recession in the United States.

Their concern is about dealing with competition from jurisdictions with few regulations like, for example, China and how the government is going to address that so that they can continue doing business here in Canada and in British Columbia. That's what we all want to see, of course. But they have concerns, and they have been quite clear that they haven't been consulted by the government in any way that they consider meaningful about some of these issues they have.

Important issues like this speak to the reason that the referral motion has been introduced. There needs to be an airing-out, a discussion, of a lot of these important issues, and that hasn't happened right now.

[1440]

The government is fond of talking about self-sufficiency, particularly when it comes to private power producers. But what about the self-sufficiency of our industries with regard to measures like cap-and-trade and the carbon tax? What is the government going to do to ensure that we're not going to have to depend on other jurisdictions, low-cost jurisdictions, to provide products like cement when we have that capacity here? Is the government willing, for example, to tax these imports to support our businesses?

One would think that's something that the government might not be likely to do, but then they'd have to explain what they are going to do and how it's going to affect business. If there's not going to be an import tax, for example, then I think it's entirely incumbent upon the government to lay out a business analysis of how cap-and-trade, how the carbon tax will affect large industry.

The question also arises: who in the government is looking after the interests of industry and the interests of business in B.C.? What are they doing? It's just a vacuum in terms of information.

We're very hopeful that the government will support this motion so that a lot of these questions can be answered. It's not going to be satisfactory to British Columbians if the government pushes through this bill. They don't know what it's all about and haven't had a chance to analyze it and to see it analyzed by those who should be doing that — namely, in part at least, those of us in this House.

Greenhouse gas emissions reduction, of course, is the purpose of the bill. It's a worthy purpose, no doubt about that. We wouldn't argue with that.

Emissions from industry and aviation in British Columbia account for about 40 percent of our total emissions. We believe they should be covered under the cap-and-trade scheme. We don't know whether aviation is going to be included in this bill, and that's one of the things we want to find out.

As I think I said yesterday — or it may have been in Bill 16 that I mentioned it — I hope the government puts up some speakers, at the very least, to answer these questions. Perhaps, as the critic has suggested, we will get some answers during the committee stage debate.

But cap-and-trade has had success, if done right. I think the most notable example is dealing with acid rain in North America. That was quite successful. People will recall that sulphur dioxide was a real issue a number of years ago. It worked.

We're looking for a scheme that will be successful. However, this bill is merely a framework of how the government will sort of be allowed to participate in the western climate initiative, which is a collaborative effort, I guess — we don't know much about it, but from what we read in the paper — between this government and governments in western United States.

That brings us to the question: what is B.C.'s role in the western climate initiative, and how is that progressing? There's a lot of secrecy around that, which was discussed at length yesterday.

The cap-and-trade, done right, allows for market forces and innovation to change behaviour. As I said before in discussion of the previous bill, it's the changes in behaviour that we're trying to encourage. If we don't change behaviour — both that of individuals and more specifically of industry in this case — then we don't have a chance of reducing our greenhouse gas emissions, which is of course the goal.

If you look at the example that California has laid out in terms of the openness of their process, I think it shows the way of what we would like to see in terms of openness and accountability by the government around cap-and-trade. But certainly this bill doesn't show it. I guess we'll have to wait, perhaps, for regulations.

[1445]

The problem, of course, with regulations is that we don't get to debate those. They don't get to be debated in this House. The cabinet will pass regulations, presumably — that's behind closed doors — and then we're stuck with whatever the government comes up with.

So to me, it just seems disingenuous of the government to bring forward this legislation with so little detail. There are a lot of unanswered questions. What is

[ Page 11216 ]

the cap going to be? How many permits will be issued? That's very important in terms of the functioning of the system. If it's too low, then you don't get a change in behaviour. Again, that's what the purpose of it is.

There are a number of things that businesses can do to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. There can be improved energy efficiency, increased use of renewable resources, capture and sequestration of carbon — in other words, typically pumping carbon dioxide deep into the earth to keep it out of the atmosphere.

I understand that the oil and gas industry in Norway, for example, is fairly successful at doing that. When asked how they're able to do it, they said: "Carbon tax." So that's one of the other parts of the government's plan, and we'll see how that progresses as we go along.

Businesses can reduce their losses from industrial systems and change types and methods of production. So those are some of the kinds of things they can do.

Some of the climate change groups have suggested that the cap that the government sets must be at least 33 percent below 2000 levels by 2020. Again, with this referral motion, we would hope that we could have a thorough discussion of the issue of where the cap is going to fall.

The cap needs to be quantified — actual numbers of metric tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalents. That's what they've done in California, and that's something where you can then actually say it's measurable. Is the government achieving a target or isn't it? We need to see a quantified cap. We're wondering what the government is going to come forth with.

What sectors will be covered by cap-and-trade is another unanswered question. I mentioned aviation. There's also the marine sector. Both cruise ships and commercial marine transport are large emitters, and we want to know whether they're going to be covered by the cap-and-trade legislation.

These are some of the issues. Other unanswered questions are: how will the permits be allocated? There are two ways the government can do that. Either they can give them away to large emitters — the purpose of the permit, of course, is to keep you below that cap — or they can be sold, I think, through what's called the auction system.

I could talk a bit about the problems they've had in Europe with their cap-and-trade system. It wasn't one where they had an auction. That has led to some of the problems they have.

Again, whether we're going to go to an auction or whether the permits are going to be handed out by the government, this is going to be a cabinet decision. There's not going to be legislative oversight, and there is not really going to be public input on that. That's the problem we have with Bill 18, and that's why the referral to the legislative committee has been made. I'm hoping and expecting that a number of speakers will address this issue as well.

Some of the benefits of the auction system that have been talked about is that, for one, companies who have already taken steps to reduce their greenhouse gases have to buy fewer permits. "The polluter pays" is one way of people putting it. If you reduce your greenhouse gas emissions by some of the methods I talked about earlier, then there are fewer permits that you have to purchase, which is a benefit.

