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)

FRIDAY, MAY 23, 2008

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 34, Number 5

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Page

Introductions by Members

Tributes

Michelle Stillwell

Cantelon

Introductions by Members

Tabling Documents

Elections B.C. Service Plan:

2008/09 – 2010/11

Statements (Standing Order

25 B )

Korean War

H. Bloy

Rick Hansen Wheels in Motion

Horgan

Down Syndrome Research Foundation

R. Lee

HIV/AIDS

L. Krog

Diana Johnstone

Cantelon

Insite safe injection facility

Chudnovsky

Oral Questions

Retention and recruitment of

corrections officers

Farnworth

Hon. J.

van Dongen

Puchmayr

Retention and recruitment of

sheriffs

L. Krog

Hon. W.

Oppal

A. Dix

Condition of B.C. Place roof

Macdonald

Hon. S.

Hagen

Chudnovsky

Simpson

H. Bains

J. Kwan

Karagianis

Investigation into death in Maple

Ridge

Sather

Hon. J.

van Dongen

Committee of the Whole House

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment

Act, 2008 (Bill 33) (continued)

Karagianis

Hon. K.

Falcon

L. Krog

Hon. C.

Taylor

Hon. M.

Coell

Chudnovsky

Hon. S.

Bond

Protected Areas of British

Columbia (Conservancies and Parks) Amendment Act, 2008 (Bill 38)

MacKay

Hon. B.

Penner

Simpson

Reporting of Bills

Protected Areas of British

Columbia (Conservancies and Parks) Amendment Act, 2008 (Bill 38)

Third Reading of Bills

Protected Areas of British

Columbia (Conservancies and Parks) Amendment Act, 2008 (Bill 38)

Tabling Documents

Environmental Appeal Board,

annual report, 2006-2007

Committee of the Whole House

Greenhouse Gas Reduction (Cap and

Trade) Act (Bill 18) (continued)

Simpson

Hon. B.

Penner

Robertson

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Health

(continued)

Gentner

Hon. G.

Abbott

Farnworth

Fraser

Macdonald

Routley

H. Bains

J. Brar

Sather

[ Page 12813 ]

FRIDAY, MAY 23, 2008

The House met at 1:33 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Introductions by Members

H. Bloy: Today in the gallery are twelve veterans of the

Korean War. I'd like to name them: John Bishop, Roy Borshalt, Ed Hidell, Gary

Hall, Ken Hines, Philip Lee, Gary Miller, Victor Mumfort, Herb Pitts, Ray

Renault, Glen Patrick and Len Desjarlais.

I wish to recognize Neil Rhodes, also a veteran, who is unable to

make it today due to illness. Also in the gallery is Guy Black, who has worked

hard to promote the contributions of the Korean War veterans.

Will the House please make these true Canadians welcome.

Hon. M. Coell: I have two guests in the gallery today: Joe

Paling, the president, and Natalie Bocking, external relations coordinator, of

the Simon Fraser Student Society. Would the House please make them welcome.

[1335]

R. Lee: Visiting in the House today is a delegation from

the Guangxi Charity Federation. We are joined by the vice-secretary general of

Guangxi Charity Federation, Xiang Sheng Zhang; chairman of Lojo city, the

Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference, Jiang Chun Ji; chairman of

Lojo city, south region civil administration, Lan Jie; chairman of Woushen

County civil administration, Su Jiu Li; and vice-municipal director of south

region, Lojo city, Chen Wen Min.

They are accompanied by the chairman of the Cultural Regeneration

Research (Worldwide) Foundation, Mr. Kenneth Tsang, chairman of the Culture

Regeneration Research Society, Mr. Benjamin Li and project coordinator, CRRS

(Worldwide) Foundation, Mr. William Chan.

Will the House please join me to give them the warmest welcome.

Mr. Speaker: Continue, Member.

R. Lee: I would also like to introduce a group of grade 5

students from the Our Lady of Mercy School in Burnaby. Would the House please

join me in welcoming the students and their teachers Mrs. Barbara Fraser Tilley

and Mrs. Linda Schubert to the Legislature.

R. Hawes: In the galleries today are two members of our

excellent caucus research teams, Justin Molander and Sarah Elder. Could the

House please make both of them welcome.

Tributes

MICHELLE STILLWELL

R. Cantelon: I'd ask the House to join me in congratulating

an outstanding achievement by a constituent from Nanoose Bay. Michelle

Stillwell, racing in an internationally sanctioned wheelchair event, not only

won the 100 metres and 200 metres — won the gold medal — she broke records in

both, absolutely crushed the 100 metres and won both events. So Beijing, look

out. Here comes Michelle.

Introductions by Members

Hon. I. Chong: Although this individual has already been

introduced by the member for Burquitlam, I would like to add a personal welcome

to Capt. Gary Hall, a constituent of mine who for the past several years has

graciously assisted me during the annual Remembrance Day ceremonies in Oak Bay,

where he has accompanied me in the laying of a wreath on behalf of the province.

So I ask the House to please give him a special welcome.

B. Lekstrom: It's not often that for two days in a row I

have the opportunity to introduce guests from Dawson Creek, but joining us today

are two special guests in the chambers. We have His Worship Mayor Calvin Kruk

from Dawson Creek, as well as Duncan Redfern. Will the House please make them

feel welcome.

Tabling Documents

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, I have the honour to present the

Elections B.C. Service Plan: 2008/09 – 2010/11 .

Statements

(Standing Order 25

B) KOREAN WAR

H. Bloy: I rise today to speak about an important event

that affected our country and many others over 55 years ago, as our servicemen

and servicewomen defended the people of the Republic of Korea. Hon. Speaker,

2008 marks the 55th anniversary of the Korean War ceasefire.

The Korean War lasted three years, and almost 27,000 Canadian men

and women served. During this time 1,588 were wounded, and there were 516

Canadian war dead, including 36 British Columbians who gave their lives to an

international campaign to stop a war of aggression.

On July 27 British Columbia will declare Korea Veterans Day in our

province. By issuing this proclamation, we hope to pay tribute to our servicemen

and servicewomen who brought great credit and esteem to Canada and British

Columbia by their matchless courage and professionalism. It is also the goal to

raise awareness of the Korean War and bring together recognitions to its

veterans.

[ Page 12814 ]

I had the honour and privilege of having lunch today with Port

Moody resident Guy Black, Lt. Col. John Bishop and Victor Mumfort. I enjoyed our

conversation, and they are here in the gallery now with veterans of the Korean

War. Guy Black has worked tirelessly to promote the contributions of veterans of

the Korean War, and I know he is proud to see this proclamation realized. It is

a tribute to the veterans of British Columbia.

[1340]

The Korean War has been referred to as a forgotten war and is a

significant event in our history during the Cold War, but we will not and we

must not forget. Today fewer than 3,000 Korean War veterans are still alive in

British Columbia, and this proclamation displays that British Columbians have

not forgotten the sacrifice made 55 years ago by these true Canadian heroes.

[Applause.]

RICK HANSEN WHEELS IN MOTION

J. Horgan: It's been over 20 years since a young man from

Williams Lake returned from the most incredible world tour ever undertaken.

After two years, two months, two days, through 32 countries, over 40,000

kilometres, Rick Hansen wheeled into our hearts and minds. Spinal cord injury

can happen to anyone at anytime. The impact of SCI on individuals and families

is enormous, but because of Rick Hansen and his world tour, tremendous strides

have been made in spinal cord research. Equally important has been the

faced by citizens in wheelchairs.

June 8 marks the sixth year of the Rick Hansen Wheels in Motion

event, where Canadians from coast to coast come together to raise money and

awareness for spinal cord research. Wheels in Motion is an opportunity for all

of us to support the Rick Hansen Foundation and countless other organizations,

like the SCI Solutions Alliance.

Since the inception of the annual Wheels in Motion day, Canadians

have raised over $7.6 million. These funds have supported over 700

quality-of-life projects in communities like mine and others across this

country, to provide solutions for men, women and children with spinal cord

injury.

Wheels in Motion 2008 events will support quality-of-life programs

that help ensure that people with SCI receive the support they need to fully

participate in their communities and lead healthy, active lives.

Projects also contribute to making communities more accessible.

They provide peer-support programs, equipment and assistive devices, sports and

improvements and many, many more initiatives.

I invite all members of this House and those watching at home to

contact their local organizing committees to sign up and participate in this

year's event. On June 8 you can wheel, roll, ride or walk in your local area to

the riding of the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head at Willows Park on the eighth,

beginning at nine o'clock.

In Duncan people will be able to gather at the city square early

in the day for the annual wheelchair rugby event. If you need more information —

www.rickhansen.org.

DOWN SYNDROME RESEARCH FOUNDATION

R. Lee: Yesterday I had the opportunity to attend a

breakfast held by the Down Syndrome Research Foundation. They provide

information on many research studies and programs offered by the foundation to

assist individuals with Down syndrome and their families. Down syndrome occurs

approximately once in every 600 births. There are currently over 40,000

Canadians who have Down syndrome.

Located in North Burnaby the foundation operates out of a

world-class clinical research building that includes a research lab equipped

with western Canada's only magnetoencephalography system. Established in 1995

the foundation focuses on empowering people with Down syndrome to achieve their

potential, lead independent and fulfilling lives and participate fully in their

communities.

I would like to mention the founder of the Down Syndrome Research

Foundation, Miss Josephine Mills. Miss Mills unfortunately passed away last week

on May 19. Her vision and dedication to assisting those with Down syndrome will

continue on through the development of educational and training programs,

disseminating information and research results, providing clinical support

services, collaborating with other resource centres and community service

providers and by raising funds to support a broad spectrum of research projects.

Last Friday I also had the opportunity to participate in an

announcement that will help expand the offering of the foundation and help us

meet the growing needs of the local children and families. The Minister of State

for Childcare announced funding for 12 new child care spaces at the foundation.

The foundation is able to expand the program to 32 spaces that will help

children develop a foundation of social and language skills that are required

for lifelong learning and ensure successful integration and inclusion for all

children taking part.

I would like to thank Dawn McKenna, the executive director, and

all of the staff, researchers and supporters of the foundation for their efforts

in assisting all those afflicted with Down syndrome to have a better quality of

life.

[1345]

HIV/AIDS

L. Krog: May 18 to May 24 is Global AIDS Week of Action. It

is an opportunity for activists around the world to stand together, generate

political pressure and demand action from world leaders. The week starts with

the International AIDS Candlelight Memorial day on May 18, when the world

recognizes and remembers

[ Page 12815 ]

those who have died of AIDS. The week of action is just two weeks before a

high-level meeting at the UN discusses the progress made by every government in

the fight against AIDS.

It is more than 25 years since AIDS was first identified, and yet

it continues to kill 6,000 people daily around the world — 6,000 people. Two out

of three HIV-positive people still lack access to treatment. Current AIDS

responses do not begin to tackle the violation of women's rights, which is one

of the key drivers of the epidemic. Forty million people live with HIV/AIDS

every day, and close to half of those are women. Sixty percent of all new HIV

infections are amongst young people aged 15 to 24.

With only two years until 2010, barely one in four people have

access to HIV medicines that they need to stay alive. Worldwide only 12 percent

of people who want to be tested for HIV are able to do so. Fewer than 10 percent

of children affected by AIDS receive any support whatsoever. UNAIDS estimates

that it requires $20 billion to $23 billion annually to deal with this issue,

but current commitments suggest that, in fact, it will be something in the range

of a $10 billion shortfall.

