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)

WEDNESDAY, MAY 21, 2008

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 34, Number 1

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Page

Introductions by Members

Statements

Opposition caucus softball team

R. Hawes

Introductions by Members

Statements

Opposition caucus softball team

Conroy

Introduction and First

Reading of Bills

Supervised Injection Facility

Designation Act, 2008 (Bill M214)

J. Kwan

Statements (Standing Order

25 B )

Multiple Sclerosis Awareness

Month

M. Polak

Quadra Island floatplane

accident

Trevena

Nurses in B.C.

Nuraney

Doukhobor community in B.C.

Conroy

Joe and Rosalie Segal

H. Bloy

Blackwater Paddlers

Simpson

Oral Questions

B.C. Lottery Corporation

management of casino transactions

C. James

Hon. J.

van Dongen

L. Krog

Farnworth

Customer rewards program for

ferry fares

G. Coons

Hon. K.

Falcon

Simons

Trevena

Beds in Fraser Health Authority

long-term care facilities

Gentner

Hon. G.

Abbott

Motions without Notice

Appointment of Special Committee

to Appoint a Police Complaint Commissioner

Hon. M.

de Jong

Petitions

Hon. R. Thorpe

Reports from Committees

Select Standing Committee on

Children and Youth

Cantelon

Committee of the Whole House

Greenhouse Gas Reduction

(Emissions Standards) Statutes Amendment Act, 2008 (Bill 31)

Simpson

Hon. B.

Penner

Simpson

Report and Third Reading of

Bills

Greenhouse Gas Reduction

(Emissions Standards) Statutes Amendment Act, 2008 (Bill 31)

Committee of the Whole House

Greenhouse Gas Reduction (Vehicle

Emissions Standards) Act (Bill 39)

Simpson

Hon. B.

Penner

Reporting of Bills

Greenhouse Gas Reduction (Vehicle

Emissions Standards) Act (Bill 39)

Third Reading of Bills

Greenhouse Gas Reduction (Vehicle

Emissions Standards) Act (Bill 39)

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Health

(continued)

J. Brar

Hon. G. Abbott

D. Routley

A. Dix

D. Chudnovsky

D. Thorne

[ Page 12653 ]

WEDNESDAY, MAY 21, 2008

The House met at 1:35 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Prayers.

Introductions by Members

C. James: Visiting in the gallery today from my

constituency is a group of residents of Somerset House, a wonderful group who

I've had many good debates and good political discussions with.

Among that group is a former MLA from this Legislature, former

cabinet minister Eileen Dailly. Eileen is a former teacher and school trustee.

She was elected in 1966 in Burnaby North, was re-elected five times and was also

only the second woman ever to hold a cabinet post.

As Minister of Education, Eileen Dailly implemented a number of

visionary initiatives. She was the one who introduced legislation to make

kindergarten mandatory. She expanded the community college system, and she also

helped create the first native school district in the Nass Valley. But I think

Eileen is most well known for actually banning corporal punishment in public

schools when she banned the strap in British Columbia. So we all have a lot to

thank Eileen for.

Would the House please make Eileen and all the residents of

Somerset House very welcome.

Statements

OPPOSITION CAUCUS SOFTBALL TEAM

R. Hawes: Mr. Speaker, I stand today to tell you about an

incident that happened last night as I was making my way home from the precinct.

Just a block or so from here I came across a baseball diamond where it appeared

there was a socialist horde trying to take command of the ball diamond. When I

got closer, indeed it was a socialist horde. But they were being held back by

the mighty press gallery ball team.

As I watched, I saw the opposition House Leader running in the

field. I wondered what game he was playing, as he seemed to be running away from

the balls that were coming anywhere near him. However, after watching for

awhile, it became very clear that the socialist horde actually…. None of us have

anything to fear. They were beaten back, badly beaten, by the press gallery. So

we have nothing to fear.

Introductions by Members

Hon. G. Abbott: Mr. Speaker, I know people are expecting me

to rise and respond on behalf of those who have an opinion on corporal

punishment in school. I certainly did and was tremendously relieved at the

change that former Minister Dailly brought into place. However, I'm not up on

that.

I'm up to….

Mr. Speaker: Was it too late for you, Minister?

Hon. G. Abbott: It is never too late for you, Mr. Speaker —

never too late.

In the gallery today are representatives from the Multiple

Sclerosis Society of Canada. They include Mr. Todd Abercrombie, who is the

executive director for the capital region chapter, and also Lynn Hunter, who is

the chair of the national government relations committee and vice-chair, B.C.

division board of directors. Her partner Don Armstrong is here with us today.

On behalf, I'm sure, of all members of the House, we owe an

enormous debt of gratitude to the Multiple Sclerosis Society as they help

victims of this dread disease through difficult times in their lives and look

for new opportunities through research to open up a new

chapter in that

challenging disease. I'd like the House to please make them welcome.

J. Kwan: It gives me great pleasure today to introduce 99

guests who are visiting in the gallery today. Normally, I rise in this House —

as you know, Mr. Speaker — to introduce my mom or my daughter or my staff. But

for the first time, really, I think, since I've been elected, I'm actually

introducing constituents from the community.

There are ten other individuals, as well, in the Rattenbury Room,

because the gallery is simply too small to fit the community groups that are

here today. They are from the Downtown Eastside community, but not exclusively

from the Downtown Eastside community. They're just like you and me, Mr. Speaker

— people who are deserving of dignity and respect.

[1340]

They are here to support the introduction of a bill that will be

taking place later on today in support of the supervised injection site. More to

the point, the three groups that I have put them into for the purpose of this

introduction…. The Vancouver Area Network of Drug Users, people who actually

have done a lot of advocacy on the ground to push harm reduction to be an

accepted principle in our community, are here today.

The Life Skills Centre representatives are also here today, and

they're the people who work day in and day out providing services in our

community in a non-judgmental manner, in a manner which supports the people who

are in greatest need.

Last but not least, there's a coalition of people called Insite

for Community Safety. It truly is a wide coalition of people who are gathered

here today to show their support for the supervised injection site in Vancouver

in the Downtown Eastside and the first in North America.

With that, I'd like to ask all members of the House to please make

these very special guests very welcome.

Hon. J. van Dongen: I'm pleased to introduce to the House

today Dean Purdy, who is the chair of the correctional and sheriff services

component of the B.C. Government Employees Union. I met with him and a number of

his colleagues this morning to talk about

[ Page 12654 ]

issues of concern in our ministry, and I want to say that we had an

informative meeting. I ask the House to please make them all very welcome.

L. Krog: Unfortunately, I don't have the names of the six

individuals. But joining us in the gallery today are six students from the

Malaspina campus of Vancouver Island University here showing support for the

member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant and many of her constituents who fill the

gallery. I'd ask the House to please make them welcome.

Hon. L. Reid: I've just had the absolute pleasure of dining

with Sheila Orr, someone I have great admiration for. Certainly, I know she has

fond memories of this place. I would ask the House to please make her welcome.

N. Simons: I'd like to introduce those members of the BCGEU

correctional and sheriff services who are here to meet with the minister — I

hope it was a productive meeting: Dean Purdy, component chair; Steve Lisik; Ron

McCabe; Derrick Goodwin; Larry Cadieux; Mike Scott; and Wiho Papenbrock. Will

the House please make them welcome.

Statements

OPPOSITION CAUCUS SOFTBALL TEAM

K. Conroy: Well, I beg to differ with the member for Maple

Ridge–Mission. Last night a quiet neighbourhood in James Bay was transformed

into an event comparable to the World Series. Okay, I exaggerate. More like the

local slo-pitch beer league. However, last night the NDP staff and caucus played

our second annual game against the media.