[1450]

It doesn't allow industry not to have to pay for emissions, but it can sell them for profit. That's what people are concerned about. When I talk to people about cap-and-trade, they say: "Well, that's no good, because it just allows industry to buy or trade its way out of having to reduce its emissions." A well-constructed system, I believe, does actually result in reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, so I'm hopeful the government is going to come forward with that kind of system.

There's also revenue from the auction of permits. Those can be used to fund other projects to reduce emissions and assist vulnerable companies. That's actually what I'd hoped would be the case with the carbon tax that the government has talked about — that the money could have been put to things like projects to reduce emissions. But that's not the route they've gone.

In the European Union they noticed a number of problems. The biggest polluters ended up being the winners, which seems kind of strange. But if you accumulate permits, which critics, at least, say is done in Europe…. They were asked to report on what their expected level of emissions would be. It said that they exaggerated the levels to get more permits, which are then an asset — and they were listed as assets by the company — that they then could trade for at a profit.

That drove down the value of the permits, and it led to more or less a collapse in the system. That's certainly not what we're hoping will happen here, but I expect there's considerable pressure on the government to go the route of giving out the permits. I think there will be pressure from industry for them to do that, but I hope the government resists that pressure.

We want to know too: what will be the penalties if industry doesn't comply with the legislation? Here again is one of the many unanswered questions in this legislation. Being able to refer it to the legislative committee, we could get at a lot of these answers, I think.

Also, we want to know what kinds of restrictions there will be on offsets. You can buy permits within the system, you can trade, or you can go outside the system. You don't get them from another industry, you don't get them from the government, but you can look at other projects that are happening. They might be energy retrofits. It might be renewable energy development and installation. It might be reforestation. The government needs to be careful about how they go about that, because it can be problematic.

For example, an industry shouldn't be able to purchase an offset — let's say, for a reforestation project that was part of the government's ongoing mandate — for reforestation that it was going to be doing anyway. It's kind of, "Me too. Yeah, I'm into this," but it's not actually making any demonstrable difference in reducing greenhouse gases if that project was going to happen anyway. Or would the government not do certain projects, like reforestation? Then it would become part of the offset schema. That's a question.

[ Page 11217 ]

We don't want to see so many offsets that industry stops focusing on reducing its own emissions. We don't want offsets to become just a cost of doing business, as it were.

[1455]

What kind of government oversight will there be? Will there be an open presentation of the data by industry, or what? How is that going to work? The B.C. government removed the requirement for industry to release pollution records earlier, so that's worrisome. What kind of data will we be getting? What are the sources going to be, and how reliable is it? Those are other questions.

The lack of accountability is the major issue that critics have with this legislation. It authorizes cabinet to introduce any kind of cap-and-trade regime and change it at any time without legislative oversight. That's going backward. I believe The Vancouver Sun today…. This was a point they were making in their editorial — you know, the lack of oversight and the going behind closed doors. It leaves even the principles of the cap-and-trade regime up to regulation. I mentioned the problem with regulation earlier.

We want to know — and one of the things that we believe the referral motion would assist us in getting at is: what is the scope of the cap-and-trade regime that the government is bringing in? What does it cover — which sectors, which emissions sources, which greenhouse gases? All these are questions of considerable import to the validity of the cap-and-trade system.

Where would the cap-and-trade system be enforced? Would the oil and gas industry be covered? One would surely hope so, because there are large emissions sources there in both production and transportation. As I mentioned before, there's a need to cover marine and aviation, which are not covered by the carbon tax — although they might argue with that.

There's a need to lower the cap of 100,000 tonnes of greenhouse gases per year. As it is, apparently, that captures right now about 38 facilities in British Columbia. We believe it should capture more than that.

The government often talks about Dr. Mark Jaccard. You know, he often makes statements supporting the government's initiatives, but this time he's made one that's not quite so supportive. He said: "B.C. might decide to take an observer position in the western climate initiative while it sees what the next U.S. federal government will do." I wonder if there's going to be a delay while we wait for the election in the United States, and who knows how long we would have to wait beyond then.

I think it's probably the same thing with regard to the biofuels issue. In the United States the Democratic candidates have been discussing at length and promoting biofuels, particularly in Iowa, discussing around the Iowa caucuses. What is going to happen in that regard? We wonder if in fact we're never going to find out. When I say "never," I mean…. Let me say…. We wonder if we're going to find out by the next election what the actual plan is.

I understand there's going to be some more information coming forward in August around some of these issues. Certainly, the issue of secrecy is one that there's been a lot of concern expressed about, most specifically in the letters that the Privacy Commissioner has written to the Minister of Environment. He has expressed concerns that

section 36 of the act makes sweeping confidentiality concessions that will deny freedom-of-information access to previously accessible corporate data. That's something, again, that The Vancouver Sun editorial mentioned as not a good thing.

Maybe the Minister of Environment is going to bring forward an amendment to the bill himself. I don't know. He said he's looking at it. We wonder how he's going to address it. It's a big issue. We don't want to see a clampdown on access to information.

[1500]

This information, which this bill is apparently addressing, is already addressed by the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, and so it should stay. The act also deems information as being supplied in confidence, even if it originates from government — so the widening of what is "in confidence." The definition for information supplied is extremely broad in information with respect to a trade secret.

This is not going in the direction that we think the government should be going in terms of openness and accountability. First of all, the fact that it is going to be discussed behind closed doors…. It can't be discussed in a fulsome way in this House. Then, on top of all that, there's the increased secrecy that's built into the bill around freedom of information. That has us very concerned.

We're hopeful that the government will support this motion to refer. We believe there's a huge importance, and it's very significant to the people of British Columbia, to know just how this government is planning to go about addressing climate change.

N. Macdonald: Before we begin, I'd just like to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

N. Macdonald: Joining us is Mr. Heath Slee. He's the regional director from the regional district of East Kootenay.

I have to admit something to the House here. When I first came, I was able to identify people very easily up in the decks and see clearly who they were. What has come to pass is that it's more difficult for me.