G8 nations need to lead the way. We are the wealthy part of the

planet, and we know that AIDS does not recognize wealth or status or ethnicity

or faith. It is a time this week to call on governments of all levels to do

whatever they can to ensure that the scourge of AIDS is removed.

DIANA JOHNSTONE

R. Cantelon: In every community there's usually a person

that when the prestige or the pride of the community is on the line — when

they're hosting, say, a big event — that this is a person you go to, to make

sure it's done right.

In our community that person is Diana Johnstone. She was just

recently recognized for a B.C. Community Achievement Award, and rightly so, for

some of the things she's been involved with. She was executive director of the

B.C. Summer Games three times; B.C. Senior Games; B.C. disabled games. She sat

on the board of the Port Theatre when it was in its growing phase and a

difficult phase; the City Centre Association. She serves on the Parks,

Recreation and Culture Commission. She was recognized with a positive

achievement award by the Economic Development Group, and she certainly is a very

positive person.

Now, you might think that this would be a sergeant-major type of

person. Well, quite the opposite. She's beautiful in her presence and beautiful

in spirit, but she has a very sensitive way of conveying to a person a sense of

urgency. She might put her hand on your wrist and say, "This has to be done" —

no marching orders. She's been extremely successful.

I hope that every community has such a person. You can't have

Diana, though. She's not motivated by any personal glory. But as most of these

individuals are, she genuinely wants to make the community she lives in a better

place, and she certainly has made a difference. Let's all congratulate her and

all those movers and shakers that we all have in our communities.

INSITE SAFE INJECTION FACILITY

D. Chudnovsky: Insite is the first supervised injection

facility in North America. It's a clean, safe environment where those ill with

addiction can inject their own drugs off the streets and under the supervision

of nurses. Insite is supported by the city of Vancouver, the province of British

Columbia, Vancouver Coastal Health, injection drug users, community groups,

local businesses, academic institutions, the Premier, the Leader of the

Opposition and both parties in this House.

Insite has been subject to rigorous scientific evaluation,

producing over 25 peer-reviewed papers and prestigious journals. The data show

that Insite is meeting its objectives, reducing public injections, reducing

overdose fatalities, reducing the transmission of blood-borne infections like

HIV and hepatitis C, reducing injection-related infections and improving public

order.

But some insist on seeing Insite as a moral issue rather than a

public health program. Insite is at risk. The federal government has yet to

extend the legal exemption it needs to continue. I'm proud that there is

consensus in this House about the need for and the importance of Insite.

[1350]

The B.C. Nurses Union is urging British Columbians to forward a

letter to the Prime Minister and the federal Minister of Health. It clearly

expresses the need for Insite to continue to do its vital work of providing

health care to people who need it.

I urge every member of this House to send that letter to the Prime

Minister. It would be a powerful statement of our common commitment. The letter

can be accessed at www.communityinsite.ca/support.

Insite saves lives. We need to save Insite.

Oral Questions

RETENTION AND RECRUITMENT

OF CORRECTIONS OFFICERS

M. Farnworth: Hon. Speaker, a rare occasion — a question

period on a Friday.

On average, provincial jails in this province are at 170 percent

over capacity. The North Fraser Pretrial Centre was built for some 300 inmates.

Recent numbers have put that to 667 people. In some facilities they're building

huts to house the overflow.

This government closed facilities across the province, and this

increase in capacity is putting tremendous stress on correctional officers

across British Columbia. When is the minister going to recognize the problems

that this is causing corrections officers, and when is he going to do something

about it?

Hon. J. van Dongen: The government recognizes that

overcrowding in prisons is not acceptable. That's why we have committed to a

$185 million capital plan to

[ Page 12816 ]

expand facilities for holding increased numbers of prisoners throughout

British Columbia. That includes 135 new cells at the Fraser River Correctional

Centre, 106 at the Alouette Correctional Centre for Women and an additional 20

new cells in Prince George. So there's a lot of capital plan in place right now.

Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental.

M. Farnworth: I guess that capital plan is so much in place

that that's why they cancelled the announcement in Kelowna.

It's not just about a capital plan. It's about the human resources

that we need in our correctional facilities. The policies of this government

have resulted in significant understaffing and significant stress on corrections

officers in British Columbia.

In the last month alone there have been two assaults in Victoria

at the Vancouver Island Regional Correctional Centre. Some 47 assaults in the

last six years, and the policies of this government are only aggravating that.

When will the Solicitor General admit that the rates of violence

in our jail systems are too much, and what is he going to do about it? When will

he increase the number of corrections officers in British Columbia to the levels

that are required to ensure safety?

Hon. J. van Dongen: Issues of safety are paramount, and we

do have management and union safety committees in place that deal with those

issues. The issue of recruitment and retention is a very high priority for

management. We have hired increased numbers of staff in our correction

facilities, and we have plans, along with the capital expansion, to hire another

93 officers as well.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a further supplemental.

M. Farnworth: Well, the ratio under this government has

increased to one corrections officer to every 60 inmates. That is unacceptable.

Hiring an additional 90 won't even come close to dealing with that.

Again, my question to the minister is: what specific plans does he

have to address the current staff shortage regarding corrections officers in

British Columbia? And how does he intend to deal with it with proposed new

facilities, when clearly he's not even able to supply and staff safely the

facilities that we already have?

[1355]

Hon. J. van Dongen: In a competitive economy, people have

choices. Certainly, people do have options as to where they can work. That's why

in our ministry in the last two years we've had a very active recruitment and

retention program. We hired 249 new staff in 2007, and we will continue to hire

new staff as required.

C. Puchmayr: My question, too, is to the Solicitor General.

The Solicitor General makes some comments about the staff that has been hired

and about the retention problem that we're seeing in that field.

Wages for correctional officers in British Columbia last year were

ranked ninth in Canada. They make $30,000 a year less than their federal

counterparts. In 2007 alone, the year that the minister boasts about, 144

corrections officers left the system.

When will the minister take responsibility for the exodus of

staff, and when will he deal with the issues of retention and recruitment that

are so necessary in the system today?

Hon. J. van Dongen: In answer to the member's question,

wage rates are the subject of a contract negotiation between the employer and

the workers. We are following that contract in all respects. The contract makes

provision for the application for a temporary market adjustment. The staff have

done that on two occasions.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. J. van Dongen: On one occasion management agreed to

the temporary market adjustment. In my meeting with corrections staff a couple

of days ago, they have indicated that they will make another application, and we

will consider that, again on the basis of the terms of the agreement.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

The member has a supplemental.

C. Puchmayr: You know, the minister claims that there are

provisions. There certainly are provisions in the collective agreement that

allow opening the collective agreement and that deal with those very market

issues that are affecting the system today. But the minister can take action to

ensure that a competitive rate is put in place so that all of Canada and the

corrections officers in B.C. are paid at a rate that is competitive.

That is not happening right now. The minister needs to sit down

with good faith, sit down with the associations and deal with the issue. He

needs to do so before we end up with a further dangerous workplace that we're

seeing there today.

Hon. J. van Dongen: I'm confident that my staff and my

management have full knowledge of the contract. They know the issues, and they

are working closely with our staff in corrections to negotiate appropriate

provisions when the contract is up for negotiation and to apply the contract

appropriately in between negotiations. Again, to the member, there's a proper

process for doing this.

I met with the staff, so I'm informed of the issues, but it's

really my management, whom I have confidence in, who manage that contract every

day with our staff.

[ Page 12817 ]

RETENTION AND RECRUITMENT

OF SHERIFFS

L. Krog: We're not only facing problems with correctional

officers. B.C.'s sheriffs are the lowest-paid enforcement officials in Canada,

and that wage gap is taking a real toll. Right now B.C. has the worst retention

rates for deputy sheriffs since the service was created in 1973 by the NDP. The

sheriffs collective agreement has a specific clause to deal with retention

issues…

[1400]

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

L. Krog: …to allow them to be addressed, but the Attorney

General has refused to do anything to address the problem here. Will the

Attorney General sit down with the sheriffs and address the problems around

retention today?

Hon. W. Oppal: The sheriffs perform a very critical role in

the courts. They provide security in the courts. They are a very valuable part

of the criminal and the civil justice systems.

We have had a retention problem.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Continue, Attorney.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. W. Oppal: I can run out the half-hour.

Mr. Speaker: Continue, Attorney.

Hon. W. Oppal: We have had a retention problem. The reason

for that is that the economy is booming outside, and we've had trouble retaining

people. It's a problem they didn't have in the '90s, but I digress.

What's happened is that we are losing a lot of younger sheriffs to

the policing profession. The policing professions are losing people as well

because of a change in demographics. So this is a problem that's common

throughout the justice system, where police are continually recruiting.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue, Attorney.

Hon. W. Oppal: The police are recruiting more and more

members because they have a demographic problem. More and more police are

retiring. The RCMP, the municipal police and the sheriffs all have the same

problem, and that is that we need more people.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

L. Krog: I'm delighted today. The government admits they

have a big problem and they're doing nothing about it. I commend the Attorney

General for his honesty in this House, but the witnesses who go into the

courthouses of this province deserve to be safe. The litigants deserve to be

safe, and judges deserve to be safe. The situation has reached a crisis point.

Across B.C. there are courtrooms…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

L. Krog: …that have had to be shut down because there were

insufficient sheriffs available, including family court in Nanaimo, and the

Attorney General well knows it. So instead of smiling about this problem,

pretending it's some other issue that can't be dealt with, will the Attorney

General just admit he is putting safety in the courthouses at risk? It's

undermining the integrity of the system, and is he going to do something about

it today?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. W. Oppal: For the record, I was not smiling at the

issue that we're dealing with. I was smiling at the over-the-top, exaggerated

comments being made by the hon. member there.

As a matter of fact, the ministry has introduced a series of

recruitment and retention activities to promote career opportunities amongst the

sheriffs. There is now a $1,000 bonus program for any court services employee

who can refer the ministry to a recruit. Thirteen new recruits have just

graduated from the Justice Institute in New Westminster. There are 24 more that

are coming on board. So it's a problem that we're aware of, and we're addressing

the problem.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

A. Dix: Well, 71 sheriffs have left in 14 months. His job

surely is not to give laconic analysis of the problem. His job as Attorney

General is to try and address the problem.

[1405]

When is he going to sit down with the sheriffs and address this

very serious issue of retention that is plaguing courthouses across British

Columbia? When is he going to sit down with them and come to some resolution

about what can be done specifically to resolve the problems that are going to

affect the administration of justice everywhere in British Columbia?

Hon. W. Oppal: Well, in fact, we have sat down with the

sheriffs. We had a number of meetings with

[ Page 12818 ]

the sheriffs. The member needs to do his homework. I know that's a strange

concept.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue, Attorney.

Hon. W. Oppal: We've had a number of meetings with the

sheriffs. The people in the ministry have had meetings. We recognize that

there's a problem. We recognize that we need more sheriffs, but I can assure

this House that the standards of safety in the courthouses have not been

compromised.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

A. Dix: He could assure us. Well, let him table the reports

that say they haven't been compromised. Let him table the reviews that haven't

been compromised. Seventy-one sheriffs gone in 14 months. That's one in six

sheriffs in British Columbia — a loss of experience, a loss of sheriffs. It has

an enormous effect on the courtroom.

So what is the Attorney General's plan? He's in charge. Surely

he's aware of the issue. Surely he's in charge. Can he specifically say to us

today…? He says that it's about the economy. That's what he says. Does he not

acknowledge that there's a serious recruitment and retention problem when other

law enforcement officials are paid enormously more than sheriffs?