Now, I must admit that both sides chose to bring in some ringers

this year. The member for Nelson-Creston recruited the Minister of State for

ActNow for our side. Quite frankly, we were all impressed with his skill and

dexterity for a man of his age. We were all pleasantly surprised by the skills

of the member for Surrey–Green Timbers, who I'm sure all members of the House

will now refer to as Slugger Sue.

But the media, in comparison…. Well, they brought in some

extremely skilled young gentlemen, none of whom any of us recognized from any

media outlets, although Mr. Leyne assured me that this was a family event. His

very athletic sons and their very athletic friends were surely welcome.

However, I do digress, and I want to thank our last-minute fill-in

umpire, Clerk Craig James, for his impeccable skill — for filling in for

yourself, Mr. Speaker, when you were so unavoidably detained. It would have been

helpful if you had warned us that Mr. James knows very little about the game.

Some of his calls were somewhat questionable, especially against our side. But

again I digress. I want to genuinely thank him for taking the time to ensure

that this was a very fair and honest game.

[1345]

However, in light of the final outcome — and yes, I am getting to

it — I just want to remind members that last year we, the members from this side

of the House, were indeed victorious. But this year, alas, I am sad to say we

conceded the game by one run — just one run — to the mighty media.

However, we have all agreed that next year will be the ultimate

grudge match. I've assured the media that the game will be sometime next year.

The NDP caucus, staff, friends, family and whoever else we can find to play will

be only too happy to once again meet the media and triumph in the third game of

this ongoing matching of exemplary skills on the ball diamond.

Mr. Speaker: Speaking of the media, I just would like to

inform the House that our very own Keith Baldrey just this morning came within

inches of making a hole in one. But he birdied the last two holes, and he said

that the press gallery would never believe it unless it was announced here in

the House.

J. Kwan: I seek leave to introduce a bill.

Leave granted.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

SUPERVISED INJECTION FACILITY

DESIGNATION ACT, 2008

J. Kwan presented a bill intituled Supervised Injection Facility

Designation Act, 2008.

J. Kwan: I move the bill intituled Supervised Injection

Facility Designation Act, 2008, be read for a first time now.

Motion approved.

J. Kwan: Injection drug use is a significant public health

issue, and epidemic rates of HIV and AIDS, hepatitis C and other infectious

diseases amongst injection drug users were identified as a major concern by

many, including the Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS. The health authority at

the time identified the establishment of a supervised injection facility as a

legitimate part of a response to this public health emergency.

This bill provides for the designation of Insite, the supervised

injection facility operated by the Vancouver Coastal Health Authority, as a

health facility. Insite is an integral part of Vancouver Coastal Health

Authority's continuum of care for people with addiction, mental illness and HIV

and AIDS.

More than 30 published scientific research papers have shown the

success of the facility, which includes increased access to acute health care

amongst marginalized populations, increased use of detox services, increased

engagement in addiction treatment, reduced risk of overdose fatalities, reduced

needle sharing, no increase in drug use or petty crime and no decrease in public

order or safety.

[ Page 12655 ]

Insite provides an essential health service for hundreds of the

city's most vulnerable residents and operates with the support of the municipal

and provincial governments and health care workers, including the BCNU. This

enactment affirms that the medical care and treatment provided at Insite, as

well as all matters necessarily incidental to the effective medical care and

treatment of individuals at Insite, is supported by the provincial health

legislation and is in accordance with the province's exclusive jurisdiction

under subsections 92(7), (13) and (16) of the Constitution Act.

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

next sitting of the House after today.

Bill M214, Supervised Injection Facility Designation Act, 2008,

introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for

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

Statements

(Standing Order 25

b) MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS AWARENESS MONTH

M. Polak: May is Multiple Sclerosis Awareness Month. We

wear carnations in the House today to draw attention to a complex disease that

can strike British Columbians in the prime of life. We also wear these symbols

of hope to show support for an organization dedicated to finding a cure for that

disease and enhancing the quality of life of all those affected by it.

Multiple sclerosis is a chronic, often disabling disease of the

brain and spinal cord. Most people with MS are diagnosed between the ages of 15

and 40, and the unpredictable effects of MS last for the rest of their lives. MS

can cause loss of balance, impaired speech, extreme fatigue, double vision and

paralysis.

[1350]

You may also recognize the carnation as the symbol of Mother's

Day. That the carnation also symbolizes the hope for a cure for MS is not

coincidental. Women are more than three times as likely to develop MS as men.

Canadians have one of the highest rates of multiple sclerosis in the world. At

the same time Canada is a world leader in MS research, with tens of thousands of

Canadians committed to ending MS in as short a time as possible.

Today and throughout the month of May, we salute the dedicated

efforts of the Multiple Sclerosis Society of Canada, its volunteers and

supporters in leading the way to finding a cure for MS and in offering support

for people with MS and their families. I urge all British Columbians to take up

that cause by learning more about multiple sclerosis and doing what they can to

support the MS Society.

QUADRA ISLAND FLOATPLANE ACCIDENT

C. Trevena: On the east side of Quadra Island, there's a

very poignant memorial — a bench with five dolphins carved in it, with loggers'

boots strung above. A shelter surrounds it, with homemade shell wind chimes.

There's a plaque in front — a plaque to remember five workers killed in a

floatplane crash on February 28, 2005: Fabian Bedard, brothers Trevor and Doug

Decock, David Stevens and pilot Arnie Feast.

The five headed off to work but did not return. Their plane

crashed in the channel on the east side of the island. Only one body has ever

been found, and there's still no explanation. It's been a fight for the families

from the start to find out information and to get action.

It was with their hard work that the plane was located and later

the fuselage removed. It continued to be the work of the families to push for

answers from officials locally, provincially and federally. Frustrated with what

they see as a lack of response, they're paying for private investigation.

They'd like to see a public inquiry held, but despite their

concerted efforts, all they see on the horizon is the coroner's report. The

families are still looking for answers as to what happened and what condition

the plane was in. It's not just for them to move on with their lives, but so

that such an incident would not be repeated.

With five men dead, they were hoping that they would not be the

only ones who wanted to make sure something like this never happens again. But

the more they push, the more questions they have and the more frustrated they

become with what they see as indifference from those institutions that they feel

they should be able to trust for setting standards and for making sure that both

transportation and work are as safe as possible. They get frustrated.

The memorial to the five men is a peaceful spot. It will be more

peaceful for all the families when their questions are answered.

NURSES IN B.C.

J. Nuraney: Recently we celebrated 150 years of nursing in

our province. A career in nursing is a noble calling. I would like to pay

tribute to all the nurses who have been serving in our health care system

throughout the province. Their dedication to their work and expression of

compassion through their care for the people they help get better are truly

commendable. I had the opportunity to watch them work in the Burnaby Hospital

not too long ago, and I can vouch for their dedication.

One of the challenges in our health care system has been the

shortage of nurses. I'm delighted to report to the House today that this

government has nearly doubled the number of nurse education spaces across

British Columbia. This has produced a record number of graduates who have

received close to 13,000 nursing degrees, diplomas and certificates since 2001.

We have added and funded 3,786 new spaces — an increase of 93 percent.

More spaces will be added as announced in our budget. This will

greatly ease the pressure as we continue to seek innovative and creative methods

of dealing with our health care system. It is important to note that in order to

sustain our health care system, there

[ Page 12656 ]

has to be a true partnership by all providers, which include doctors,

surgeons, nurses and support workers.