I do recognize Heath there, and I see that you have company with you. I have to admit that I can't see clearly enough to identify, so I apologize if I should recognize you and I can't. I know people are offering me glasses. It's a sad comment on what happens as each birthday progresses.

Anyway, I'd like to welcome you both to the Legislature.

I had the opportunity of working closely with Heath in the regional district — a great guy.

[ Page 11218 ]

I hope you've enjoyed your visit here to Victoria. I hope you both have. Anyway, if the House could join me in welcoming them.

Debate Continued

N. Macdonald: With that, I'd like to take my place in speaking in favour of referring Bill 18 to the Select Standing Committee on Legislative Initiatives. What the NDP has said really clearly is that the big polluters have to be part of the solution to climate change. They represent 40 percent of greenhouse gas emissions, so very clearly they have to be part of the solution.

This bill, for those that are watching…. They need to understand that the bill, which we are asking that this Legislature refer to the standing committee, is a piece of enabling legislation. That means that almost everything related to what is going to be truly a massive initiative is going to be put forward as regulations from the Premier and cabinet.

This will provide a framework that will then pass the majority of the responsibility over to the Premier and cabinet. Those decisions are going to be fundamentally important to the economy, and they are going to be made without the open participation, the open debate, of the public. I think that is a fundamentally wrong way to go.

A much more reasonable way for the Legislature to move is to work to involve the public. What this referral motion will do is open up the process. It will give an opportunity for a standing committee of the Legislature to move around the province and engage people in a very important topic.

[1505]

It will do two things. It will educate people who attend the meetings on the ideas that legislators have in front of them — so share that information. It will also allow the public to share their feelings and make sure that they are able to express the ideas they have and that they are able to clearly express the concerns they have about the initiatives. They're able to express what their interests are.

If we are going to move forward successfully with this initiative — and it's important that we do — then the general public has to be fully committed and has to believe we are putting in place a system that will sincerely benefit the issue of dealing with climate change.

If we move and get things wrong and have the population come to see these initiatives as ill-considered, as designed to further interests other than the interest of dealing with climate change, then we will have blown one of the first chances we have had to make change. Having blown that chance, it will make all efforts in the future far more difficult.

This bill, as I've said, is enabling legislation. Therefore, they are the bones. But there's not really very much meat to what this House is going to be asked to agree to. What the Legislative Assembly could do is put it to this committee and allow some of that meat to be put on the bones, and that would be a positive thing to have happen.

The idea of cap-and-trade is an idea that I think is widely supported. It is a system that can work, according to many who look at it, but it is a system that depends a great deal on the details. I mean, the concept is actually quite simple. But in setting it up, there needs to be tremendous care. Potentially, you are talking about vast sums of money for it to work effectively. Therefore, when you set up the system, you have to be very careful that you're setting up a system that is going to achieve your goals and is not going to be open to fraudulent behaviour.

Essentially, what is cap-and-trade? Well, the concept is that emissions are capped at a level that the government, on behalf of the people of British Columbia, determines to be appropriate. Then pollution permits are given to various emitters. If a company uses less than that permit, then the concept is that there's an opportunity for them to benefit, probably financially. So that's the general concept. If a company needs more, they can access more permits by trading — usually cash — for those permits.

The concept is to use market forces to drive innovation and to change behaviours. The concept is widely supported. So it's seen as an idea that can work. Certainly, anything that rewards innovation and rewards proper behaviour is a concept the people would agree with. But as I've said before, the devil with this is in the detail.

How exactly is it going to be put together? If done poorly, there are huge consequences. There are massive implications. The member who spoke before me talked about free allocation. Or do you use auctioned allocation? These are all things that need to be talked about, understood by the public and a decision made on the direction that will be taken.

The reason that we need to refer this and involve the public is because we know, and the public knows, that if you leave these decisions to regulation, essentially what you are doing is leaving it to cabinet. You're leaving it to the cabinet, leaving it to the Premier and the Premier's office, who participates in the decision-making — who they meet with, the advice they get. These are all things that the public will not be privy to at any time.

[1510]

Therefore, essentially, these key decisions will not be made by the wider public. They will be made in secret, and that is the fundamental flaw we need to deal with. One way of dealing with it is having some of those decisions made, or at least discussed or considered, in a public process.

By referring this bill to a standing committee, there is the opportunity to talk through some of the decisions that need to be made and to have those decisions understood by the wider public. As I've said, that's key. It's key to involve them, to get them to participate, to get the public to understand the decisions that need to be made, and also to make sure that the decisions that are being made are properly thought through and properly considered.

There is a lot of concern around secrecy around this government in general. They have a very poor record

[ Page 11219 ]

in terms of presenting things openly, and their tendency is to move to secrecy. We have debated many bills in this Legislature which essentially increased secrecy in government.

In the last term we talked about the TransLink board, which meets in secret. As early as last fall we talked about the Vancouver Convention Centre Expansion Project board — so much done in secrecy. What we saw consistently was that decisions were made poorly, and people were not held to account. There's a long list of moves by this government towards secrecy.

With climate change, unfortunately, that tendency continues. You have a climate change secretariat. This secretariat is a group that meets in secret. Their minutes are secret. Even who comes to them and makes presentations — and this is a part that seems unfathomable — is secret. So who is there talking to them, telling them about the direction they need to take and the ideas they will then secretly put forward to cabinet, which will then secretly make decisions that will impact British Columbia's economy dramatically?

I think most British Columbians would agree that if the economy is going to be impacted dramatically, they should be part of that discussion, and they should be part of the group that is going to make that decision. To be part of that decision-making process, they have to fully understand what is going on. With this motion to refer this bill to a legislative committee, there is the possibility of groups of citizens coming together and becoming engaged fully in the process.

You have a tremendous amount of information that will come before the public. The difficulty is that if it is directed from cabinet, there will only be one side of a story that will be put forward. What we have seen consistently is that cabinet, the Premier, will make a decision in secret, and then they will use the substantial resources that government has to put forward their particular point of view.