Hon. W. Oppal: I don't know how many times I have to say

this. We recognize that in the law enforcement area, as far as police and

sheriffs are concerned, there is a problem. But I have news for the member

opposite. You can't correct the problem overnight. What we have is that we've

recruited people….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue, Attorney.

Hon. W. Oppal: We've recruited sheriffs. In fact, we've

created an innovative program where we're now going to be paying for the

training of sheriffs. That's never been done before. It certainly wasn't done in

the '90s. So that's what we're doing now.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue, Attorney.

Hon. W. Oppal: We're involved with the sheriffs. We've been

involved with the BCGEU. We've had a number of meetings with them. We want to

work with them. We work with the judges to ensure that the security demands and

the security needs of all the courthouses are met.

So we're doing our best. As I said a moment ago, the economy is

strong. We're competing with other parts of the economy for people.

CONDITION OF B.C. PLACE ROOF

N. Macdonald: I have received information that the B.C.

Place roof recently had a noticeable deflation and a deflation alert. Will the

minister confirm that there have been recent problems with the roof of B.C.

Place?

Hon. S. Hagen: I'm afraid the member opposite must have

found some old newspapers, because the deflation that took place was in December

of '07.

Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental.

N. Macdonald: PavCo has just confirmed that the alert took

place. We've also been told that the roof deflation alert came on May 14, two

days before the Premier and the minister held a news conference about the future

of B.C. Place.

Now, I would assume that, as the minister responsible, his

expectation is that he would be kept informed about anything that happens to the

roof of B.C. Place, since that is the site of the opening of the Olympics and

will be a venue viewed by over a billion people. So my expectation is that the

minister would know about this.

Can he confirm that that roof is not dependable and that that roof

is not going to be the sort of roof that we should have when the Olympics open

and that the reason we cannot make a decision on that roof that is appropriate

is because this minister has bungled another file and that we do not have time

to make proper decisions about what should happen with the roof of B.C. Place?

[1410]

Hon. S. Hagen: Let me inform the House of what was

announced last Friday, a week ago. Last Friday I was pleased to be with the

Premier at B.C. Place Stadium, where the Premier announced a whole new refit for

B.C. Place.

Interjections.

Hon. S. Hagen: The refit, Mr. Speaker….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Minister, just sit down.

Members.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. S. Hagen: There was a huge crowd of people there,

including the member for Surrey-Newton, who was applauding with the rest of the

people.

[ Page 12819 ]

On top of that, a retractable roof will open to the size of the

football field to let in that fresh air for football games. On top of that, it

was announced that the Vancouver Whitecaps will be playing their games inside of

B.C. Place. On top of that, a new waterfront location for the Vancouver Art

Gallery.

D. Chudnovsky: There was a deflation alert two days before

the announcement. Was the minister aware of that or not?

Hon. S. Hagen: Why am I not surprised that the NDP is

against the refit of B.C. Place Stadium? Why am I not surprised that the NDP is

against a new Vancouver Art Gallery? I can tell you, because….

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Member.

Minister, just sit down.

We're not going to continue. It's the minister's turn. We're going

to listen to the question. We're going to listen to the answer.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. S. Hagen: I was here when the NDP opposed building the

original B.C. Place Stadium. I was here when the NDP opposed Expo 86. A previous

NDP leader stood up in the media and said: "What happens if we throw a party and

nobody comes?" Well, guess what. Some 22 million people came to Expo 86.

I was here when the NDP opposed SkyTrain. I was here when they

opposed the Olympics, and they're still against the Olympics.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Member has a supplemental.

D. Chudnovsky: There was a deflation alert two days before

the announcement. Was the minister aware of it, or was he not?

Hon. S. Hagen: I cannot believe the negativity that exudes

from the other side of the House. Here's a list of the projects that the NDP

have been against: Expo 86; the Expo line; SkyTrain; B.C. Place Stadium, both

times; the 2010 Olympics; the Canada line; the William Bennett Bridge; Sea to

Sky Highway; the new Port Mann Bridge; the South Fraser perimeter road; the

Golden Ears bridge; the Pitt River Bridge; Coastal Renaissance ;

Coastal Inspiration ; Coastal Celebration; and the Northern

Adventure .

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

S. Simpson: On May 14 there was a deflation alert…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

S. Simpson: …on the B.C. Place Stadium roof. Was the

minister aware of that alert? Yes or no.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. S. Hagen: I am pleased to inform the member and the

House that that roof is inspected every day of the year, and that roof has been

pronounced safe by the people who inspect it.

Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental.

[1415]

S. Simpson: The question that this raises is whether this

minister has any grasp of his file or not. The minister should stop obstructing

this House and answer the question. Was there a deflation on May 14. Yes or no?

Was he aware of that? Answer the question.

Mr. Speaker: Member for Vancouver-Hastings, the comment

that you made should be withdrawn. It's unparliamentary.

S. Simpson: I withdraw.

H. Bains: The minister is answering questions that haven't

been asked. We are inviting….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Continue, Member.

H. Bains: The question is very simple. The minister should

be on his file. The question is…. There was a deflation alert issued on May 14.

Does the minister know or not?

Hon. S. Hagen: I want to apologize to the member opposite.

I can't help it if I'm ahead of him all the time.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. S. Hagen: I am very pleased to say that every report

that's been done on that roof says that the roof is safe. The roof will last

until after 2010. After 2010 we will replace the roof with a new retractable

roof.

[ Page 12820 ]

J. Kwan: PavCo has confirmed that two days ago there was a

deflation alert at B.C. Place Stadium. Does the minister know of that alert, or

does he not?

Hon. S. Hagen: As I've said before, that roof is inspected

continuously. The roof has been pronounced safe and is certainly able to last

until after 2010 opening and closing.

Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental.

J. Kwan: Has the minister been made aware that there was a

deflation alert two days ago at the B.C. Place Stadium roof?

Hon. S. Hagen: I have been made aware that the roof is

safe, and the roof will last until after the 2010 opening and closing

ceremonies. Then we'll replace it.

M. Karagianis: Two days before the government made a

report, on May 14 there was an alert of a deflation of that roof. Will the

minister confirm that in the House today for us, please?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. S. Hagen: You know, we've heard a lot of negativity

today from the other side. My question is: where does the member for

Vancouver-Fairview stand with regard to the refurbishing of B.C. Place Stadium?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

INVESTIGATION INTO

DEATH IN MAPLE RIDGE

M. Sather: The tragic death of Karen Beck at the hands of

her estranged husband in November 2007 has raised some sobering questions. There

has been conflicting information with regard to Mr. Beck having held a gun to

Karen's head and her having flagged down a police car after fleeing in terror.

We need to do everything we can to prevent domestic violence–related deaths.

Will the Solicitor General direct the coroner's office to conduct

an inquest into the death of Karen Beck?

[1420]

Hon. J. van Dongen: I do want to reconfirm our government's

condolences to the family. I believe that the family expresses some sincere

concerns. The coroner's office, which is an independent office under the

Coroners Act, is conducting an investigation. That will be a full and thorough

investigation. I encourage the family to actively discuss their concerns with

the coroner.

The coroner has the option under the act to call an inquest if

they feel it's necessary. There will be a full, factual report to the family, to

the public, including recommendations as the coroner feels are appropriate.

[End of question period.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: I call, in this chamber, continued

committee stage debate of Bill 33, the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, and

in

Section A, Committee of Supply, for the information of members, the continued

estimates for the Ministry of Health.

Committee of the Whole House

MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT, 2008

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 33; S.

Hammell in the chair.

The committee met at 2:25 p.m.

section 34 (continued) .

M. Karagianis: The minister and I were discussing

section

34 at the end of the day yesterday. In looking at this issue of designated use

highways, lanes and traffic control persons…. I know that the minister said that

this is still a plan that's being formed.

Can the minister explain why this plan has not been completed

before this? The Sea to Sky Highway has been under construction for some time.

The government certainly has not been under any illusions that the Olympics were

coming in 2010. Why are we planning so late in the process, and why are so many

of the plans so vague?

Hon. K. Falcon: It's actually not too late at all. In fact,

we're very much ahead of things in British Columbia, I'm pleased to say. In

fact, I'm very proud to be part of the only jurisdiction, I believe, in history

that's had all of its venues built this far in advance of the Olympics and built

on

schedule and on budget — something that is certainly worth celebrating.

In terms of the discussions we're having, we will have discussions

not only with the Integrated Security Unit, with the policing agencies. We need

to discuss with municipalities, VANOC and obviously the interested groups,

chambers of commerce, etc., to make sure we get things right.

There's no particular panic. There's no pressure on us at all. The

highway is still under construction. As the member well knows, it's going to be

opening ahead of

schedule and on budget, as have all of our major transportation

projects to date — which is, again, another issue that's worth celebrating.

While that construction is going on, we are naturally engaging in

these discussions. We want to make sure that we have a transportation plan

that…. As we

[ Page 12821 ]

put it together, as we understand what the security requirements are, as we

understand what the needs of the community are and as we understand what the

public transit issues are, all of the partners will be at the table.

We will prepare the plan. We will learn from the lessons of other

jurisdictions. We will adopt our best practices. This legislation, as I said

yesterday, will allow us — it enables us, in fact — to make sure that we've got

the tools to translate on the ground the kinds of actions and decisions that

will ensure that the transportation plan works out very well, not just for the

Olympics but even post-Olympics. When we have any major events operating in the

province of British Columbia, we will be able to utilize the benefits of these

amendments.

M. Karagianis: I was just going back to what the minister

said yesterday, which was that there was going to have to be a fair bit of work

done to figure out what the likely traffic volumes would be and what the most

efficient way of moving these people would be. So has none of that work been

done at this point, or do you have models for traffic volumes that you are using

for consultation purposes? If you're going to consult with communities and

chambers of commerce, municipalities, etc., what are you using as a basis for

that consultation?

Hon. K. Falcon: Certainly VANOC, the Ministry of

Transportation and all the partners collectively are looking at the experience

of previous Winter Olympics, whether it's Calgary or Salt Lake. They have a

pretty good idea of the kinds of numbers of people that will come. The next

issue then becomes: given that we expect a large influx of people into British

Columbia to celebrate the 2010 Olympics, we work with our traffic engineers and

with our transit — B.C. Transit, TransLink, police, etc. — to make sure we

figure out the best method of utilizing the highway system to ensure that we can

get people back and forth in an appropriate manner.

[1430]

No doubt we'll have lots of time in the future to discuss that.

That goes a little bit beyond this. But all this is saying is that we want to

make sure that the ministry has the ability to designate a certain lane or lanes

of a highway temporarily to allow, for example, as I mentioned yesterday,

perhaps from 7 a.m. to 9 a.m., the athletes to be zipped through to their events

without disruption or perhaps to allow time for members of the community to be

going back and forth or whatever.

Those discussions are still underway. As I say, there are a lot of

parties involved. We want to make sure we get it right, so it's not a discussion

we're trying to rush forward. We've got lots of time and lots of opportunity to

conclude those discussions with all the different parties.

M. Karagianis: I know that we talked a little bit about the

kind of permitting that was going to take place here as well. While the plan is

being formulated…. Certainly, this talks about designating the entire highway,

and we've seen that this application is going to be most useful during the

Olympics.

I'm very interested in how the minister perceives that this

permitting process might take place. When we canvassed yesterday, the potential

traffic that would want to access the Sea to Sky Highway would include athletes,

would certainly include food providers, service providers, families, ticket

holders, tourists that may want to use that route for other than Olympics

purposes, the various communities there all along that corridor.