It is through such concerted and well-intentioned efforts that we

will succeed in protecting this very important asset and privilege that we all

enjoy. Once again I want to show my appreciation to those who have chosen

nursing as their career.

[1355]

DOUKHOBOR COMMUNITY IN B.C.

K. Conroy: This weekend I had the pleasure of attending the

Union of Spiritual Communities of Christ 61st annual Union of Youth Festival.

The USCC, more commonly known as the Doukhobors, have a number of events this

year. The youth festival is one of them. This year is particularly special to

the Doukhobors, as they are celebrating 100 years of living in British Columbia.

In the years 1908 to 1913, over 5,000 Doukhobor settlers came from

the Prairies to B.C. It has been deemed the largest internal migration in

Canadian history.

Today B.C. is home to well over half of the approximately 50,000

Doukhobor descendants living in Canada. They built their original communities in

the West Kootenay and Boundary regions, establishing themselves with their hard

work and peace-loving existence. Although their lives have not been without

turmoil, this group of people has always risen above the issues of the day and

succeeded where many others would have given up.

At the festival on Saturday, I had the honour to read a

proclamation from the government acknowledging the significance of this

historical event. I want to take a moment to thank the Attorney General and the

Lieutenant-Governor, their staff as well as my own, for their efforts in

ensuring the proclamation could be signed, sealed and delivered in time for me

to read at the festival.

The proclamation also recognized the contribution of the Doukhobor

community to the cultural, social and economic development of B.C. and how they

still play an active role in the promotion and pursuit of peace, freedom and

justice in our province, nation and the world.

The theme of this year's festival, "Reflection and progression,"

gave the participants a chance to reflect back a hundred years to see how they

have progressed and also to ensure a future for their grandchildren and

great-grandchildren so that they too, a hundred years from now, can reflect on

their progression.

If you are passing through our region this summer, please take the

time to visit the Doukhobor Discovery Centre in Castlegar, where this year's

exhibit is dedicated to the centenary.

JOE AND ROSALIE SEGAL

H. Bloy: I rise today to honour a family that has given so

much to British Columbia and Canada. I want to say thank you to the Segal family

for all that they have done.

I was introduced to the Segal family by Peter Legg, an outstanding

British Columbia in his own right. Peter Legg considers Joe Segal his mentor.

Joe and Rosalie Segal are outstanding British Columbians who have

contributed so much to our communities not only financially but with time and

effort. You've seen this over and over again from the many organizations that

they have assisted over the years.

I could not talk about Joe Segal and not tell one of his stories.

Joe would say that a man could give a million dollars to his charity if he had

that amount of money, but the real worth of the man to that charity would be to

give of his time and effort in assisting the charity in the long term.

Joe started his business empire with $50 after leaving the

Canadian Armed Forces in 1948. Joe and Rosalie achieved much success, from a

small business retail outlet to owning The Bay department stores and Zellers and

many other businesses.

Joe has been named to the hall of fame for business for Canada and

for British Columbia. Joe has been awarded the Order of British Columbia and the

Order of Canada. Joe and Rosalie Segal have each been honoured with an honorary

doctorate from Simon Fraser University for their contributions to society. Just

recently Joe and Rosalie were honoured by the Lions as outstanding citizens for

2008 and presented with the Medal of Merit award. But not only do Joe and

Rosalie contribute, their son Lorne, for many years now, has chaired the Courage

to Come Back Awards.

We are lucky in British Columbia to have a family like Joe and

Rosalie Segal contributing to the betterment of our communities.

BLACKWATER PADDLERS

B. Simpson: Next Thursday, May 29, the Blackwater Paddlers

will be conducting a commemorative paddle down the Fraser River to recognize the

200th anniversary of Simon Fraser's landing at the confluence of the Quesnel and

Fraser rivers, a place we now call Ceal Tingley Park.

The paddlers are hoping to time the event so that they land close

to the exact hour that Simon Fraser landed, around 6 p.m. or dinnertime. Simon

Fraser, in his journal, seemed intent on dinner because he records that they

went out looking for wild onions to flavour their sauce.

The group will be in historical costume and will be paddling two

26-foot canoes that were patterned on the voyageur north canoes. The

Blackwater Dancer , which was built by Quesnel residents Brian Black and Ron

Watteyne and other club members, was built and put in the water in 1993 to

celebrate the 200th anniversary of Alexander Mackenzie's landing in Quesnel, an

event that holds many fond memories for our community. The second canoe is a

replica canoe, as well, that was purchased by Jeff Dinsdale and is aptly called

the Wannabe .

[1400]

These canoes could take up to ten people, depending on supplies.

The paddlers hope to have six people

[ Page 12657 ]

in each canoe, and they will go north of Quesnel down to the confluence,

depending on the state of the Fraser. The Fraser is in full flood, and it may be

too dangerous to put the boats in. I guess we're not as hardy as the explorers

of the day were. For safety's sake, they may not be able to do it.

Regardless, there will be a celebration at our Shiraoi House, in

which there will be a short play depicting Fraser's landing. I will have the

privilege of playing the part of John Stuart, because apparently I can put on a

good Scottish accent when I need to, and John Stuart was the only Scotsman in

the group. Later John Stuart became in charge of the New Caledonia region for

the North West Company.

I ask the House to show their appreciation of the Blackwater

Paddlers for bringing this part of our history alive.

Oral Questions

B.C. LOTTERY CORPORATION

MANAGEMENT OF CASINO TRANSACTIONS

C. James: Today we learned about another scandal in the

Solicitor General's ministry. Freedom-of-information documents obtained by the

media show the B.C. Lottery Corporation has been under-reporting suspicious

transactions.

This is about potential money laundering, but the B.C. Liberals

never brought the information forward. They've never made it public. Their

silence and their inaction have put the integrity of the entire system at risk.

My question is to the Solicitor General. How is it that the media

knew more about this scandal than he did, or is this just another example of

cover-up by the Liberal government?

Hon. J. van Dongen: I want to start by indicating that the

goal of our government is to ensure that casino gaming is conducted in British

Columbia responsibly and with integrity. To that end, I am concerned about the

media reports about alleged under-reporting by British Columbia, by the B.C.

Lottery Corporation.

I am in the process of conducting my due diligence. I've spoken to

the chair of the board of B.C. Lottery Corporation, to the CEO, and I've asked

for an urgent meeting. I feel it's my duty to follow due process. I've expressed

to them my concerns. I will have certain questions for them, and after that, I

will take whatever action I believe is appropriate.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a

supplemental.

C. James: We need more than concern from this minister and

this government. We need this to be taken seriously. The entire Lottery

Corporation is at risk.

Let's take a look at the information. In 2003 workers identified

49 suspicious transactions, but only nine of them were reported to the federal

authorities. In 2006, as an example to compare, Ontario reported $15 million in

suspicious activity. B.C. only reported $60,000.

There's a real problem at B.C. Lottery, and failure to actually

report these questionable transactions is a criminal offence. I ask the minister

again: how is it that the media, in their own investigation over four years,

were able to expose this when successive ministers knew nothing about it?

Hon. J. van Dongen: I have also spoken to the federal

minister responsible for FinTrack, which is the federal agency that receives

reports with respect to possible money laundering or the passing of suspicious

levels of cash. I have also instructed our gaming policy enforcement branch to

review the experience in Ontario to ensure that we learn from that experience.