That particular point of view may or may not be in the public interest, and that is something that the public should be able to judge. But what we have seen from this government is that despite the fact that there was a promise not to use the resources of government to put forward political ideas, they very clearly do.

There are vast sums — millions of dollars — spent by this government on what is essentially political advertising. There is a staff here of several hundred people who are essentially political communication staff and will put out the government point of view.

There are the resources to buy newspaper ads, to buy television ads, to put out a particular point of view, and we should see that that is something that is very separate from informing the population. The population is not necessarily informed by that. They simply receive the government message, which is different than being properly informed on a matter.

[1515]

What you would have with the idea of moving around with a legislative committee is the opportunity to have assertions made, but also assertions challenged and ideas challenged. That's a far more productive and useful tool, rather than simply depending upon government messaging which, as I say, is inevitably there to convince. It's more like advertising, to sell rather than to inform.

Some of the ideas that need to be thought about or considered by the public, I would say, are ideas like this: is there going to be legislative or public oversight? The answer with Bill 18 is that there's not. This is going to leave everything with the Premier and with cabinet.

Certainly, if you take a public meeting, and you meet with the general public…. I have hardly ever heard of a group that comes together in the public saying that they want to be removed from a decision-making process. I have never been in a meeting where people want to simply trust authority. They want authority to serve their needs.

They see the Premier, they see the cabinet, they see the government, and they see all of us here as MLAs as their servants, as they rightly should. We are their servants. If we are their servants, then we should be able to explain what we are doing. We should be able to defend the decisions we are making.

But with the process that is set up here, it will be difficult for the public to fully understand even the background to the decisions that are being made. If we take a committee and tour the province, then there is the opportunity for people to participate, to question and to understand more completely what is being put forward.

Cap-and-trade can take many, many different forms. Organized in a certain way, it can benefit individuals and businesses substantially. Put in another form, it can alter that situation dramatically. So you really want to fully understand what is going on with this.

The cabinet, with Bill 18, can do what it wants. It really can introduce any type of cap-and-trade system that it wants. As I said when I started to speak, cap-and-trade is a very general term, and it can take many different types of forms. How you organize it is fundamental to its success. Organized poorly, it will benefit certain groups or individuals, and it has the possibility of doing significant harm to parts of the economy.

But we have cabinet and the Premier, in secret, making those sorts of decisions. That's fundamentally wrong. With Bill 18, you also have the general principles not even laid out, the general principles around how this system will work. Not even the barest of ideas about how this system is going to be put in place are there in the legislation. That's something that, as you moved around the province, you could get feedback on from the general public in terms of what should be there as important principles of the legislation.

The greenhouse gas allowance allocation is going to have a massive impact on our economy, and that it is going to be done in the secrecy of cabinet should be worrying for everyone. It should be of concern to all that are involved. They are going to have unlimited ability to distribute carbon allowances, and there is no public process. To me, it is a recipe for disaster.

[1520]

The premise that this House is built on is that the public has a right to know. The institution was set up

[ Page 11220 ]

so that there are set pieces, set tools, that we have here as the opposition to test how our money is being spent and to test government policy.

The test that we apply to it is: is it in the public interest? When you try to limit that ability by the public and the opposition to test ideas, you are inevitably moving into dangerous territory. It makes for sloppy decision-making. It opens up the possibility for money spent inappropriately, for policy direction that benefits private interests and hurts the public interest.

What we have seen is that in secrecy, the deals around the sale of B.C. Rail and the management of the Vancouver Convention Centre Expansion Project were fundamentally flawed and problematic. If you shine the light on government decision-making, you will inevitably get better decisions. But with Bill 18, you have the public removed from the process. By referring this to a committee, there is an opportunity for the public to understand that and to ask for changes to Bill 18 — changes that would improve it.

There are a number of questions out there about how cap-and-trade is going to work, and you would think that the government would be in place to answer some of these. Perhaps as we move ahead, we will get some of these answers. My hope is that we would move ahead through a committee structure and that we would involve the public in answering some of the questions.

We need to be asking questions like: how are the permits going to be allocated? That is fundamentally important to whether this cap-and-trade is going to work or not. How many permits are going to be issued? What is the cap that we're talking about? All of these are yet unanswered.

What sectors are going to be covered by the regulations in Bill 18? That's not even clear, and that's of fundamental importance. How big will the penalties for non-compliance be? That points to the effectiveness. That's a big question. What sort of government oversight will be in place?

Those are all questions that the public needs to be included in. But what you see is that the public has deliberately not been included and will continue to be excluded. With this bill, as with Bill 16, you have something that's quite unusual. You have not only opposition members and the public concerned about the secrecy, but you even have Mr. Loukidelis. Now, he has raised concerns around a specific article. I think it's

article 36.

Very clearly, it's not often that the individual who is responsible for freedom of information, for privacy in this province, would be raising concerns around a piece of legislation. But here it is with this legislation and the restrictions or the rules that are put in place with

section 36.

I want to come back to the experience that I've had with a different piece of legislation. I've talked about it a lot this session because it's one that I found had a fairly dramatic impact on me personally, and that's the B.C. energy plan. The B.C. energy plan was put forward with all of the language that would be appealing to people who cared about the environment. All of the words were very carefully chosen so that they would appeal to people who felt that they had a responsibility to the environment, to making sure that they were acting in a responsible way for future generations.

With the B.C. energy plan, you had language around green energy, around sustainability. You had language that really would appeal to the values of those that are concerned about the environment.

[1525]

But what you had with it is the government using that language, using all of the resources that government has and that business has to spread that message and to spread other messages. Yet when you look at the B.C. energy plan and come to understand it and see what they've put in place, what they have really done is primarily set up a scenario where B.C. Liberal donors and B.C. Liberal insiders have the potential for making huge sums of money. So even though it is put forward as a policy that is dealing with an environmental issue, the reality is something very different. Well, it can create cynicism within the public. In fact, that's a danger that we need to be concerned about.