How does the minister perceive that the permits will apply to the

designated use of this highway? How does he envision that?

Hon. K. Falcon: I think the member seems to be trying to

create a situation that sounds ominous and should be something to be feared.

That's not the case at all. The member would be seriously misjudging the

attitude of the municipalities that are involved in this — Squamish, Whistler,

Vancouver. All of them were part of the bid process. They're so excited about

hosting the Olympics. The traffic management decisions are no different than

what takes place today.

We have a highway under construction. It's a massive project, $600

million, that's being delivered, as I say, ahead of

schedule and on budget. But

during the period of time in which we're constructing those $600 million worth

of improvements, there are periodic times where the highway will not be

available for the public to travel.

We work with the communities. We let them know that you won't be

able to travel from midnight to 3 a.m. while certain rock blasting is being done

or some kind of roadwork is being done. They're well aware of it. They're very

comfortable with it. It just works because we communicate, and that's what we're

going to be doing as far as managing the Olympics during the two weeks that that

takes place.

As I mentioned to the member yesterday, people that live in these

communities also understand that there will be a lot of people visiting British

Columbia during that two-week Olympic period and also, of course, in the

follow-up Paralympic period. A lot of people make decisions around that. There

are a lot of companies already that are making decisions on how they're going to

create incentives for their employees to use transit, to arrive at work during

off-peak period times, to leave during off-peak period times.

What we have seen in other Olympics that have hosted these events

is there is a tremendous coming together of communities that say: "How do we

make this work — not only for ourselves, but more importantly, actually, how do

we make it work for the tourists and the visitors that come and want to be part

of the Olympics?"

It's a positive experience, an uplifting experience, an experience

that communities get involved in. What we are doing here is just making sure

that we utilize, to the best efforts we possibly can, the ability to allow not

only the community members to go up and down that

[ Page 12822 ]

corridor when they need to — obviously, that right will be preserved…. We

want to make sure tourists that aren't maybe visiting the Olympics but might

want to visit Squamish…. Naturally, we will have allowances for them to visit

tourist spots, etc., but this will be done with the active support and

cooperation of the municipalities.

[1435]

I just want to let the member know that so that she is not too

fearful about this process. It's actually a very positive process and one in

which we're enjoying our discussions. They've been positive and very supportive

from all of the participants thus far.

M. Karagianis: I'm sure the minister wasn't trying to put

words in my mouth, because I expect that the minister would want us to have

clarity on the bill. There would be no reason in the world for him to not want

to have us question the bill and not have his ability to provide clarity to the

public of British Columbia on this. So I'm sure he did not mean in any way to

put words in my mouth.

I know this analogy that closing the highway from midnight to 3

a.m. for blasting purposes is considerably different than trying to permit

literally thousands of people to move up and down that corridor through

municipalities and back again. I know the minister made reference to people

taking transit or changing their work hours.

But this is not just within the metropolitan Vancouver area. This

is a highway that stretches through many communities, and we expect that they'll

want to continue doing business and carrying on with their daily lives despite

the fact that there is an Olympic event going on.

I did ask the minister how he envisioned the permit process

working. I think yesterday when we canvassed it, we were pretty unclear about

the permitting. Will permits be given out by the traffic control person when the

lane designation suddenly changes? Will those flag people or the police or the

volunteers, as the minister has said, who will be in charge of traffic control

be giving out permits and making that judgment call on each individual vehicle

as it comes up the highway?

How does the minister envision that the permitting on a designated

highway will work, especially during the Olympic event?

Hon. K. Falcon: As I mentioned yesterday, those are

discussions that we're currently having with all the interested parties to make

sure that as we build the transportation plan, we do it in a way that meets the

needs of all those individuals and groups that the member mentioned.

But the member should know that this isn't the first jurisdiction

ever to host a major event. In fact, British Columbia has hosted major events

many times in the past. The Olympics have been hosted successfully around the

world many, many times. They all run into the same issues. They have actually

developed some practices that seem to work fairly effectively when it comes to

moving large numbers of people to different venues and different areas,

particularly Whistler.

As we develop the plan, as I mentioned yesterday to the member, we

will be utilizing those best practices. We will be in full and total

consultation with all the different groups. We will figure out the best way in

which the permit process can work so that it's efficient and works and meets the

needs of the communities, the officials, the athletes and all the others that

will be involved and the security requirements.

But that's part of an ongoing discussion, so we cannot give the

member definitive answers to those kinds of questions at this point when we're

still engaged in the discussion process that will go on for many, many months to

come as we put together a transportation plan that works.

All these amendments in the legislation do, Member, is allow the

flexibility for us in British Columbia to do the kinds of things that happen in

every other jurisdiction that hosts major events like this. That will give us

the tools to be able to allow these events and these highways to be used in the

most commonsense, efficient manner to move the largest number of people in the

shortest period of time.

M. Karagianis: So the minister does not have an answer, and

that's fine. I accept that. Certainly — you're right — we have hosted many

events before, but this is the first time we've felt it necessary to amend the

Motor Vehicle Act and designate highway use and define the ministry control over

highway use. I would think this is a bit unusual, and I'm sure the minister is

happy to continue to discuss the need for this change to the Motor Vehicle Act.

I do want to ask a little bit about prohibitions, though, because

I know the minister talked yesterday about the fact that there certainly will

need to be decisions made on how the highway is utilized.

[1440]

The prohibitions. The minister talked about…. He doesn't have

answers. He doesn't have answers to any of the detailed information that I'm

asking here. When will we be able to see exactly what the details look like,

what the permitting will look like, how wide the scope will be, how the permits

will be delivered or not delivered? How can you get a permit?

If you're a tourist coming to British Columbia and suddenly

discover, as you're trying to drive up the Sea to Sky Highway, that it's now a

designated highway today and you don't have the right tools there to access

that, how do you find out where and when and how you get those, and what kind of

prohibitions will be in place? When will those details be available for the

public to see?

Hon. K. Falcon: Obviously, it would be in our interest to

make that information public once we complete the discussions that we're

involved with, but those are important discussions. There are important security

issues that have to be fleshed out. There are important access issues for

members of the community,

[ Page 12823 ]

for businesses, tourism, all those kinds of areas, and we want to make sure

we get it right. I don't apologize for that.

We've got lots of time to put this together. The highway

construction, as I say, is well underway now and proceeding along

extraordinarily well, and the discussions that we're having…. We're partnering

with VANOC in those discussions and all of the other security agencies and all

of the others — B.C. Transit, TransLink and municipalities.

As soon as those discussions are completed, and we've got all of

this information put together, I can assure the member that she and all members

of the public will be made aware of what the transportation plans are so that we

can make sure we have an Olympics in 2010 that everyone can be very, very proud

of. I think that once again British Columbia will demonstrate that there is no

better place in the world to host a major event, not only that but a major event

that will be seen as a huge success, as I know that the 2010 Olympics will be.

M. Karagianis: The minister made reference several times

yesterday to how these designations will be, not only on the Sea to Sky Highway

but certainly in municipalities as well. So how are the municipal designations

being made? Are they being made by the municipalities themselves at the

directive of the government, or is the government simply going in and

designating these corridors?

Hon. K. Falcon: It provides municipalities with the same

powers with respect to their own highways and roadways to make the same and

similar designations in consultation with the Ministry of Transportation, and as

I say, the municipalities are part and parcel of these discussions that we're

having. So this is consistent with the discussions that we're having to ensure

that municipalities also will have the ability to make decisions with respect to

the roadways for the benefit of large events, including the 2010 Olympics.

M. Karagianis: I take it that the minister, then, is

saying, in the case of these designations, that the provincial government, the

ministry, is going to give directive on where and when those will take place.

You know, if the minister is going through the consultation process, obviously

working with the Olympics planning structure around when and where athletes will

go, ticket holders, families, food and service providers, all of that….

Is there going to be a map that sort of indicates where that is so

that municipalities can anticipate that, on these given days, these corridors

will be designated in part or entirely for Olympics venue use?

[1445]

Hon. K. Falcon: This simply says that on any bylaws that

are being adopted by municipalities that impact on provincial highways that are

going through other municipalities or are on any of their local roads and that

are within 800 metres of a provincial highway, approval is required by the

Minister of Transportation or the designate of the Minister of Transportation,

i.e., the ministry, to ensure that we're clear about what the impacts would be

on the provincial highway.

It's very consistent with the kind of things that has been in

place for many years. But this just anticipates, based on the discussions we

have with municipalities, that if they're required to make similar types of

bylaw amendments that have the effect of providing this kind of restrictions and

it is on a provincial highway or it is on a roadway within 800 metres, approval

by the minister is also required.

M. Karagianis: Yesterday we did talk about the costs of

this change and the costs that might be implicated by designating highways, and

certainly about the reference to traffic control persons.

I know that the minister has now introduced one other aspect of

that, which is security. The minister did say early on that there would be no

cost to this, but I know that at the closing part of our remarks yesterday, the

minister did make reference to: "We will be utilizing properly trained staff,

properly trained volunteers, in some cases…Ministry of Transportation

expertise." Public safety would be handled by police, for example — public

safety officials.

Of course, we do know that there are going to be enormous security

costs, and not only at the Olympics site. One would anticipate that there will

need to be some consideration of security measures along the Sea to Sky Highway,

certainly, as part of the overall security plan for the Olympics. Can the

minister address what the costs will be for all of those personnel?

Hon. K. Falcon: Obviously, with respect to security,

there's a lot of work being done through another ministry in terms of what the

security issues are going to be, so I haven't got a clue what those costs would

be.

In terms of traffic control people, anytime you have a major

situation, anytime you have a major construction project, you have traffic

control people. Anytime you're moving major groups of people or large crowds,

you're going to have traffic control people. Obviously, there is a huge, huge

list of volunteers — of people that want to volunteer in the Olympics.

What I said yesterday is that those that wish to volunteer or are

assigned to volunteering on crowd control will be properly trained to make sure

that they understand exactly what their responsibilities are and how they are to

undertake the work that they do. Obviously, we'll have MOT staff involved, as we

always do with major events and undertakings, to ensure that things are going

well.

But I don't know why this should be surprising at all to the

member opposite. That's the way things always work when you have large events.

It was no different during Expo 86. It won't be any different here. It's just a

larger volume of people. As I said yesterday, there are no additional

incremental costs. Those are the same costs that you will see anytime you have a

large event and you've got a large number of volunteers involved — obviously,

properly trained.

[ Page 12824 ]

The police will do what the police always do. I have no idea what

their costs are. That, I presume, will form part of the security cost of the

Olympics, but that is another minister and ministry that deal with that.

Sections 34 to 36 inclusive approved.

[1450]

section 37.

L. Krog: Actually, hon. Chair, I was going to advise that

we could, I think, move suitably through to

section 60, and I have some

questions for the minister on 61.

Sections 37 to 60 inclusive approved.

section 61.

L. Krog:

Section 61 adds a

section to provide statutory

immunity for the superintendent, individuals acting on behalf of or under his

direction, etc. I am just curious to know why this

section is being inserted.

What's the purpose for providing statutory immunity, if you will, and if so, is

it consistent with other provisions in other acts?

Hon. C. Taylor: That is exactly the reason. The person who

is the superintendent of pensions is also the same person who sits in different

roles, and in all those other roles, the statutory protection is there. So this

is just for harmonizing it.

Section 61 approved.

section 62.

L. Krog: Again, for the benefit of the Chair, we could

pass, I believe — unless other members are anxious to debate the issues — all

the way up to

section 70 inclusive.