There are specific reporting requirements established by FinTrack,

a federal agency, that I expect our casino operators and the B.C. Lottery

Corporation to meet. As I said, in doing my due diligence, I want to assure

myself that they are meeting those requirements. There are certain specific

requirements with respect to suspicious currency transactions, which is a

technical term, that the B.C. Lottery Corporation is expected to meet.

I will look at both sides of this issue to satisfy myself as to

what action needs to be taken.

[1405]

Mr. Speaker: Leader of the Opposition has a further

supplemental.

C. James: It's typical of this minister and of this

government that they decide to look into issues after they're caught out, after

they're found out by the media. You would think, Mr. Speaker, that a minister

would be paying attention to the documents. They certainly can't claim

ignorance. In fact, in 2005 B.C.'s own Auditor General called for tighter rules

and better reporting. But still we saw nothing done.

This is just one in a long list of scandals out of this ministry.

We'll all remember the forgotten child death reviews, the reduced coroner

inquests, the lottery retailer scandal, the ICBC chop shop example. The list

goes on and on. There have been successive failures by this minister, by past

ministers and by this government when it comes to the ministry.

My question is to the minister. How many more scandals do British

Columbians have to endure before the B.C. Liberals get a grip on this ministry?

Hon. J. van Dongen: In 2002 this government passed a new

Gaming Control Act and, as a result of that, put in place clear policies, clear

procedures. There was a clear set of procedures for casino operators and B.C.

Lottery Corporation to follow. As I said, I will be reviewing all of that from a

performance perspective to satisfy myself that the proper action has been taken.

This is a matter of not only meeting our expectations for

integrity in all of our gaming operations. That

[ Page 12658 ]

is what the public has a right to expect. That is the expectation of our

government. But it is also the law, under federal law, that these kinds of

suspicious currency transactions be reported to FinTrack, and I will ensure that

that is being done.

L. Krog: Well, the minister can talk all he wants about

process. But if nobody actually does anything, a process is pretty much useless,

which appears to be the case here. Three years ago, in 2005, the Auditor General

told this government that major consequences such as increased organized crime

happen when gaming is not strictly enforced. But this government did little

about those concerns, and once again we find out that successive Solicitors

General have dropped the ball, ignored problems and buried the concerns.

So to the Solicitor General — simple question: why do we have to

learn about the problems from the media and only after years of denials and

withholding of FOI requests?

Hon. J. van Dongen: The issue of organized crime, including

money laundering, which certainly can take place in and around casino

operations, is one that is of great concern to our government. That is why we

are putting additional dollars and police resources into specialized integrated

teams to seek out, investigate and establish actions against organized crime and

money-laundering activities. Our government is concerned about these things.

That is why we're putting $53 million of additional money into those police

operations.

Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental.

L. Krog: Well, I hate to use a racing analogy, but I think

they're shutting the barn door after the horse got out on this one.

Under this government, the whole gaming system has been put under

a cloud. First it was the lottery retailer scandal; now potential money

laundering. Every single time the minister of the day tells us that everything

is just fine, a few months later we find out it's a disaster.

It's clear. It's the club med attitude of this government, same as

with forestry. It's hands off, hands off. The government broke their promise to

expand gambling.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

L. Krog: Now they're addicted to the money, and they're

avoiding the serious problems in the B.C. gaming system. Clearly, there's no

oversight here — just denial. So when are the B.C. Liberals going to crack down

and fix their broken gaming system?

[1410]

Hon. J. van Dongen: No one is saying that there isn't an

issue or a concern here. What I'm saying is that we as a government expect

integrity and responsibility in our gaming operations. It is my intent to ensure

that that goal is met.

I believe that I have a responsibility to follow due process.

That's why I've asked for a meeting with the board of directors of B.C. Lottery

Corporation. It is important that I as minister do not rush to judgment, that I

get all of the facts. As I said, my commitment to the members of this House and

to the public is that I will take whatever action I believe is necessary to

ensure that our goal of integrity and responsibility is met in our casino

operations.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

M. Farnworth: What we saw in Ontario was the lottery retail

scandal. When the questions were raised here in British Columbia, we were told

that no, everything was fine here and that nothing would happen. What we're

hearing now out of Ontario is $15 million of suspicious transactions and $60,000

here in British Columbia, and a lot of questions are being asked.

The issue was raised in 2005 in the Auditor General's report. My

question to the minister is: why has nothing been done since 2005 when that

Auditor General's report came out?

Hon. J. van Dongen: As I've said, I intend to act on this

information immediately, as I am doing. I have due process to follow. I have

due-diligence responsibilities to the public, and I intend to carry those out.

Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental.

M. Farnworth: The minister says he wants to do due

diligence. Well, the government should have been doing due diligence since 2005

when the Auditor General's report came out.

My question to the minister is this. Will he table in this House

the results of that due diligence? Will he table in this House the discussions

and any reports that come out of his meetings with the B.C. Lottery Corporation?

Hon. J. van Dongen: As I said, after I conduct my due

diligence, I will decide what action is appropriate. I will also make a

determination of how to best report that to this House and to the public.

CUSTOMER REWARDS PROGRAM

FOR FERRY FARES

G. Coons: Today we learned that B.C. Ferries has struck

another deal that insults ferry-dependent communities. The minister has allowed

certain grocery store customers to benefit from reduced ferry fares at the

expense of others. B.C. Ferries is selling discounted tickets to Save-On-Foods

so their customers can redeem them for free.

Reduced fares shouldn't be for those who buy the most groceries,

nor should they be for those who shop

[ Page 12659 ]

at one particular store over another. It creates unfairness, and it doesn't

address the overall problem — the largest and fastest increase in ferry fares in

this province's history.

Will the minister tell the people of ferry-dependent communities

that there will be no corporate favouritism over public interest? Or will the

message be that with him at the helm, they have no hope and that their

communities are going down fast?

Hon. K. Falcon: Well, I can't imagine the horror that B.C.

Ferries might enter into a marketing program that encourages people to take

advantage of the ferry system and ride the ferry system. What a shock, and how

upsetting that must be for the members opposite. [Laughter.]

As we listen to the peals of laughter from across the way, I only

can think to myself that the model the NDP want to see, of course, is the old

B.C. Ferries Crown corporation model. You might remember those days. Those were

days of strikes that put the service out of business for the public of British

Columbia. The average age of the vessel fleet was 42 years old. Those were the

glory days when they ran up over a billion dollars of debt on the Crown

corporation and bankrupted it. Those were the glory days when they built fast

ferries that didn't work.

That's not where we're going. B.C. Ferries is doing a great job

for the public of British Columbia.

[1415]

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. I want to remind members to listen to

the question and listen to the answer.

The member has a supplemental.

G. Coons: Well, the minister should take off his

eight-track and come to the present. The minister just doesn't get it. His

policies are the cause of the devastation to coastal communities, and he refuses

to accept his failure in that regard.

The people of coastal communities contribute immensely to the

revenue of this province, and they watch as the ferry board of directors get

outrageous pay increases, spend millions on advertising, gouge the public with

reservation fees and now give corporate benefits to some British Columbians over

others.

When will this minister finally recognize the devastating impact

that his policies have, and when will he start acting in the public interest?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. K. Falcon: Well, I had to check and find out what an

eight-track is. Now that I've been informed what an eight-track is, I understand

the nature of the member's question. I do think that….

You know, the member takes an extraordinarily pessimistic view of

a company that's actually trying to find a way to work with folks who do a lot

of shopping throughout the province of British Columbia and provide them

opportunities to utilize those points for ferry trips. For the life of me, I

cannot understand the NDP's opposition to a company that is trying to work with

businesses to market the product that they provide to British Columbians and

give British Columbians better opportunities to utilize those services.