With this, you have the same potential. You have the potential with Bill 18 to lay out a scenario, to say that you're dealing with something that the public cares very deeply about, that individuals care very deeply about, which is climate change. Yet there is the potential to set up a scenario where major B.C. Liberal donors will benefit massively. That possibility exists completely. We have seen in the past that those scenarios are set up again and again and again by this government, where the corporate interest is looked after. It's disguised with language that can be appealing.

Cap-and-trade. Everybody knows that if you set it up a certain way, you are going to have certain companies benefit massively, so you need to be careful about that. By referring it, involving the public and making sure that the public is fully engaged, then you make sure not only that doesn't happen but that it does not appear to happen, and that is important. So a public process will allow the public to see that things are done properly. Referral is the proper way to deal with this — referral to a committee that will travel the province and involve the public.

In many ways, the reason that the NDP supports this idea is that, fundamentally, there is a different approach to how good legislation should be made. What you see with the climate change initiative that the government talks a great deal about is that it's very clearly a top-down approach. It is an approach that is made in secret by a select group of people who are considered the elite. The idea that all of the good ideas that can possibly come forward on this topic are going to be brought…. We'll meet in secret, we'll figure out the direction, and then we'll tell the rest of us how we're supposed to handle this.

The NDP approach is fundamentally different, and it's what makes the NDP appealing to me. It is grass roots; it is bottom-up. It believes that the wisdom of this province sits with the vast majority of people. It believes in the wider public being able to participate in making important decisions. It believes that you in-

[ Page 11221 ]

form the public, that you give them the choices and that you allow them to make it. So it's a fundamentally democratic way to approach it.

What we're suggesting here is that we begin that democratic approach to dealing with this issue, that we put the important issues in front of the public and allow them to participate and allow the wisdom of the many to find solutions for all of us.

I'll draw your attention to an initiative that the NDP has, which is Sustainable B.C., and just talk a minute about the process — a process that involves the public. These were ideas that came from groups of individuals in all parts of the province. It worked up through local groups to finally come together as a set of ideas that were looked at by the NDP convention and were strongly endorsed at that convention.

[1530]

You had ideas around sustainability, around the environment, that came from the grass roots up. The strength that has is that you have those groups within the community that fully understand the topic and believe it is not being…. If rules and regulations are needed, you have the public understanding that it's not being imposed on them.

That's the danger with these initiatives. If you don't include the public, they are going to be seen as being imposed on the public. The public will also be very legitimately concerned that a system is being set up that will benefit certain individuals and will have their interests compromised.

As I've said, what we saw with the B.C. energy plan is that very clearly that is what has happened. The first example we've had from this government of legislation that was put forward as environmentally beneficial, as it emerges, we start to see that it was none of that. In fact, what it was, was a program that would benefit B.C. Liberal donors and that would be to the detriment of the public interest.

[K. Whittred in the chair.]

The public needs to see, with Bill 18 and with cap-and-trade, that the things put in place are in the public interest and are fully understood and that the ideas being considered are fully tested. With Bill 18, really, the public is going to be removed directly from those decisions, and their representatives are going to be removed from those decisions. By referring this to a public committee, you deal with that problem to some degree and begin to involve the public in what is a critically important issue.

To conclude, what I would say is that the referral motion is clearly the direction that we should be going in. Cap-and-trade is an idea that can work, but if it is going to work, it needs to be done properly. The experience we've had in this House is that when governments move toward secrecy, when they remove the public, then we get policies that are poorly considered.

G. Robertson: I rise to support the motion to refer Bill 18, which was introduced here by the member for Vancouver-Hastings. I think it's a very intelligent and wise motion — to have a good second look at what has been proposed here in this bill and to really open up the whole subject of cap-and-trade and how we use cap-and-trade here in B.C. to achieve the goals that have been set forth in law by this legislation to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 33 percent by the year 2020. It's is an ambitious goal, a challenging goal, a goal that's supported on both sides of the House and, certainly, by the vast majority of British Columbians.

However, the nuts and bolts as to how we achieve this goal and how we, in fact, exceed the goal and beat the goal and achieve these kinds of reductions sooner than later are really what we're here to talk about today. Cap-and-trade is one such process by which we as a society can grapple with greenhouse gas emissions and reduce them, thereby mitigating, hopefully, much of the impact of climate change.

[1535]

I want to just start by setting the context for the increasingly worrying pace of climate change and a corresponding lack of rapid action and engagement, not only here in B.C. with the citizens of B.C., but around the world. Political will does come into play, as we saw here, bringing forth legislation to set targets, but it is notably sluggish in implementing measures that enable citizens to make those reductions, to make changes in lifestyle that encourage and enforce reductions in greenhouse gas emissions by industry.

The pickle we're in here is that scientists around the world are continuing to report that the pace is far beyond what was understood even a year or two ago. What warnings came forth from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change are now thought by many scientists to have been not stern or significant enough. In fact, the changes that we're seeing globally to climate are even more alarming than some of the worst predictions of even 12 months ago.

In that context, it behooves us in this House to continue to ramp up the rate of change and force the pace on greenhouse gas reductions. The consequences for not acting quickly enough are staggering. If there is one issue that we need to move on, in terms of big legislation, in terms of empowering the citizens of British Columbia to make a difference individually, in terms of making change to our industries, it is around climate change and ensuring that the impacts of climate change, be they here in B.C. or globally, are nowhere near as severe as predictions now put them.

Not to say that there aren't some really acute challenges here in B.C. that we face socially and environmentally. There are innumerable challenges that we need to grapple with. There are direct actions that can be taken in this House to reduce the problems we face locally as a society, be it on homelessness, be it on our ability to move around, on transportation, or our food supply.

All of that has to fit within a broader context of climate change as a threat that could effectively wipe our species off the planet in a matter of a few generations, which is a very difficult thing for us to digest or comprehend, but one that has moved many of us into

[ Page 11222 ]

action politically. We see some of the results of that impetus coming forth here today.