Sections 62 to 70 inclusive approved.

section 71.

L. Krog: Just some concerns around the abolition of the

act. This, I take it, will have no effect on funding, no effect on

qualifications, no effect on anything other than to basically put the

administration of this under a single statute.

Hon. M. Coell: That's correct.

Section 71 approved.

section 72.

D. Chudnovsky: I have some questions of clarification to

help understand the practical result of the changes that are being made here in

section 72. So let me put this proposition to the minister and see whether I'm

understanding what it says.

Is it the case that the change means that a finding of

incompetence of a teacher can be made with respect to actions or activities or

things that that teacher does that are separate and apart from the teaching —

from what they do as a teacher? Am I correct in understanding that?

Section 72 approved.

section 73.

The Chair: The questions were on

section 73.

D. Chudnovsky: Right. Thank you, Chair, and thanks to you

and the minister for helping us with that.

Again, do I understand correctly that the changes will mean that a

finding of incompetence can be made in application to activities that take place

outside of the teaching activities of the teacher?

Hon. S. Bond: The member is correct. This amendment was

requested by the College of Teachers, in fact, and what it allows the college to

do is consider the competence of a teacher related to an issue that may

demonstrate itself or be made clear outside of their teaching capacity.

[1455]

D. Chudnovsky: Thanks for that answer. This is entirely for

clarification. Would I be correct in saying that as of today — that is, before

this passes — the college, if it wanted to deal with such actions, would have to

deal with it under the aegis of conduct unbecoming — that is, under the

misconduct

section of their regulations?

Hon. S. Bond: Either under that provision or they may not

be able to deal with it at all. I think that is the most significant concern of

the college. This may be a circumstance where a particular issue for an

individual will impact their competency in the classroom, but up until this

point, there are cases where they have been unable to deal with it at all.

D. Chudnovsky: Thanks for that clarification. So maybe I'll

ask the question a little more narrowly. I think the minister has, in fact,

answered it, but I want to ask it a little more narrowly.

If today the college wants to deal with actions of a teacher that

are outside that teacher's teaching, the only provisions available to the

college are the conduct unbecoming provisions. This would add to that the

possibility of using the incompetence provisions. Am I correct in that?

Hon. S. Bond: I think, actually, the member's description

of it is accurate. In fact, it would have to be dealt with in that way. I think

the concern of the college here is that in some very unique circumstances there

may be a physical or some other type of issue that occurs — if a teacher is on

leave, for example, or somewhere else — and we know that it would impact them in

a classroom and their ability to teach children.

[ Page 12825 ]

L. Krog: I just want to clarify, because I need to be

satisfied, myself. The behaviour, the conduct, whatever it is that's outside of

the classroom, has to relate to competence in the classroom in a strict legal

sense. Is that correct?

Hon. S. Bond: I think perhaps the best way to explain this

for all of us, and I think it is important to clarify it, is an example of when

this might be utilized. This is one that staff has provided me to help me better

walk through this.

If a college member were to, for example, suffer a brain injury

when school is not in session…. There can be catastrophic results as a result of

that, and there are different manifestations. Let's suggest that the member

suffers from some sort of impulse control or tendency toward violence. This

particular amendment would allow that, then, to be deemed incompetent, not

because of what's happened in the classroom, but by an unfortunate set of

circumstances for that individual which would impact their capacity.

D. Chudnovsky: Thanks to the minister for this explanation,

because it really clarifies for me where this is going. I just want to ask a

question about the present tense and the past tense, if I may. I don't get to do

that very often anymore, so it's a good opportunity.

[1500]

Were this provision to pass and become law, what is the

expectation with respect to behaviours or activities prior to now? How does this

provision work into the past?

Hon. S. Bond: Certainly, as we understand it…. Since it was

requested by the college, we're also trying to think with their thinking and in

the best interests of students, which I know that the member opposite spends

much of his time contemplating as well.

The circumstance we could think of where that may happen is if a

teacher is currently on leave because of one of these very circumstances where,

previous to this, the college would be unable to actually use this particular

type of criteria. So we don't see a major move to retroactivity, if that's what

the member is considering. It would, perhaps, capture some who may be on leave

today who have a degree of impact in the classroom, but it currently would not

be caught.

D. Chudnovsky: Thanks to the minister for that answer. So

far today the minister has used examples, almost entirely, of teachers on leave.

I understand that. I'm not here to argue about that. I'm here to probe beyond

that.

We could be talking about teachers on leave. I think that I

understand very clearly what's being said, and I see the justification for it.

You know, we'll decide whether it's a good thing or a bad thing. But what about

people who aren't on leave? What about the weekend? Having given the examples of

people on leave, is the minister excluding other situations, or are there other

situations as well?

Hon. S. Bond: One of the things we want to be really clear

to differentiate is that this is not about conduct. I think that's a way of

differentiating it, and maybe I didn't react to that early enough in this

discussion. This amendment would allow the College of Teachers the flexibility

it needs to deal with matters of competence that arise outside of the employee's

capacity as a teacher. Maybe that's a better way to describe it. But it is not

about conduct, and I think that's an important differentiation.

Sections 73 to 77 inclusive approved.

The Chair: Members, the committee deferred sections 14 to

28 yesterday. Is the committee ready to consider these sections, or shall they

be considered at the next sitting of the House?

Hon. W. Oppal: They shall be considered at the next

sitting.

The Chair: So you've moved that motion.

Motion approved.

Hon. W. Oppal: I move we rise, report progress and seek

leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 3:05 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Committee of the Whole (Section B), having reported progress, was

granted leave to sit again.

Hon. R. Thorpe: I call Bill 38, the Protected Areas of

British Columbia (Conservancies and Parks) Amendment Act, 2008.

Committee of the Whole House

PROTECTED AREAS OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

(CONSERVANCIES AND PARKS)

AMENDMENT ACT, 2008

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 38; S.

Hammell in the chair.

The committee met at 3:08 p.m.

section 1.

D. MacKay:

Section 1 talks about modifying "a not-in-force

amendment to the description" of a Nisga'a area "consequential to an amendment

to the description of the same park by this Bill." Can you tell me: is

[ Page 12826 ]

this actually increasing the size of the area or decreasing the size of the

area or leaving it the same?

Hon. B. Penner: My notes indicate that the net result will

be the removal of less than one hectare from the park in order to accommodate

construction of a new road to the community of New Aiyansh. It's 0.0858

hectares, if anyone is keeping track.

Sections 1 to 7 inclusive approved.

section 8.

Hon. B. Penner: I move the amendment to

section 8 standing

in my name on the orders of the day.

SECTION 8 (a), by deleting the text shown as struck out and adding

the text shown as underlined:

HUCHSDUWACHSDU NUYEM JEES/KITLOPE HERITAGE CONSERVANCY

All those parcels or tracts of Crown land, together with all that

foreshore or land covered by water, situated in Range 3, Coast District and

Range 4, Coast District and contained within the described boundaries as shown

on the Official Plan deposited in the Crown Land Registry as Plan 11 Tube 1900;

except (1) “Wekellals” Indian Reserve No. 15; (2) “Kitlope” Indian Reserve No.

16;

(3) Mineral Claim “Goldmine 1” 325961;

(4) Mineral Claim “Goldmine 4”

326032;

(5) Mineral Claim “XK1012” 253947;

(6) Mineral Claim “XK1014” 253948;

and

(7) Mineral Claim “XK1212” 241411.

The whole park conservancy containing

approximately 322 020 hectares (321 572 hectares of upland and 448 hectares of

foreshore).]

[1510]

Amendment approved.

Section 8 as amended approved.

section 9.

S. Simpson: I'll ask these questions as it relates to one

of the conservancies covered in

section 9, because it covers a couple of items,

and I'll ask a couple of other questions on

schedule F.

We know that there are a number of conservancies that currently

have private power projects proposed for them. They have environmental

assessments that are proceeding. That would be true in the Klinaklini, the

Europa, the Cascade-Sutslem and a couple that are already there.

I'll ask it within the context of this question where Europa

conservancy is listed. Could the minister tell us: if this passes, what will the

status be of those assessments in terms of the need to put power lines or other

activities through the scheduled conservancies?

Hon. B. Penner: My understanding is that once these

sections come into effect and the legislation has passed, the proponents will

have to make a decision about whether they want to continue to pursue an

environmental assessment review or not. That will be a decision, I think, that

will be left to them.

As the member will know, a number of first nations and others have

made proposals, as the member has noted, for Europa but also, I think, for one

or two other conservancies as well. They'll have to make a decision at this

point whether they want to down tools or continue on with an environmental

assessment.

What this legislation does is put in place the boundaries that

were announced back in February 2006 by the Premier and first nations, local

communities and environmental groups.

S. Simpson: I appreciate the answer of the minister, so

just a bit of a further affirmation. I think that I've got it from his answer.

It would be the position of the minister that once this

legislation passes or is adopted by the House, these are the boundaries. As

such, they wouldn't be compromised for activities that were outside of what's

allowable under those schedules — unless, of course, there was the boundary

adjustment process, which would need to be brought at some further time through

legislation. Would that be correct?

Hon. B. Penner: Yes.

Sections 9 and 10 approved.

section 11.

S. Simpson: I just have a couple of questions in relation

section 11, particularly around the Klinaklini conservancy, which is included

in

schedule F.

[1515]

The minister will know that of all the schedules there, this is

the one that probably has the most flexibility in terms of allowing activities

to go on around road development and other activities related to resource

exploitation, resource extraction, etc. Of course, there is an IPP proposal

there as well.

We also know that this was one of the conservancies — it's about

37,000 hectares or so, I believe — that as part of the negotiation process was

actually pared down a little bit in terms of its size. That's fine. The question

I have around this is: why was the decision made to put Klinaklini in

schedule

Hon. B. Penner: Apparently, the proper legal name proposed

for the conservancy to which the member refers is Dzawadi/Upper Klinaklini River

conservancy. The member is close in his estimation of the size of the proposed

conservancy. This legislation proposes that it's 39,303 hectares in size.

The member's question is: why is this particular conservancy

proposed to be included in

schedule F? The reason for this is that if it were

not in

schedule F, it would have the effect of blocking access to all the

valleys and tributaries to the main valley of the Klinaklini River, which is an

area….

Interjections.

[ Page 12827 ]

The Chair: Shhh.

Hon. B. Penner: Perhaps we'll just ask members to keep

their voices down.

Thank you, hon. Chair, for your assistance.

I'll just repeat that. If this conservancy were not in this

particular schedule, then the effect would be to block access to all the valleys

and tributaries to the main valley of the Klinaklini River, which is an area of

approximately 185,000 hectares. In effect, this would increase the protected

area size by 154,000 hectares, or 4.9 times the actual area agreed upon. That

was not the direction of the LRMP process, the land and resource management plan

process, that was recommended to government. The recommended area was the 39,303

hectares.

S. Simpson: If I understand correctly, this was primarily

an issue of access to this much larger area that is outside the protected areas

and didn't involve other values, necessarily, within that conservancy, but it

was to provide some assurance for roadways or road rights-of-way for that.

[1520]

Could the minister tell us: if that's the case, why wasn't the

decision made to provide a road allowance and protect the rest of it with a

designated road allowance? The reason I ask this question is…. Certainly, the

concern that I've had raised to me around this area is that there is a variety

of other activities allowable under the

schedule that people are concerned may

be contemplated here — other than the question, necessarily, of road access into

another area and, as the minister says, not wanting to essentially protect

another area by stealth, of sorts.

Why wasn't there a decision made to provide for a road

right-of-way and provide the additional protection for the other space?