How does that offend the members opposite? Why is it…?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. K. Falcon: You know, I think the question that we

really have to answer is why the NDP is offended by a corporation that has now

demonstrated that they're delivering an improved service with massive investment

in the terminals, massive new fleet renewal and new vessels that are delivered

on

schedule and under budget — unlike the other disaster that the B.C. Ferry

Corporation became under the NDP government.

N. Simons: The Powell River region on the upper Sunshine

Coast is entirely ferry-dependent. They have an Overwaitea grocery store, which

contributes immensely to the community and where customers can accumulate points

to redeem for free ferry tickets. But it also has a Safeway, a Chopping Block

and Mitchell Brothers in operation as a grocery store since 1946. With this

ill-advised plan, B.C. Ferries has pitted one local business over another.

They've done so without consultation with the ferry advisory committee, local

government or the chamber of commerce.

I think that people in ferry-dependent communities have every

right to be outraged with this minister's response. The real problem is the

biggest ferry fare increase in the history of this province. How will pitting

one business against another resolve this issue?

Hon. K. Falcon: Oh, the offence, the horror that B.C.

Ferries might actually be trying to do some things to reach out and make some

arrangements with businesses to try to provide benefits for the people that do

shopping. The horror. I mean, the outrage that that member…. I just can't

imagine how he can deal with the stress that this must cause him.

The fact of the matter is…. This member talks about ferry

increases. Well, you know, under the great NDP mismanagement of the ferry

corporation, fares went up 70 percent in that decade. The difference is not a

dime invested in terminals; not a dime invested in new vessels, except for the

three fast ferries that don't work and are still sitting over there in the

harbour in Vancouver; and nothing for the benefit of the travelling public.

[1420]

Today we have a corporation that delivers a great service

reliably, with labour peace, efficiently and with

[ Page 12660 ]

new vessels. That's a lot better than we ever saw under the NDP

mismanagement.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

The member has a supplemental.

N. Simons: I find that response extremely disingenuous and

disrespectful to the coastal communities which I represent. This impacts on the

cost of living, and it's a serious problem.

In the lower Sunshine Coast we have another problem. There's not

one store where residents of the lower Sunshine Coast can collect these points.

So you have this government making decisions, or allowing

decisions to be made, that have absolutely nothing to do with the public

interest — once again, no consultation with the chamber of commerce, no

consultation with the ferry advisory committees.

Does the minister believe that the ferry corporation can make up

whatever policies they want without anyone looking out for the public interest?

Hon. K. Falcon: I'm kind of curious to know who the NDP

consulted with when they went ahead to build $500 million worth of fast ferries.

I'd like to know: who did you talk to? What chambers of commerce? It would have

been nice if one member of the board had actually had some business experience.

That would have been really nice, instead of the labour representative they put

on there who later, after the fiasco, said "What the heck do I know about

building boats?"

That's the difference between the opposition and government. I'll

tell you what….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Continue, Minister.

Hon. K. Falcon: There appears to be a little sensitivity

over there when we talk about the ferry corporation. I know that the members

opposite want to look with rose-coloured glasses at what they believed happened

in the '90s with the ferry corporation. Let's just be blunt about it.

It was a disaster. They bankrupted the corporation. The average

age of the fleet was 42 years old. They had regular labour shutdowns that shut

down the entire corporation.

So what do we have today? We've got labour peace. Employee morale

is up. We've got improved customer satisfaction surveys, and we've got a great

system operating for British Columbians, finally, in British Columbia.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

C. Trevena: We just would like an answer from the minister.

We'd like an answer for all the people who live on islands as to where they're

supposed to shop. Are they all supposed to shop at Save-On-Foods as the only way

that they're going to be able to afford to ride the ferries, to use their system

of transportation? Is this what the minister wants?

Maybe the minister should have consulted, or ensured that B.C.

Ferries consulted, with the chambers of commerce and other municipalities and

other people who live in those communities.

We have a situation where B.C. Ferries can go and make business

deals with one chain of supermarkets. It can decide that suddenly it's going to

have a sale on one set of ferry tickets. To get from Nanaimo to the Lower

Mainland costs the same at the moment as it does to get from Campbell River to

Quadra Island. There's something a little screwy there.

So I'd like to ask the Minister of Transportation if he'll take

his job responsibly and defend the public interest, making sure he's not doing

business deals which benefit one chain of supermarkets over the rest of the

community, and ensure that our ferry fares are equitable across all routes.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. K. Falcon: So let me try and understand the great

offence that the NDP are taking over the fact that you've got a company….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Minister, just take your seat.

Members.

Continue, Minister.

[1425]

Hon. K. Falcon: So as we try and think about this…. Now,

you can use Save-On-More points for international travel, but the NDP are

offended that the corporation might actually want to use that for travel within

British Columbia. Oh, the horror. Oh, the horror of B.C. Ferries thinking about

establishing marketing arrangements that encourage ridership and encourage

tourism to those very coastal communities that they are apparently defending.

I understand that although these kinds of….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, we're not going to continue.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. K. Falcon: I understand that although these

arrangements are absolutely commonplace around the world, it is a great shock to

the NDP opposition. The socialists on the other side can't imagine how

horrifying it might be that a company is actually trying to think about ways to

improve ridership, to create benefits, to encourage people as they do their

shopping. And I might say this also. I doubt that this will be….

[ Page 12661 ]

Interjections.

Hon. K. Falcon: This could be important, Members. You might

want to listen to it.

I rather doubt that this will be the last arrangement that B.C.

Ferries enters into. But let me tell you this. It's a heck of a lot better than

the disaster you operated during the 1990s.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

BEDS IN FRASER HEALTH AUTHORITY

LONG-TERM CARE FACILITIES

G. Gentner: Let me shift from more points for ferries to

credit card medicine. In Chilliwack one of the first acts this government did

for seniors was shut down an 85-bed facility before opening a new one; 85

seniors were displaced. Five years later the FHA is admitting that it has a

severe shortage of residential care beds in Chilliwack.

Fifty-one seniors at Valley Haven will be what the FHA calls

double-bunked because of the minister's botched long-term care plan — two

seniors in a 90-square-foot room.

Minister, you are in your eighth year, and this is what we have.

We have bunk beds for seniors.

Mr. Speaker: Member.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

G. Gentner: When is this government going to treat

seniors…?

Mr. Speaker: Member. Through the Chair, please.

Members, let's listen to the question.

G. Gentner: When is this government going to treat seniors

with the respect and dignity that they so aptly deserve?

Hon. G. Abbott: I know that this member has not been in the

House very long. If he'd been in a little longer, he would recall that

double-bunking was entirely the order of the day during the NDP years.

In fact, the excellent private rooms, private homes, today are the

standard. Back in the day, you were lucky to get a shared room under the NDP.

More likely it would be a multiple-bed room under the NDP.

Further, I will tell the member this. The Fraser Health Authority

has done a great job in providing new residential care and assisted living. As

of today, Fraser Health has built almost as many rooms since 2001 as the NDP

government built across the entire province for ten years from 1991 to 2001.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Minister.

Member has a supplemental.

G. Gentner: Well, the minister can play his little game of

interpreting stats, but we did not kick seniors around the way this government

does for its rich friends. I'm not making this up. The FHA's own language is

saying it's double-bunking seniors — long-term care bunk beds. I know the

minister believes in two-tier health, but this is getting a little ridiculous.

Next thing, seniors will have to pull straws to determine which bunk bed they

get — the top or the bottom.