But I have real concerns about the content of Bill 18. The content lacks transparency. It lacks fairness. It lacks effectiveness on implementing a cap-and-trade system that will achieve the goals that we have to beat. It's a complicated issue.

Many British Columbians, I think, would love to know more about cap-and-trade. Those words, I think, will increasingly be heard in the days, weeks and months ahead as we look to implementing solutions to achieve greenhouse gas reductions. I'll start with a very quick overview of what cap-and-trade is, and what it means.

As this government has launched an initiative to implement a fuel tax — which they would like to be considering as a carbon tax that, in effect, does not actually tax carbon emissions broadly in the province — that proposal and proposed legislation has left out the industrial sectors and the emissions resulting from industry, which are about 40 percent of our emissions here in B.C.

[1540]

The government has decided that a cap-and-trade system is the most effective way by which to reduce the emissions from industry and has chosen a path of working collaboratively with a number of other states in the United States and provinces to pursue a collective course through the western climate initiative, which certainly has merit in that the economic realities of capping and implementing a trade regime certainly make more sense at a broader regional level so as to ensure that local industries are not uniquely affected by changes within their jurisdiction.

So this process, the WCI, is taking place right now. It's moving fairly quickly, but there are some very critical decisions and a whole process by which committees are looking at the details of cap-and-trade — what it means, what it will mean to each state and province that's involved, what it will mean to the industries in those jurisdictions, what it will mean to the citizens.

This work is being taken on aggressively. The province of B.C. has representatives on the committees that are involved in the WCI, mapping out that process, and I will go into a little more detail about the process that's taking place to define what cap-and-trade will be for B.C.

The bill that we have in front of us effectively enables the executive committee or cabinet to go ahead and implement whatever emerges from the WCI process and whatever emerges from work that they do independently. It unfortunately, takes it out of the public realm, takes it out of this Legislature once this bill has been passed, and obscures all of the inner workings, the negotiations and the decisions as to how we create a cap-and-trade system that works best for B.C. to achieve all of the goals around effectiveness and removing greenhouse gas emissions from our industrial sector.

Removing that decision-making process is really what the opposition is standing for here as unacceptable. The fact that this government sees a process as secretive and cloistered as the one they've proposed for a number of pieces of legislation here in the House to do with greenhouse gas reductions for an entire climate change action team process is reprehensible. That this government would not engage and empower the citizens of this province in the process to determine how we go about reducing our greenhouse gas emissions makes absolutely no sense.

This process of secrecy and obscurement stands in stark contrast to the way that our brothers and sisters in the United States and other provinces in Canada are pursuing their attack on climate change. There's a completely different approach taking place.

There is a completely different approach taking place that engages people; that seeks the best thinking, the best ideas; that seeks leadership from communities; that seeks input across the board in an open and transparent way; and that utilizes the tools and technology, whether it's public hearings, public meetings, web-based input. Basically, the doors are wide open, and they're collecting and implementing on all the best ideas they can capture.

We're seeing the opposite here in B.C. We're seeing the entire debate around climate change buried in this building, away in the ivory tower here. We're trying our best here as opposition MLAs to bring this forth, to speak the truth and to make sure that people around the province understand what's at stake and what's being hidden from them, effectively.

[1545]

In this case, we have a vastly complicated regime to regulate, to impose non-market sanctions on our industrial sector to get greenhouse gas reductions in play, and the people of B.C. have no say in this. They have nothing to go on here. They have no input, based on this legislation that's in front of us.

This specific referral motion is a very simple, clear and admirable step to say: "Hold on a second. Lots of good ideas here. Lots that we want to do. Lots that we can agree on. I think we agree on both sides of this House as to the importance of what we're doing. But hey, let's take a step back and make sure that the people of B.C. know what's going on and can have input on what the cap-and-trade system is."

It's pretty basic. Why wouldn't the members opposite support such a motion to open up the process and involve the people of B.C. in developing a rigorous and effective cap-and-trade system? It's in keeping with many of the initiatives, legislation and policy that this government has brought forward — typically, removing citizen input, cloistering the decisions that are made away from the public.

It's not a surprise, particularly to the members on this side of the House. We see it day in and day out as the way that this government does business. We will stand up every time it happens, and we will stand up vigorously when the issues are as critical as climate change and as important for people to have input on — when their very lives are going to be affected dramatically over the years to come.

Again, I'll just state off the top, to give a very quick description and perhaps to build the mounting frustration out there around the province, once people realize

[ Page 11223 ]

what is at stake and what's envisioned here…. Cap-and-trade, as a system, firstly, refers to the establishment of a cap on emissions that limits and then reduces the overall greenhouse gas emissions in a certain number of economic sectors. Those are what are in the process, filtered through this government, of deciding which sectors are involved….

It is basically a trading system. That's the cap on the emission. The trade part of it is the trading system that turns the emissions reductions into equal economic units that can be traded like a currency. It's effectively establishing a whole new currency in carbon that the various industrial sectors can trade within their sector, based on whether they can come in under the cap that has been set for them.

The theory behind all this is that the system enables the maximum economic efficiency and flexibility in the marketplace by allowing entities that figure out how to do greenhouse gas emission reductions to actually benefit from the technology they develop, from the costs that they bear internally to do that. They're able to benefit from that by trading that currency to those who haven't figured it out yet or who are not succeeding in reducing their emissions. It combines to produce the lowest price for the reduction of those emissions, in the economy, and therefore, it eases the overall economic impact of making those changes and controlling global warming.

Cap-and-trade proposals can be economy-wide, to take on the whole of our domestic emissions. Others can be limited to a utility, an industry, a transportation sector. There can be a combination of all of that. All of this is being worked on by the western climate initiative — B.C. being at the table in that process.

[1550]

Those are some basics here. Creating this system is very complicated, and as such, there have been real pitfalls to date in how this system has been working in other jurisdictions.