Hon. B. Penner: I'm not sure if the member is familiar with

the topography or geography of the proposed conservancy, but I've got a little

map here. We're not supposed to use props, so I won't, Madam Chair.

If the member looks at this, you'll see that the intended

protected area as sketched or as coloured onto the map almost resembles a

starfish in terms of its configuration. We don't know with any certainty in

which direction people may wish to travel or wish to have access to, in terms of

obtaining resources or having some kind of other economic activity in the area.

That would, of course, be outside of the conservancy on the other side of the

boundaries.

We would have had to know with certainty exactly where people were

hoping to someday build an access road, in terms of its physical alignment. That

can only be known through detailed survey work, and engineers, I guess, would

have to be involved to determine where the appropriate place would be to build

the road.

By placing this particular conservancy in

schedule F, it does

allow the government to issue — if it's considered appropriate — a park use

permit to authorize the construction of an access road to lands and resources

outside of the conservancy.

But again, if the member looks at the map of that particular

conservancy, it's not entirely clear in which direction somebody may wish to go.

There are multiple different valleys feeding off of this particular area.

S. Simpson: I would agree with the minister. I have seen

the map, and it's a very unique boundary. There's no doubt about that.

Just a question to the minister. If the purpose of including this

particular conservancy in

schedule F is to ensure that without further

challenges, there is the ability to build a road or two roads or whatever is

being contemplated here to be able to access those other areas….

Would it be a consideration or intention of the minister and the

government, at the time that those determinations are made as to what that

alignment might look like…? What may the government want to do in terms of road

alignments sometime in the, hopefully, not too distant future as decisions are

made about what to do or not with access?

If those decisions are made and the road is built, would there be

any reason, then, not to provide the additional protections to that particular

conservancy after the roads are in place by moving it to another

schedule with

an acknowledgment of those road rights-of-way? Is that something that is a

possible or doable thing?

Hon. B. Penner: I'm advised that what the member is

discussing is conceivable. It has been the practice of the ministry and B.C.

Parks, once there is certainty, to make those kinds of conversions in terms of

what shows up in different schedules. But I suspect that in this area, it will

be several years before there is sufficient certainty to know exactly what the

first nations in the area might have in mind in terms of possible access. That

is an idea we actually do adopt when the time is right.

[1525]

S. Simpson: One last question on this matter. Accepting

that it will take some time before decisions can be made by the parties that

need to be part of that discussion as to what those access issues might be and

how they will be dealt with….

Is it the intention at this time that other than access questions,

the other uses that might be allowable under

schedule F, which aren't allowable

necessarily under other schedules, are not going to be contemplated by the

government?

In terms of use, I accept the minister's position that this is

being done to deal with a potential complication around access. The other things

that might be allowed under

schedule F are not being contemplated by the

government, other than addressing the access questions. I think about some of

the resource issues that are potential in this area.

Hon. B. Penner: I'm advised that there's only one

difference between

schedule E and

schedule F conservancy, and that does pertain

to the possibility under

[ Page 12828 ]

schedule F for B.C. Parks to issue a park use permit for the construction of

an access road. But other than that, I'm told that there are no differences

between a

schedule E and

schedule F conservancy.

D. MacKay: Just a point of clarification from the minister.

I noticed that under

section 9 on page 13 of the bill, it talks about the

Khutzeymateen Inlet Conservancy, and then we go to

section 11 on page 20, and it

talks about the Khutzeymateen Inlet West Conservancy. I just wondered why it was

necessary to…. We're talking about the same conservancy, except one has got the

term "west" included in it.

Why was it necessary to go from

schedule E for the Khutzeymateen

Inlet Conservancy to

section F for the Khutzeymateen Inlet West Conservancy? Why

the separation? Are they not contiguous?

Hon. B. Penner: The answer to the member's question is not

dissimilar to the topic I was just discussing with the member for

Vancouver-Hastings. There is apparently a need for an access corridor, an access

route in the conservancy, and B.C. Parks was able to determine, in this case and

with relative confidence, the general area where such an access road may be

contemplated.

That's the area that's designated for

schedule F in terms of the

conservancy designation. The remainder is intended to be in

schedule E.

[1530]

Sections 11 to 13 inclusive approved.

section 14.

S. Simpson: Under the commencement

section a significant

number — sections 5, 7 and 9 to 11 — are not to come into force at royal assent

but are to come in at a later time by regulation of the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council or of cabinet. Could the minister tell us why

those sections are being held back?

[K. Whittred in the chair.]

Hon. B. Penner: There are a couple of different things

here. The new parks and conservancies are coming into force by regulation for a

number of reasons. First, there are some mineral tenures that need to be

expropriated from a number of the conservancies. The note I have here is that

some expropriation letters and notices need to be prepared. Those will be done

upon passage of the legislation, but they need to be prepared.

Second, there's…. Sorry, I'm just getting distracted by the

conversation around me. The ministry needs to undertake further consultation

with first nations governments respecting the establishment of a number of

conservancies and park additions where, in some cases, there is not unanimous

agreement about just where those boundaries should be drawn. We're not intending

at this time to change those boundaries, but we do feel it's prudent to have

further discussions with some of the first nations in the affected areas.

Third, the member is likely aware that there are a couple of

conservancies in the Sea to Sky land and resource management planning area where

there was lack of unanimity, as well, amongst first nations about the name or

names to be given to two of the proposed conservancies. This gives some time to

have those issues resolved.

S. Simpson: My apologies to the minister on this. I got the

first part of the answer and the last part, but I must admit I wasn't able to

quite hear the other part. I was overcome by other noise in the chamber. I

believe the minister gave three responses. The one in the middle I wasn't quite

able to hear. I'd appreciate it if the minister could maybe repeat that.

The Chair: Members, it's difficult for the minister and

member to hear, and also the Chair. If you could keep your conversation down,

please.

Minister.

Hon. B. Penner: Thank you, hon. Chair, and thanks for your

assistance.

The ministry wants to conduct some additional consultation with

some of the first nations in the areas where some of the new conservancies are

taking place and some park additions are proposed to take place. There's a

situation where there's not complete unequivocal support from all of the local

first nations, so the ministry believes it's prudent to undertake some further

discussions and consultations.

[1535]

S. Simpson: I certainly understand the comments the

minister made about possible name changes to satisfy some concerns around names,

and I think that's quite appropriate if a more appropriate naming of the

conservancies is identified that people are happy with.

The question I have in regard to this is: is it possible that

these negotiations or consultations could lead to a change of the boundaries in

any of those areas?

Hon. B. Penner: If this bill is passed as presently worded

and described, it would take a subsequent act of the Legislature to amend any of

the boundaries as currently proposed.

S. Simpson: If my understanding of the minister's comment

is correct, and I believe it is, then once Bill 38 is adopted, essentially there

can be no changes. However, would it be correct that the boundaries or the areas

that are in question would essentially have the status that they have today and

not as protected areas or conservancies until such time as it's brought into

force by regulation by cabinet?

Does it have whatever the status is today, or does it actually

have a protected status, though it's not been brought into force? The concern

is, as I'm sure the minister appreciates, that while it might not mean a change

to what's in Bill 38, Bill 38 may not actually apply until

[ Page 12829 ]

such time as cabinet deems to bring it into force by regulation.

Hon. B. Penner: I believe the member is technically

correct, but what the member may or may not know is that since the announcement

back in February 2006, other government permitting agencies have taken notice of

what government's intention is with respect to those areas.

For example, I don't believe the Ministry of Forests would have

issued any cutting permits or made any award of harvesting rights in the areas

that are proposed under the agreed-to midcoast and north coast land and resource

management plans. My expectation would be that there would not be any permits

granted while we're conducting further consultations with the first nations and

the affected areas.

According to my notes, if I'm adding this up right, there's

something in the order of six new conservancies that may fall into that category

where we want to have some additional consultations with first nations with

respect to the conservancies themselves. There are another two where we've got

the issue about the naming of the respective conservancies. I'm being told that

there may be some additional ones, too, in a different

section of the act that I

didn't catch immediately.

In any event, it is the government's desire to have these areas

proclaimed into force — and I think the deadline is the end of June — so that we

meet the objective that was established back in February 2006, which is to meet

the requirements for what's referred to as the CIII funding. That's the $60

million contribution, I think, from various foundations.

[1540]

The provincial government has made a commitment of topping it up

with $30 million. The federal government has matched us in terms of another $30

million, and a certain quantum of land has to be set aside — I believe it's by

June 30, 2008 — in order for that funding arrangement to kick in, for the

conditions to be met.

S. Simpson: Just so I can be clear. I appreciate that the

minister is saying that the government is moving forward on a commitment, and I

know that the Minister of Agriculture and Lands affirmed that commitment — that

the boundaries would be the 2006 boundaries that were agreed to. I certainly

know, from discussions with people who are keenly aware of those boundaries,

that the boundaries are essentially the boundaries that were agreed to. So

that's not at all in question.

Now, though, as the minister says, technically…. This is maybe a

two-part question. It'll move us along. Technically, changes could occur. I

accept the minister's word that that's not the intention, but technically, they

could occur. Could the minister confirm that?

The second is: can the minister confirm that the intention, or at

least the aspiration, is to be able to in fact bring sections 5, 7, 9 and 11

into force by the end of June?

Hon. B. Penner: The member's premise is correct. It would

take

an act of the Legislature again, once this is passed, to amend the

boundaries that are contained herein.

The second part of my answer is that it's the government's desire

and objective to have these conservancies established by June 30. We anticipate

that it might take longer than that for the issue to be resolved around the

names of the two Sea to Sky conservancies, but we are going to continue to work

on that as well.

Section 14 approved.

Title approved.

Hon. B. Penner: I move that the committee rise and report

the bill complete with amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 3:44 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Reporting of Bills

PROTECTED AREAS OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

(CONSERVANCIES AND PARKS)

AMENDMENT ACT, 2008

Bill 38, Protected Areas of British Columbia (Conservancies and

Parks) Amendment Act, 2008, reported complete with amendment.

Mr. Speaker: When shall the bill be reported as read?

Hon. B. Penner: With leave, now.

Leave granted.

Third Reading of Bills

PROTECTED AREAS OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

(CONSERVANCIES AND PARKS)

AMENDMENT ACT, 2008

Bill 38, Protected Areas of British Columbia (Conservancies and

Parks) Amendment Act, 2008, read a third time and passed.

[1545]

Tabling Documents

Hon. B. Penner: I beg leave to present the 2006-2007 annual

report of the Environmental Appeal Board.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

Hon. B. Penner: I'll just table that document.

I now call committee stage on Bill 18, Greenhouse Gas Reduction

(Cap and Trade) Act.

[ Page 12830 ]

Committee of the Whole House

GREENHOUSE GAS REDUCTION

(CAP AND TRADE) ACT

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 18; K.

Whittred in the chair.

The committee met at 3:47 p.m.

section 1 (continued) .

S. Simpson: It's good to be back on this bill. Where we

left off, I think, is we were discussing some of the

definitions in the bill. We

had just been down discussing those matters related to B.C. allowance units and

B.C. emission reduction units. I believe I had been asking questions about the

emission reduction units.

Could the minister tell us how he anticipates the offset credits

being valued or being used? How is it going to be determined what the value and

volume of those credits are and how they're in fact going to be used?

Hon. B. Penner: As is consistent with the concept behind a

cap-and-trade system, the value of the B.C. emission reduction units will be

determined by the market — by market forces and by trading activity. So I don't

know what that price ultimately will be. That will have to be determined by the

market.