[1430]

My question to the minister is this. Why will seniors have to live

in a cell-like condition for over 14 months at Valley Haven care home because of

this government's incompetence and lack of compassion for seniors?

Hon. G. Abbott: There is no other way to characterize that

member's remarks than ridiculous and insulting. I am very well aware of the

facility in Chilliwack. I'm well aware of it. The arrangement that has been made

has been a consensual one on the part of all the people who are part of that

project. For the member to disparage the shared living arrangement when it was

the standard during the NDP years is absolutely insulting and absurd.

Very recently I was a part of a celebration of 4,000 incremental

residential care and assisted-living units. Later this year we'll celebrate

5,000 incremental residential care and assisted-living….

Interjections.

[End of question period.]

Motions without Notice

APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL

COMMITTEE TO APPOINT A

POLICE COMPLAINT COMMISSIONER

Hon. M. de Jong: By leave, I move:

[That a Special Committee be appointed to select and unanimously

recommend to the Legislative Assembly, the appointment of a Police Complaint

Commissioner for the Province of British Columbia, pursuant to

section 47 of the

Police Act (RSBC c.367), and that the Special Committee so appointed shall have

the powers of a Select Standing Committee and is also empowered:

(

a) to appoint of their number, one or more subcommittees and to refer

to such subcommittees any of the matters referred to the Committee;

(

b) to sit during a period in which the House is adjourned,

during the recess after prorogation until the next following Session and during

any sitting of the House;

(

c) to adjourn from place to place as may be convenient;

(

d) to retain such personnel as required to assist the

Committee;

[ Page 12662 ]

and shall report to the House as soon as possible, or following any

adjournment, or at the next following Session, as the case may be; to deposit

the original of its reports with the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly during a

period of adjournment and upon resumption of the sittings of the House, the

Chair shall present all reports to the Legislative Assembly.

The said Special Committee is to be composed of J. Rustad (Convenor);

Messrs. MacKay and Nuraney and Messrs. Krog and Farnworth.]

Leave granted.

Motion approved.

Petitions

Hon. R. Thorpe: I have the privilege to table a petition on

behalf of the 38 residents of the Green Bay Mobile Home Park.

Reports from Committees

R. Cantelon: I have the honour to present the report of the

Select Standing Committee on Children and Youth for the fourth session of the

38th parliament.

I move that the report be taken as read and received.

Motion approved.

R. Cantelon: I ask leave of the House to permit the moving

of a motion to adopt the report.

Leave granted.

R. Cantelon: I move that the report be adopted, and in

doing so, I wish to make some brief comments.

Since 2006 the Select Standing Committee on Children and Youth has

been working towards fostering greater awareness and understanding of British

Columbia's child welfare system. It is the aim of the Children and Youth

Committee to continue to advance in a non-partisan manner issues of vital

importance to the care and well-being of B.C.'s children.

The committee members look forward to continuing our close work

with the Office of the Representative for Children and Youth, the Ministry of

Children and Family Development and other ministries and agencies to ensure that

the best interests of B.C.'s children are met.

In closing, I would like to thank the Representative for Children

and Youth and her staff, as well as senior officials from the Ministry of

Children and Family Development, Ministries of Income Assistance, Advanced

Education and the Ministry of Education for their assistance and their important

contributions to the oversight of child welfare.

In addition, I would like to thank all members of the committee

for their important contributions to the committee's unanimous report. I would

also like to express the committee's appreciation to Jonathan Fershau, the

committees researcher, who is leaving the assembly after five years in the

committees office. His contributions and support of our work were appreciated,

and he will be missed.

[1435]

Motion approved.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: I call in this chamber committee stage

debate of Bill 31, and in

Section A, Committee of Supply, for the information of

members, it's continued debate on the Ministry of Health estimates.

[1440]

Committee of the Whole House

GREENHOUSE GAS REDUCTION

(EMISSIONS STANDARDS)

STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 2008

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 31; S.

Hammell in the chair.

The committee met at 2:45 p.m.

section 1.

S. Simpson: We're here, I believe — just let me clarify —

under the divisions and

definitions. My question to the minister in regard to

this is…. We have listed under

definitions "coal-based generating facility."

Could the minister define what that constitutes in terms of what those might

include? There are a lot of coal-based generation facilities.

Hon. B. Penner: The intention there is that the term

"coal-based generating facility" would refer to a facility or a power plant

that's generating electricity through the use of coal or a combination of coal

and some other fossil fuel.

S. Simpson: When this definition of coal-based generating

facility, electricity generating facility…. What I'm interested in here is…. We

know there are facilities that are exclusively for the generation of power, of

electricity, which then would go into the grid or whatever. That's one type of

facility. We also have facilities that burn coal for power purposes. I know

there has been discussion of a few of those facilities around the province.

Would facilities like that be included in this definition of

coal-based generating facilities — facilities where coal is the primary source

of power to generate for a facility or for an industrial plant, not necessarily

for sale into the grid as electricity?

Hon. B. Penner: Just a clarification of the question. Is

the member referring to what's known as self-

[ Page 12663 ]

generation, a facility that would generate electricity for its own internal

use as opposed to selling it to the grid?

S. Simpson: For example, for the minister, there was some

discussion about this facility a number of months ago. I believe it's in the

Prince George area. Is it the Giscome facility? It slips my mind at the moment.

There the discussion is about burning coal for their own

production purposes — largely as their primary power source for their own

production purposes, not necessarily for the sale of electricity per se. So it

is more about an industrial use and the use of coal as an energy source to power

their own facilities.

[1450]

Hon. B. Penner: The intention is that a facility that would

be generating electricity with the use of coal would be captured by a regulation

that is yet to be drafted, obviously, because the legislation hasn't been

passed. Certainly if it's a significant facility generating electricity using

coal as a fuel source, then I would expect that it would be captured by the

regulation that would be designed under this section.

S. Simpson: I appreciate the minister's answer.

If it's the case that a facility that was using coal to generate

electricity would be captured by whatever the regulation is after it's written,

a facility that was using coal to power an industrial activity, which wasn't

going into generation of electricity for sale in any way but was being used to

provide the power for that specific facility…. Would it be captured under this

definition? Or would that be something outside of what's considered here — if it

was for a single purpose, for an industrial use?

[1455]

Hon. B. Penner: As I noted during second reading debate on

this bill — I've just been reminded of this — the commitment is that there would

be zero greenhouse gas emissions from any coal thermal electricity generation in

the province.

So even if it was a facility that's not on grid or putting out to

the grid, discharging the electricity to the grid, my understanding is that the

policy intent is that it would be captured.

S. Simpson: I'm just moving on to one other question

related to

definitions. We see that it talks about an electricity generating

facility. Then it continues on to talk about "existing electricity generating

facility" and "new electricity generating facility."

I understand the difference between existing and new, but what's

the difference between those two and the "electricity generating facility" on

the first page? Or is that just the two of them put together in combination? I'm

wondering why there's this variety of

definitions.

Hon. B. Penner: The updated 2007 energy plan was announced

on February 27, 2007. In that document it states that any new generating

facility will have to have zero net greenhouse gas emissions on a go-forward

basis. Another way of looking at it is that anything that was pre-existing from

that date would be captured, I think, by the definition here of existing

electricity generating facility.

You could think of things like…. There's a natural gas power

plant, I believe, in Fort Nelson or on Vancouver Island, sometimes known as ICP.

It escapes me at the moment what that really means — Island cogeneration plant.