The European Union proceeded with a cap-and-trade system starting in 2003. They have had very mixed results in the system that was put in place, which should spur us on, and certainly is influencing the western climate initiative process. The challenges in Europe should be a wake-up call to us here in B.C. that we've got to design this right, and we've got to implement this right if we want it to be effective.

Again, I don't think we do that in isolation. I don't think we do that by excluding the people of B.C. and a really thoughtful process as to what we design here.

In Europe 21 member states and over 9,000 factories were involved. The choice was made to allocate the emissions trading units versus auctioning them off to industry. Basically, a big number was chosen based on amalgamating all the emissions as reported by the factories throughout industry. Those numbers were added up. A cap was based on that, and off they went.

The problem that soon developed was that those emissions were inflated by different players in the industries. When the true emissions came in, in the years ensuing, they were significantly lower than the original cap.

Right away the trading of those currency units in carbon that took place was disastrous because, in fact, everyone had something to sell. Many of the trading partners were under their cap and had units to sell. So the trading market was a disaster. There have been a number of interventions in the cap-and-trade system in Europe, in the EU, to try and rectify these problems, to try and reset the emissions permits to match the actual emissions. But we've seen real problems in how that system was set up, and there's a great deal to learn from that.

If we look at what kinds of questions need to be asked here, there are significant concerns to do with these allocations of emission permits. The permits, as they were in Europe, can be given away. The system that's recommended, I think, much more vigorously now is that they're auctioned off. Therefore, industry needs to buy-in to the system and effectively. They're not going to buy-in more than they know they're emitting. So there is an accurate cap in effect set by the auction process.

The western climate initiative is, again, looking at these questions. Do some of these allocations phase in or phase out over time? Does the system lean towards cushioning the transition of polluting industries, or does it lean towards driving the emissions reductions that will seed new technologies and create new jobs?

There are different directions that that can go. Obviously, I think it's critical that we are driving new technology and new job creation through that, versus trying to make this the softest possible landing. We know we have to do a lot in a short period of time in terms of our emissions reductions. That's only going to happen by pushing the pace of technology and ensuring that our industries are mobilized to make this change.

Another key question here with regards to how the credits are allocated is: what happens with the auction proceeds and through what mechanism are they utilized?

[1555]

We're jumping ahead to envisioning a system that does use auction, and thereby the people of B.C. have a kitty to work with here to start working hard on solutions — which is not built into the carbon tax side of the process here because it's been designed to be revenue-neutral. Therefore, it doesn't kick off proceeds with which we can invest in the solutions, invest in new technologies, in retrofitting, in transitions for communities that are going to need help to get through this challenging time of reducing emissions markedly across the province.

In the WCI process there are five different subcommittees beavering away at the substance of cap-and-trade. Scope, allocation, electricity, offsets and reporting are the five subcommittees that are preparing specific reports based on input from their members and the member states and provinces.

Just to give a little detail on what's going on within each one, because there are big questions being asked by each.

Regarding the scope. Which greenhouse gases? Obviously, beyond CO 2 there are a number of others.

[ Page 11224 ]

What sectors are involved from industry — whether utilities, transportation? In B.C. we have a diverse array of emitters. We have significant emissions coming from different industries that at this point have no limits on the emissions they put forth.

I know in Vancouver in the Lower Mainland our largest emitters are the cement plants — significant CO 2 emissions. There are great new alternatives, both technological and source material, that the cement industry could utilize to dramatically reduce greenhouse gas emissions. If they're included in the cap-and-trade system that is implemented, those changes will happen a lot more readily.

Certainly, this side of the House wants to see beyond those permits being auctioned. We want to see all the sectors of our economy involved, making sure that everyone who's responsible for emissions is actually taking that responsibility seriously and is paying the price on the emissions that's appropriate.

So the scope committee is looking at sectors, at which gases, at which sources of emission should be capped, at when the enforcement begins, at how to keep it all simple — some basic overall scoping of how the system works.

Allocation I spoke of earlier — whether it's regional, whether it's by sector and how the auction system works. Those are all being worked on by the allocation committee.

The electricity committee is looking at the emissions resulting from the production of electricity. It's very different for us here in B.C. than for many of the other members, but we certainly have a voice at the table there.

Offsets is another critical committee here looking at what kinds of activities qualify for offsets. There's been a lot of controversy over different types of offsets, from tree-planting to investments in reducing emissions out of landfills or agricultural sources. Again, it's important that the offset side of it, which will be brought to bear in a significant way in the system, is really looked at in detail, and this committee on the WCI is doing that.

Finally, the reporting committee is grappling with who reports the emissions, what the standards are, whether there's independent verification and whether the requirements should apply only to emitters that are covered currently within industrial sectors or should apply to any new industries that emerge.

These are five committees working very hard on defining what cap-and-trade looks like for much of western North America and a fairly vast pool of trading partners, of jurisdictions that are all committed to reducing carbon emissions, greenhouse gas emissions, and doing it in an effective way as a broader region, thereby ensuring that, economically, we can get through this transition as smoothly as possible.

[1600]

This is taking place this year. There's a whole process going on that has been going on through the winter into the spring. There are many months to go yet before it'll be clear what the WCI will produce and recommend and what should be implemented in the various jurisdictions by industrial sector.

For us to move forward on Bill 18 right now and effectively enable the government to do work behind closed doors, without hearing the WCI's findings, without seeing the recommendations coming forth, without talking to the people of B.C. and having a broad and vigorous dialogue, community to community, industrial sector to industrial sector…. It doesn't make a whole lot of sense for us to be passing legislation at this point, before we even know what's on the table and before we even gauge the people of B.C.

It's fundamentally, really, a question of transparency, of fairness and of effectiveness. On all three levels, we have to ask the hard questions. We're looking now to continuing with a process that is not transparent, in which the people of B.C. can't see what's going on. All the other states and provinces are making their steps known and public, and we're not. Transparency is off the table.