In terms of how they can be used or for what they'll be used,

they'll be used in accordance with the provisions outlined in the act and any

regulations to follow. But they are intended to allow companies to help meet

their reduction requirements through the acquisition of these legitimate

offsets, which would have to be verifiable and incremental — that is, attaining

reductions in greenhouse gas emissions that are in addition to something else

that otherwise would have happened.

[1550]

S. Simpson: I recognize that there is not certainty about

what limits there might be on these units as we determine what they are. I do

note that when I look at the WCI draft design recommendations on elements of the

cap-and-trade program around the quantity limits for credits, it discusses

ensuring that meaningful emission reductions take place within the sources

covered by the cap-and-trade system.

I think that is a positive recommendation. What I hear that

suggesting to me is a recognition by the people who put the recommendations

together that the purpose of offsets or credits is not to supplant the actual

reduction of emissions and that that shouldn't be the purpose under a

cap-and-trade-system.

The question I have in terms of those units I will ask here. It

may be that we'll end up asking it more appropriately in another area. Is there

an expectation with those units as defined that they will have limits put on

them not just in terms of the number but in terms of how they can be used so

that they don't just become a cost of doing business?

Hon. B. Penner: If the member is correct, there is a draft

document with some recommendations that have been put out for discussion

purposes. That was released on Wednesday through the western climate initiative

at a meeting held in Salt Lake City, Utah. Unfortunately, I was not able to

attend as I had some commitments here, as did the member.

However, I'm told that more than 300 people participated either in

person or through what's referred to as a webinar process — watching things

through the Internet and via teleconference. There has been widespread interest

in that meeting. That's good to see, because the whole purpose of releasing the

draft recommendations is to stimulate public comment and discussion and to get

some comments back from people for the various members of WCI to consider.

If you look ahead in the bill to

section 39, you'll see that the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council can make regulations pertaining to how the B.C.

emission reduction units can be used and applied. The idea, as I've said, is to

attain additional incremental greenhouse gas emission reductions through offset

projects. What incremental means is that those are emission reductions that

would not otherwise have taken place.

With respect to the member's comment about it not just becoming a

cost of doing business, actually, the whole idea behind putting a price on

carbon either through a carbon tax — as we're doing with the revenue-neutral

carbon tax — or through a cap-and-trade system is to put a price and a cost on

business for the carbon emissions that they generate and allow to go into the

atmosphere.

[1555]

By putting a cap in place on the total amount that will be

permitted into the atmosphere in British Columbia, that obviously imposes a cost

on business. Then they have to make a decision on whether it's most

cost-effective for them, from a business perspective, to meet their legal

obligations to operate within the set allowances either by reducing their own

emissions or by purchasing credits from other companies that have more than

sufficiently reduced their emissions or, thirdly, by acquiring these B.C.

emission reduction units.

They'll have to make a business decision on what makes the most

sense for them, but that's what makes a cap-and-trade system a market model.

Businesses have to make a decision about how best to proceed in the most

economic way. But from the environment's perspective and the atmosphere's

perspective, the end result is lower greenhouse gas emissions — whether those

come about through verifiable and incremental offset projects or through

reductions at source from a particular company's facility.

S. Simpson: Hon. Chair, I appreciate the minister's

comments that emissions pricing is about putting a price on carbon, whether it

be the tax or to some degree

[ Page 12831 ]

through a cap-and-trade system, though I believe the cap-and-trade system is

somewhat different.

That may be a tool, but it's clearly not our objective. The

objective here isn't the price on carbon. The objective here has to be the

reduction in emissions. That's got to be the goal. That's where we're going.

I certainly know that when we view this, the measure we see as the

measure of importance is: how do we reduce emissions? If putting a price on

carbon simply creates a situation where people are prepared to pay and continue

to emit, then it's not working. If they are in fact changing behaviour and

reducing emissions, then it's working. That's probably why we're of the view

that a little bit more emphasis on a regulatory regime will be important in the

long run.

Having said that, the reason I'm referencing back to the WCI draft

design recommendations — and I certainly appreciate that we have a ways to go

before those are finalized and before the cabinet and the Premier make decisions

about when and how we will proceed with those — is that at this point they give

us the only insights or the only place that we can open that discussion with a

piece of legislation that is largely a blank cheque, as the minister said when

he referenced sections in the bill where regulations will make all of these

decisions. Part of our criticism of this bill is that it creates a bit of a

blank cheque in terms of the ability of government to deal with these things.

That's part of the reason that I'm looking to have some discussion

with the minister, and I'll look to have some significant discussion over all

these issues in the bill as we lead through here. As the minister said, he is

hoping for, and I'm pleased to hear the minister say that he's looking for some

dialogue and discussion around the recommendations from the WCI.

I believe that is important, and I'm hopeful that it will be a

vigorous discussion. But I think an important part of that discussion may be

what we talk about here in this House in relation to Bill 18, to see if we can

garner some insights from the minister about what his thinking or the

government's thinking might be about the directions that they will be supportive

of in terms of the WCI.

I'll tell the minister now that I'm going to try to encourage him

to provide those insights so that people in British Columbia do have the

opportunity, when they look at these recommendations, to have some idea about

the people who actually will make the decision and what they're thinking. Then

based on that, they can make a determination about whether they want to advise

the government that they should be thinking something else.

[1600]

Based on that, just to provide that bit of a

preamble, I'll go

back to the question around the offset units themselves. Is it the government's

position that this is solely about pricing and that if people are prepared to

pay the price, including buying the offsets, then that's an acceptable thing for

them to do? Or is it about putting some limits not just on the allowance units

but on the offset or reduction units, as well, and conditions or protocols on

those units — to put some limits on their use so that they don't become a blank

cheque for people to use them to buy their way out of reducing emissions?

[1605]

Hon. B. Penner: I think the member's comments betray a

certain lack of understanding about what a cap-and-trade system is and how it

operates. So I'll spend a little bit of time here just to review the concept.

First, just turning to a news release that we released when we

introduced this legislation on April 3, I'll just quote from that for a moment:

"Cap-and-trade regulatory systems establish an overall cap

or limit on emissions, while the trade part of the system allows regulated

emitters to buy and sell emission allowances or to buy offset units. Those who

can reduce emissions more efficiently are able to sell their surplus units to

those who find it more challenging to do so. This system transfers emission

reduction responsibility and management to emitters, while market forces help

determine the distribution of reductions.

"Under this act, the B.C. government will establish

the cap for designated large emitters by issuing a limited number of tradeable

compliance units, known as emissions allowances, for given periods of time,

known as compliance periods. Each designated emitter will then be required to

obtain a number of compliance units equivalent to the amount of regulated

greenhouse gas emissions it releases within the specified compliance period.

These units must then be surrendered to government as proof of compliance."

I'll say that again. "These units must then be surrendered

to the government as proof of compliance." So the member is focusing on one part

of the phrase "cap-and-trade." He's talking about the trade component and

forgetting about the cap. The government intends, through this legislation, to

impose a cap on industrial emissions and then, over time, to drive down the

allowable cap.

If you don't want to take our word for it, this document was

distributed last week by representatives of the Suzuki Foundation and the

Pembina Institute when they held a news conference here in Victoria to talk

about their support for a cap-and-trade system. I'll just quote from this

document:

"The potential to reduce emissions using a cap-and-trade

system is huge."

Then there's a heading called "Cap and Trade Basics."

"The principle behind a cap-and-trade system is simple.

Governments determine which sources will be covered by the system and set a

limit — the cap — on the total amount of pollution allowed from those sources.

The government then creates and distributes 'pollution permits' equal to that

amount.

"Each company included in the system needs to

obtain enough permits to cover its emissions for the year. They can either

obtain permits from the government or from companies with a surplus. Companies

that are able to reduce their emissions cheaply can benefit financially by

selling permits. Companies that find it more expensive to reduce pollution will

need to buy more permits. In this way, the cap ensures that total pollution goes

down, and companies are motivated to find better ways to reduce pollution.

[ Page 12832 ]

"Cap-and-trade systems have already been used successfully

to reduce pollution in the United States and in the European Union."

Then on the back panel of the document it says "Cap and Trade Around

the World" — that's the heading.

"The western climate initiative can draw from experiences

around the globe to design its cap-and-trade system. The United States

significantly reduced acid rain pollution using a cap-and-trade system. The

European Union already has a cap-and-trade system for global warming emissions."

It goes on to note that the system currently covers 27 countries and

is just entering its second phase. So the overall result is a reduction of

greenhouse gas emissions.

I'm not sure why the member would be hostile or critical about the

idea of having people invest in British Columbia offsets if it results in new

technology being invested in, in British Columbia and new technological

advancements being made and, at the same time, results in a net reduction in

greenhouse gas emissions.

Keep in mind what I've said all along: these offsets, in order to

be eligible, will have to be verifiable and incremental. That means in addition

to reductions that otherwise would have taken place. Again, the net result is

that at the end of the day total greenhouse gas emissions go down under a

cap-and-trade system.

[1610]

S. Simpson: I think I have a pretty good handle on what a

cap-and-trade system is. I happen to have read that document from Pembina and

Suzuki and have had extensive discussions with them around that document and

around their position in regard to cap-and-trade.

If the minister wanted to stand up here today and embrace the

principles that were in that document — around auctions, around threshold

levels, around scope, around a cap value that takes us down to a 33 percent

reduction by 2020 and, as he seemed to miss mentioning, around putting limits on

the offsets program, which was also recommended by Suzuki and Pembina — then we

probably could shorten this conversation up.

But none of that is committed to in any way, shape or form in this

bill. There is not one single commitment in this bill for any of those things to

occur. So we will have an ongoing discussion about this.

The minister talks about reducing emissions by cap, and that's

important. One of the things that Pembina and Suzuki recommend…. I'd be

interested to have the minister's comment on this, since we're talking about the

impact of offsets. They have stated that the reduction in emission levels should

come down to a 33 percent reduction through the cap-and-trade program by 2020,

as per the Premier's commitment and the commitment that we legislated last

session.

To do that and have real emissions reductions would mean putting

limits on emission reduction units to not allow people to buy their way out of

this. It's not about saying no to offsets. It's about being very judicious in

the use of offsets so that it doesn't just become a matter of money and this

doesn't just become an incredibly valuable wealth generator, because that's what

cap-and-trade has the ability to do. It has the ability to end up being all

about money and not at all about emission reductions.

It has that possibility. We've seen that happen in other

jurisdictions. I'm sure the minister doesn't want that to occur here, and we

don't want it to occur here either.

So when the minister talks about emission reduction units, is it

the intention to put some limits on those units in terms of the number of units,

how they can be used and what they can be used for? And when is that going to

become apparent?

Hon. B. Penner: I'll just note for the member that last

fall we passed Bill 44. That sets a legal requirement for British Columbia to

reduce our greenhouse gas emissions by 33 percent by 2020. That is certainly

something we are committed to doing, and we're endeavouring to do it. In the

meantime, we are consulting and discussing with stakeholders and environmental

groups and others, including the member, about how best to attain that overall

goal.

One of the ways of doing that that we've proposed is through a

cap-and-trade system. I know the opposition voted against that on principle at

second reading, but we support the concept of cap-and-trade as one of the tools

to reach our 33 percent reduction target.

The draft recommendations that were released in Salt Lake City on

May 16 — that's just two days ago — are specifically intended to foster dialogue

and discussion. That's why we certainly welcome the document from the Pembina

Institute. We met with a representative of the Suzuki Foundation, Ian Bruce, and

I understand that he had some favourable things to say after he saw the

recommendations coming out of Salt Lake City in terms of some of the ideas that

are contained in that. We look forward to having further dialogue with him and

others. That's the whole point.