As well, of course, there's Burrard Thermal, which has been around

since 1961. Those would be captured by the definition of an existing electricity

generating facility. There are different requirements in the energy plan

depending on whether a power plant is coming forward after the date of the new

energy plan or whether it's already pre-existing.

Section 1 approved.

section 2.

The Chair: Member,

section 2 is a long section. If we

indicate where we are, it would just assist in the process.

S. Simpson: I appreciate that answer from the minister

about new and existing. When I look at the first page of the bill in division 1,

"Definitions," and go down to the fifth definition, it says "electricity

generating facility" and identifies that. Then it goes on to identify the

existing and new facilities that the minister has explained in his last

response.

I just want to determine whether the electricity generating

facility that's not identified as either new or existing is simply an

identification of the two of them together when talking about electricity

facilities.

Hon. B. Penner: My expectation is that that will be the

mechanism for defining the scope of the size of the facility we're talking

about. In other words, someone who may own a one-megawatt or half-megawatt

diesel backup generator for a farm, for example, is likely not to be captured by

this regulation. I think the first definition, electricity generating facility,

is to set the scope of what will then be referred to in the definition of either

"existing electricity generating facility" or "new electricity generating

facility."

[1500]

But it would be my expectation that someone who's got a backup

diesel generator for their camper or for their farm would likely not be caught

by that definition of electricity generating facility.

S. Simpson: One last question under the matter of

definitions, and that's the operator. It goes on to talk about the operator:

"…to be the operator of the facility." Is that presumed to be the operator or

the operator-owner? Is it presumed to be the owner of the facility as well?

Hon. B. Penner: The policy intention with that definition

is to make sure there's someone held respon-

[ Page 12664 ]

sible for the objectives of the legislation. In some cases the operator may

be separate from the owner.

You can envision, for example…. Just north of Victoria here,

there's the Hartland Landfill. The landfill, I believe, is owned by the capital

regional district. But there's a small power-producing facility that's operated,

I believe, by Maxim Power. They're capturing the methane and combusting it to

generate electricity and selling it back to B.C. Hydro.

My expectation would be that they would be the operator. It's

possible, as we design the regulation, that we could also capture the owner, but

sometimes there will be a difference between who the owner is and who the

operator is.

S. Simpson: I appreciate the answer, and I expect that

there certainly may be times when the owner is the appropriate person to be

captured. I would hope that when we see the regulations, there will be some

distinction that ensures that happens.

Hon. Chair, I was going to move on past

definitions now to the

division 2, "Waste Management Facilities." Under "Regulations for purposes of

Division 2," it talks here in 76.21 about: "Without limiting

section 138 (1)

[general authority to make regulations] , the Lieutenant Governor in Council

may make regulations as follows…."

Then it has a list, and under (

b) it says: "prescribing actions

that must be taken in relation to either or both of the following: (

i) the

management or reduction of specified greenhouse gases; (ii) the recovery of

energy potential from specified greenhouse gases."

Could the minister give us some idea about what kind of actions he

or the government has in mind in relation to those matters? What might that look

like — those actions?

Hon. B. Penner: The types of actions that are contemplated

under the subsection include requiring owners/operators to flare the methane —

in other words, capture the methane and flare it instead of allowing it to

simply escape into the atmosphere. The combustion process reduces the harmful

effects of methane on the atmosphere.

[1505]

The rule of thumb is that one tonne of methane is 21 times as

harmful, in terms of the greenhouse gas effect, as one tonne of CO 2 . But

combusting it apparently eliminates that mathematical equation, so that it's

roughly a 1-to-1 comparison instead of a 21-times-worse scenario.

The other contemplation is that depending on the size of the

landfill, the government may require the next step, which is not simply to

combust the methane to reduce its harmful effects on the atmosphere but actually

to use the heat that is generated from the combustion process to generate useful

energy — i.e., electricity — similar to what's happening at the Hartland

Landfill north of Victoria or at the Metro Vancouver landfill in Delta.

S. Simpson: When I look at

section 76.21(d), it says,

"regulating and imposing requirements and prohibitions for the design, siting

and operation of any works, activities or operations related to the management,"

etc., of these facilities. I can understand that.

Is it the expectation of the minister that the regulations that

will be written will be very specific about where these facilities may be

allowed to be located? It talks about specific kinds of design features that

will be required in terms of design features, not in terms of outcomes. I

understand there will be requirements in terms of outcomes.

Hon. B. Penner: This subsection gives us additional

authority to what currently exists under the Environmental Management Act, where

we do have the authority to establish certain requirements around the design or

location of a facility where waste is being generated at that site. This makes

it clear that we also have authority to establish design requirements for a

facility on a site that's receiving waste from off site, from somewhere else.

Your typical landfill itself isn't generating the waste; it's

collecting the waste from some other location. The legal drafters who looked at

this

section determined that the existing

section didn't give us the clear

authority that we might want to have in the future to make sure we're adequately

handling waste at landfills.

S. Simpson: Just to clarify that, might this

section then…?

Since this is a rewrite or based on advice from legislative drafters, is this a

section that could be used, for example, to help make decisions about where

Metro Vancouver ends up putting new facilities or how they proceed at the end of

the day with waste management issues? Might this be used in that example?

Hon. B. Penner: This subsection, as I was saying, gives us

additional authority, particularly around dealing with the greenhouse gases that

are generated from the facility. Without identifying any particular community

upfront, there are quite a number of landfills around the province.

[1510]

This would give us the authority to require that certain local

governments or perhaps other entities — whoever they may be — that are operating

landfills deal with them in a way that helps reduce the harmful effects of the

greenhouse gases that emanate from the decomposition of waste materials located

in landfills.

S. Simpson: Subsection (

e) essentially talks about

exemptions and the ability of the cabinet to make decisions on exemptions of

those who might fall into this section. Could the minister give us some sense of

what those exemptions might look like and what was anticipated in the inclusion

of this

section to be able to exempt people?

Hon. B. Penner: This subsection, I'm told, parallels an

existing regulation-making authority that is in

section 138(2)(

s) of the

Environmental Management Act. In terms of what kinds of exemptions might be

contemplated, we don't have a firm idea of that yet. We want to engage in some

consultation with the people most likely to be affected by this regulation. That

would be the owners and operators of landfills in British Columbia.

[ Page 12665 ]

It's conceivable that a landfill under a certain size may have a

different requirement than one that's over a certain size. Another way of

stating it is that typically the larger the landfill, the more economic it may

be to engage not just in methane capture and combustion but in methane capture,

combustion and electricity production, and then feeding that back into the grid

as a green source of electricity. But it probably wouldn't be economic to do

that with a very small landfill.

There are going to be some discussions, I understand, taking place

over the next weeks and months before we establish the exact threshold or

standard.

S. Simpson: In the instance — and I didn't see it in the

bill, but maybe I missed it — that there was contemplation of exemption for a

facility and that was being looked at, is there any consultation process of a

public nature that would occur if there was a decision to take a facility out of

the general regulations and say, for what may be good reasons, that this

facility is going to be treated differently than others for these reasons, and

then to allow some public comment on that. Is that anticipated?

Hon. B. Penner: A common practice for the ministry before

implementing a specific regulation is to release what's called an intentions

paper through our website and also delivered in a targeted way to stakeholders

that have been identified by the ministry in advance through previous

correspondence or dealings. It is the ministry's intention to have an intentions

paper process with regard to this particular issue around thresholds and the

scope of this regulation.

[1515]

In fact, I'm advised that just yesterday the ministry released an

intentions paper on this very topic. It's entitled Landfill Gas Regulation:

Policy Intentions Paper for Consultation , a very catchy title indeed. I'm

not exactly sure how much time is contemplated for response, but I believe the

response date is sometime in September.