This bill, again, precludes our opportunity to ramp up the transparency of our process. It also brings up the question of fairness. A lack of transparency obviously isn't fair. With all these hard decisions around who's paying the cost and how much they are paying for their emissions, ensuring that there's fairness means that we need to be public about it. In order for something to be fair, it needs to be judged broadly and by the public. In this case, we're taking it away from that, and the whole issue of fairness is at question.

Again, effectiveness. It's hard to be effective if everyone doesn't know what's taking place and what they need to be part of. Ultimately, all three of these are really critical questions that we need to be asking, that we need to be demanding, in terms of outcomes here before we go steamrolling forward, implementing legislation that enables a process behind closed doors that excludes the people and that, in essence, will not be as effective as it could if we were engaging people and opening up this process.

I will just close by expressing my real concern that, again, it's another missed opportunity. It's very unfortunate that we have to stand in this House and talk about what could be a fantastic opportunity yet is being squandered on a secretive process.

D. Routley: I rise to speak in support of the referral motion that's before us. It is important in all these issues that the people of British Columbia have full confidence in the effectiveness of plans and the openness of this debate, particularly when the effects of policies like the one we're considering here have been so unexplored and are lacking in certainty.

The experience of British Columbians in viewing the policies of the government so far in this area is one of seeing a haphazard approach that has been ushered up in rushed announcements that have been poorly planned, that have not resulted in fairness and that have left people out of the debate on their own future. We have seen the imperative grow before us, in the pace of climate change being greater than was ever thought possible, even by some of the most dire expectations, and it is absolutely our duty in this House to increase and ramp up our reaction to that reality.

[1605]

[ Page 11225 ]

But we also need to employ great caution, because what appears to be one step forward can in fact be two steps back if we take the wrong steps, if we take the wrong direction. A perfect example of this was the fuel tax proposal that was brought before this House. It has been roundly seen not as a carbon tax but as a fuel tax in that it taxes the fuel that ordinary British Columbians use but has left out heavy industry, left out most of the industrial polluters who in fact account for approximately 40 percent of the outputs of British Columbia. That is unfortunate but also unfair. It leaves British Columbians as the sole payers, as the sole sacrifice-makers in the plan offered so far.

This bill will hand over decisions and discussions and debate on the details of the cap-and-trade system to closed-door negotiations which take the form and effect of this plan out of the hands of British Columbians.

We need British Columbians to embrace whatever plan comes forward and participate fully. We don't reach that goal by favouritism, by leaving out those who might be the largest donors to the provincial government through the B.C. Liberal Party, by leaving out those who are the biggest supporters of the B.C. Liberal Party. That breeds cynicism and is absolutely an unfair approach.

This secretive approach to the way government is deciding these issues will contribute to the cynicism that people view the process through, which will make it that much more difficult to encourage British Columbians to embrace change that may be difficult for them and may be costly to them. Shutting out the people of B.C. makes no sense.

The B.C. population expect leadership. They expect to have input. They expect this government to consider ideas from everyone, from all places. But through this bill, we can have no confidence that that will be the case. We have no confidence that the people of B.C. will be adequately heard, that the issues they will face in this transition will be adequately stewarded.

It is no coincidence, I would argue, that the biggest polluters are the biggest donors to the B.C. Liberal Party. We have seen policy consistently favour those who are supporters of the government and of the B.C. Liberal Party.

The theory of cap-and-trade is something that people are embracing. They can see that business and industry would be capped and that as emissions are reduced, those who cannot reduce as quickly would be able to trade for those credits.

But what it does is open up a huge opportunity for this government to create carbon-trading billionaires out of their supporters. In fact, if the government takes the same approach that they've taken to so many other transitions, they will just leave it completely up to forces in the market, or forces brought to bear on the market, in favour of their supporters. That would be unfortunate.

Our strategic interests need to be more carefully thought out than that. I'll use an example. I visited a company, a foundry, in the Lower Mainland a couple of weeks ago. This foundry is one of five or six left in the Lower Mainland, where there were 15 or 16 in the past.

It's a very strategic link in our manufacturing chain. This foundry does custom casting of custom alloys for the forest industry, for the marine construction industry, for civic infrastructure. It's a vital link in a competitive manufacturing chain, a flexible link that allows our industries to explore and develop new processes, new ideas, new products and new markets.

[1610]

That small foundry, which employs only 110 or 120 people, uses the equivalent of 20,000 homes in electricity. It uses the electrical equivalent of what it would take to power 20,000 homes in that it uses electricity to melt the alloys used to form these castings.

We don't know what form this cap-and-trade will take. We don't know if a company like that, which is struggling to be viable, which is struggling to survive in this current marketplace — with forced policies that have driven away their customer base, with other decisions that have resulted in great challenge to them and to other strategic links in our manufacturing chain…. They are forced, with a downturn in our economy, facing a recession in their marketplaces that will be very difficult to survive.

Will the B.C. Liberal plan offer an option to companies like that to just wind down most of their activities and trade away their emissions to other companies in B.C. that aren't so interested in protecting our environment, that aren't so interested in changing along with the expectations of British Columbians? Then the marketplace pressure, which might have resulted in a reduction of carbon with the unfortunate demise of some of the companies that create that demand, will be compensated, and we won't even gain what we would gain by losing that production which is so vitally strategic to us.

Are we going to enter into a system — not described here, not described anywhere, but to be negotiated behind closed doors — that will allow heavy industry to take advantage of the cycling of the economy to avoid change and will in fact put us two steps backward when we're claiming to step one step forward.

Those are crucial issues not only for British Columbians but for this planet. These issues are being discussed by the European Union. They are being discussed by the western climate change initiative. They are being pondered by people who are experts, who are community leaders, who are environmental leaders. Unfortunately, if this bill goes forward in British Columbia, that discussion will happen behind closed doors.

It is important. It is not only important to the fairness of the application of this act and the outcomes of its effects, but it's also vital to the environment. If we simply label something, it doesn't make it so. If we simply apply a name to something, it doesn't change its content. If we simply say that a cap-and-trade system is good for the environment — end stop — then we may be in for a very bitter