[1615]

The member has said: "Why doesn't the government come out with a

predetermined idea about exactly what we will do in terms of this cap-and-trade

system?" Well, we're part of the WCI process. We're having discussions with our

other member jurisdictions within the WCI. We will get to that point, but first

we want to hear what people have to say in response to the recommendations that

were released just two days ago. I'm sure the e-mails, cards and letters with

people expressing their views will be coming in, and we'll take all of that into

account.

S. Simpson: I'll make a comment on this, and I'll move on,

because we are going to have a lot of discussion about this in a few pages.

I believe that it's true that British Columbians might want to

talk about this, but I know that British Columbians aren't particularly

enamoured with this bill, not because they don't support a cap-and-trade system

but because the legislation tells them absolutely nothing about what a

cap-and-trade system will look like in British Columbia. I also believe that

British Columbians do want to be engaged in that discussion.

[ Page 12833 ]

I've had discussions with Mr. Bruce and with others who are

involved in and monitoring Salt Lake. I think that there is a significant amount

of interest in the draft design recommendations, and a number of those

recommendations are very helpful and make good sense. I think that the

framework…. I will say right at the outset that probably the WCI recommendations

have gone further in many places than I thought they would, and I think that we

should be happy about that.

But what British Columbians would like…. The minister will reflect

back. We discussed this with another piece of legislation. We talked about the

Wildlife Act review. The minister will know that he released a document that

didn't firmly commit the government to anything. That's apparent from the

legislation that came. But it certainly talked about ideas that the government

thought were important. It talked about some of them in detail and others in a

broader sense, without committing the government at all.

The government now has a series of recommendations here. I am sure

that British Columbians would love to have some idea about what the government

thinks about what's in this document and whether it's heading in the direction

they want to go.

For example, in the auction area, it says that we should auction

somewhere between 25 to 75 percent. I'm sure that British Columbians would love

to know whether the government thinks it should be at the lower end or the

higher end of that auction or not auctioned at all. That would be important

information so the government could get real feedback from people when they had

some idea of what to give feedback about. But that's the end of that

conversation for the moment.

Moving on, the next of the

definitions is "cap." It's the maximum

number of allowance units that may be made available for a particular compliance

period. I believe that the minister indicated this. Is it the intention, on the

cap, for the government to come in at a level that presumably doesn't…? Is it

the position of the government that the initial cap should be at or below the

total emissions that are being released today?

[1620]

Hon. B. Penner: Just to respond to what the member said in

the

preamble to his last question, we want to know what British Columbians,

stakeholders, environmental groups and industry are thinking about in terms of

the design of the cap-and-trade system. Anyone who wants to contribute comments

is more than welcome to do so. We look forward to receiving those either through

e-mail or a request for meetings or what have you, or through people registering

on line through the Internet. They, too, can be taking

part in these discussions

with the western climate initiative itself.

I know that quite a number of people did do that. More than 350

participated through the western climate initiative meeting that took place in

Salt Lake City. Sorry, I was mistaken. I said May 16. It was actually on May 21.

That's how time flies around here when we're having fun. It was two days ago,

and that was May 21, not May 16, when that meeting took place.

In terms of the caps and what level the caps will be placed at,

we're looking to see what has taken place in other jurisdictions such as Europe,

where they've had a cap-and-trade system already for some time, as I've already

alluded to.

Most economists and advisers will suggest that you want to phase

in a cap-and-trade system so that the bite becomes progressively more aggressive

over time. That gives industry time to adjust and to start to ratchet down those

emissions, just as we're doing with our revenue-neutral carbon tax. It starts at

a very modest amount, $10 per tonne of carbon dioxide, but we're signalling over

time that industry and individuals can expect that that amount will go up.

That sends a signal to people as they are making their future

investment decisions — whether it's about purchasing an automobile or purchasing

a different home or looking to insulate their home — that they need to take into

account that the cost of their emissions is going to go up.

Similarly, with a cap-and-trade system what you want to do is

clearly signal that the cost of emissions is going to be going up so that

industry needs to take those future costs into account when they're making their

investment decisions and then invest in ways to reduce their emissions. So we

are working with our partners in the western climate initiative, which includes

California, Oregon, Washington, Manitoba and Quebec, and I was pleased to hear

that Ontario had observer status at Salt Lake City. They're apparently watching

things very closely.

Certainly, from British Columbia's perspective, we welcome other

Canadian provinces joining the WCI. We'd be very pleased if Ontario does decide

to join the organization, even if eventually, some day, some people will suggest

that the organization needs to change its name due to the different locations

that are joining the initiative.

What's more important than the name is the overall premise, which

is that we're all working collaboratively to find the most cost-effective way

possible of reducing greenhouse gas emissions so that we're doing something

that's good for the environment and also maintaining a strong economic

foundation to pay for all the social services and programs that government here

provides.

S. Simpson: The question I raise about the definition on

the cap is this. The minister talked about the European model, and certainly the

minister knows that the first time they did this in Europe they messed it up.

The way they messed it up is that they ended up allocating more what would be

allowance units in this legislation than there were actual real emissions,

something in the range of about 15 percent over the actual emissions in Europe.

That, to some degree, comes from the way they determined levels of emissions.

We'll have that discussion in a while too, I'm sure.

But what happened, of course, is that once that was done, they

essentially created a circumstance where the companies that were covered by

cap-and-trade were able to emit more the day after cap-and-trade came into

[ Page 12834 ]

place than they were actually, in reality, emitting the day before. That

became a problem for the market aspects of this system. They've corrected that

now, as I understand. They've pulled back and made a correction, and that's a

good thing.

The question I have is: at the time that this is going to come

into force…. I appreciate we don't exactly know when that is, because we don't

exactly know when the WCI will actually come into force. There's some

flexibility there.

[1625]

The question I'm asking is: will there be a commitment made that

the cap number, the overall cap number, will not be greater than the amount of

emissions of the industries or organizations that are captured under

cap-and-trade? Is that a commitment that the minister can make — that we're not

going to allow them to start emitting more the day after than they are, in

reality, emitting the day before?

Hon. B. Penner: In fact, we had representatives from the

climate action secretariat in Europe this week. There was a meeting held of the

International Carbon Action Partnership in Brussels, and we had active

participation there to learn from the European experience.

I'm assured that the European Union did not intentionally set out

to issue more allocations than companies actually required. What happened was

that they did not have as detailed measurements as to what actual greenhouse gas

emissions were occurring from the various industries as perhaps they could have

or would have liked to have had. Now, in phase 2 they've got better data, and

they have revised their scheme.

We are certainly learning from the programs or the efforts that

have taken place in other jurisdictions, and that's why we are proud to be a

member of ICAP, the International Carbon Action Partnership. That's why we had a

representative in Brussels this week, on Tuesday and Wednesday, to participate

in those meetings and to hear firsthand about their experiences.

I am advised that we have much better data today in British

Columbia and in Canada about our actual emissions than the European Union did

when they launched their cap-and-trade system in the 1990s, so we're in a better

position in terms of a starting point.

Just by way of reference, for example, Environment Canada collects

an inventory of data across the country. They monitor greenhouse gas emissions,

and they put out reports annually. The most recent year's data has just been

made available for 2006. That's the most recent year that they have complete

data for, and it indicates that in the case of British Columbia, our greenhouse

gas emissions went down 3.2 percent from the year 2005 to the year 2006. That's

encouraging, but it hardly means that we have to stop work. In fact, I think we

have to keep up the effort and maintain progress.

Again, according to the data just released by Environment Canada,

our most recent 3.2 percent year-over-year decline followed a decline of 1.8

percent from the year 2004 to 2005. So for the two most recent years for which

we have data provided to us by Environment Canada, British Columbia's overall

greenhouse gas emissions have come down 5 percent, which is progress.

I'm not going to pretend that the work is over, that the job is

done. We have much, much more work to do, and we intend to do it.

S. Simpson: I would agree, certainly, from what I have read

and from people I have talked to who have some knowledge of the European model,

that they have fixed it to some degree. They hope they have, and I think they've

made good progress — that's everything that I hear — in fixing it, in terms of

the error that was made.

The error that was made, interestingly…. The comment has been made

to me, by people who have paid much closer attention to that, is that the

European Union essentially went to the industries in play, discussed with them

their emission levels and, in large part, took the advice of industry as to what

their emissions levels would be. As was reasonably expected — and I don't

begrudge them this — those industries all put their levels at the highest

possible end of the range that they could. Then that was what was accepted, and

of course it ended up that the cumulative impact of that was somewhat

significantly over the real emissions.

If I was to provide a piece of advice to the minister on this —

the minister said he was consulting everybody, including me, so I'll give him my

advice — it is that the industry stewardship model that the government uses for

many of its other practices and, certainly, for its practices within

Environment…. The minister might want to take a second look at the industry

stewardship model and whether that's the one he wants to rely on when he starts

looking to get emission levels from those industries. Maybe he might want to

invest a little money in having that done independently.

[1630]

I'm going to move on, because I want to get to the interesting

stuff, which starts in

part 2. But we're not quite to

part 2 yet. It talks here

about inspectors in the

definitions, and it says: "a person designated as an

inspector under the regulations or a person in a class designated as

inspectors…." It also identifies a conservation officer as an inspector.

Is it the intention of the ministry to have inspectors over and

above conservation officers?

Hon. B. Penner: Just to address the first part of the

member's comments about making sure he got accurate baseline data about an

individual industry or business's greenhouse gas emissions profile. If you flip

ahead to

section 4, which I know we're not at yet…. But if you look at

section

4, it deals with emissions reports. It does give legal authority for the

director to order an audit to take place or to conduct an audit of the actual

results or the emissions that would be coming from a company or a business.

Certainly, as we've initiated dialogue with our partners in the

WCI, we're in agreement with folks — for example, from the Governor's office in

California — that we have to make sure we have good data. We are

[ Page 12835 ]

all learning from the experience of others who've gone on before us, such as

the European Union. That's one reason why we have joined the International

Carbon Action Partnership — so that we can learn firsthand from them what they

think worked and maybe some things that could have worked a whole lot better.

So yes, we will be learning from those experiences. We have no

intention of repeating any of the mistakes that may or may not have been made,

albeit even if they were made in good faith.

In terms of the member's specific question about the role of

inspectors versus conservation officers, the member will see from the definition

that it contemplates people operating in addition to conservation officers under

the Environmental Management Act. I think we touched on this a little bit

yesterday. We've been dealing with a few things now — legislation as well as

estimates.

It might have been in the context of the estimates debate where we

talked about staff in the environmental protection division who go out and do

the routine inspections or visits to various industrial sites. They'll do some

of the initial legwork, and where they start to believe that there's a problem

requiring a significant degree of investigative work that could lead to eventual

prosecution or charges…. It's at that point that they call in the conservation

officer service. Those individuals are specifically trained to perform

investigations and gather evidence to lead towards eventual court prosecutions —

not that they always do.

[S. Hammell in the chair.]

If you're going to take a matter before the courts, as the member

will appreciate, you have to make sure the evidence is gathered in a proper

fashion and that there's continuity, etc., of documents. At the front end I

would imagine most of the inspections to be done by staff working in the

environmental protection division of the Ministry of Environment.

If they start to determine in their own minds, based on the

information they're obtaining, that there is a significant degree of

non-compliance that would perhaps warrant prosecution, that's when they call in

the trained experts and the conservation o