The member will be pleased to know that in the second paragraph

it's noted that…. Of course, we have to first pass this bill that we're debating

now for such a regulation that is contemplated in this intentions paper to come

to fruition. I don't want to prejudge the judgment of this Legislative Assembly

about whether or not they will be endorsing this bill. But should they choose to

do so, an intentions paper is now on the website and, I presume, distributed to

interested parties such as local governments.

S. Simpson: I look forward to spending my evening reading

the intentions paper.

Hon. B. Penner: It's not too long.

S. Simpson: Well, that's good.

Continuing on, subsection (

f) talks about the imposition of

"monitoring and reporting requirements in relation to" and then lists a series

of items around greenhouse gases, recovery of energy potential, handling,

treating, transporting, etc. — a number of items there.

In terms of the issues around monitoring, reporting and that

oversight, is it the intention of the minister to use — and he can correct my

term here if he likes — what I viewed as sort of the industry stewardship model

as the way to approach these matters — i.e., saying to industry: "Here are our

expectations about what you'll do. Now you have responsibility to be able to

monitor and report that back to us so that we're satisfied that you are

accomplishing the objectives that we've set"?

Is that sort of industry stewardship model the expectation of how

Bill 31 will generally proceed?

Hon. B. Penner: First of all, this new provision is similar

to an existing one in

section 138(3)(

f) of the Environmental Management Act. But

here the main difference is that we're adding a provision specifically related

to greenhouse gas emissions, and that's kind of a common theme.

Previously, the Environmental Management Act did not specifically

regulate greenhouse gas emissions. So that is what's new here, and that is what

this legislation, I think, is basically defined by. It's targeting greenhouse

gas emissions for the first time.

In terms of the nature of the reporting requirements, they will be

fairly prescriptive. That is our intention. We'll be pretty specific about what

and when things must be reported. In fact, apparently it's been pointed out to

me that in this recently released intentions paper, on page 5 there is an

indication about what our expectations or at least our proposals are in terms of

reporting requirements.

The due date for people who have comments or suggestions in

response to this intentions paper is September 15, 2008. That's longer than our

normal consultation process or time lines for an intentions paper, but we felt

it was appropriate here to provide some extra time, given that much of this is

tilling new ground.

S. Simpson: I appreciate that this is much more

prescriptive, particularly as it relates to greenhouse gases, which is the

bill's intention of course.

But getting back to that question. In this intentions paper, the

ministry will be quite specific about what it requires to be monitored — that is

what I hear the minister saying — and about how it reports that monitoring to

government so that government has a good sense.

[1520]

But it is the intention of the ministry that this will be done by

industry. It will be industry stewardship. They will take the directive from

government. They will do the monitoring, produce the reports and give those

reports to government.

Then government will obviously assess the accuracy of the reports

in some fashion. That's how information will be got by government around the

compliance — whether these industries are in fact in compliance with the

expectations of the government on these issues.

Hon. B. Penner: The member is essentially correct. There

will be reporting requirements. There are audit-

[ Page 12666 ]

ing provisions that are contemplated in the act, so we can follow up and

audit individuals or entities that are reporting.

In addition, I've just noted this on page 5 of the stated

intentions paper. It says: "The ministry intends to compile and post for public

information annual summaries of types and amounts of landfill gas captured —

including, specifically, methane gas emissions — and amounts and types of

beneficial uses." That's just to give the member some indication of what we're

planning to do.

There's also a chart just above that, describing various threshold

amounts of waste in terms of the total amount already in place as well as the

amount that comes to a landfill on an annual basis. Then beside that is an

indication of how often they have to report on various things. It appears to me

that there seems to be a trend or theme of annual reporting of a variety of

different things such as tonnage, sources, composition, projections and nature

of any organic diversion programs, to name just a few.

S. Simpson: This next question relates to that and relates

a little bit to the resources that will be available within government for audit

and oversight functions. I'm interested in knowing what resources are expected

to be available to do this new piece of work and who will do it to provide the

audit and oversight function for government on this stewardship model.

If the minister wanted to take a second, because I will ask

similar questions when it comes to division 3 and division 4 around coal-based

electricity and emissions from electricity generation…. So if the minister has

the ability to answer them all at once, then we'll just get those questions out

of the way at once here.

[1525]

Hon. B. Penner: I've sent a note to request staff from the

ministry that perform this function. But the short answer is that this will be a

responsibility of the environmental stewardship division of the Ministry of

Environment.

As to just what resources they've identified for this task, the

one that the member refers to in terms of sequestration activities related to

electricity generation from the combustion of coal, I'm not able to give a

detailed answer at this time, but I have sent a message for staff from the

environmental protection division to get here as soon as they can.

S. Simpson: I'll just move past that, and when the

appropriate staff get here, we can go back to that question.

I'm going to move on to division 3, "Coal-based Electricity

Generation," for a moment here. When we look at

section 76.31(1) and (3) and

actually move down into the compliance reports, this obviously talks a lot about

how we measure amounts of greenhouse gases. Could the minister tell us how the

government expects to measure those greenhouse gases? What are the tools

available to be able to measure those emissions for government purposes?

Hon. B. Penner: I'm advised that the same reports will be

used here as are used with the climate registry as well as in Europe and

elsewhere, where you take a particular type of fossil fuel, multiply the volume

consumed in a given period of time and multiply it by a certain conversion

factor. Different fuels have different carbon intensities, and even different

types of coal have different types of carbon intensities. So you would take the

number that has been identified in terms of carbon emissions per tonne of a

particular type of coal and then multiply that by the amount used.

S. Simpson: Then the assumption is, because we go back and

talk about the stewardship model, that's what the ministry and the government

will give to those operators of facilities — this very specific formula to say,

"Here's how you have to measure, and here's how you have to report," in very

specific terms so that there's a consistency across the board in terms of the

reporting and the emissions tracking so that we're all kind of working from the

same song sheet here. Is that a safe assumption?

Hon. B. Penner: Essentially, yes. The member is correct.

S. Simpson: If I follow down under the compliance reports a

little further, it talks about: "The operator of a coal-based generating

facility must submit a supplementary report to the director within the

prescribed period after the operator becomes aware that (

a) information in a

previous report under this

section did not completely and accurately disclose

the required information, or (

b) information required to be reported in a

previous report has changed."

[1530]

How does that work in terms of the potential for penalties?

Everybody makes mistakes. There's an error made, and the error is identified and

corrected, and that's fine. But is there a time, if there's consistency with

these errors, that an administrative penalty or some kind of penalty then comes

into play at some point? How does that work?

Hon. B. Penner: It's my expectation that the administrative

penalty or penalties would not kick in until after the date for the filing of

supplementary reports has passed.

S. Simpson: In terms of these reports, whether it be the

primary report or the supplementary report that's identified under the

compliance reports, are those going to be public documents, or are they going to

be partially public documents, assuming that there may be some proprietary

information in them? Generally, the information about levels of emissions,

levels of reductions, those key big questions…. Is that going to be public

information or available to the public, or will that not be released?

[K. Whittred in the chair.]

[ Page 12667 ]

Hon. B. Penner: Just flipping ahead a couple of pages. It's

been pointed out to me that subsection 76.52(3)(

b) refers to the fact that the

prohibition against disclosure of information does not relate to the two topics

here in 76.31(1)(

a) and (b). Stated differently, this information can be

released in these two subsections, and it's the government's intention to in

fact release that type of information. It may well be posted on our ministry

website and could be posted, as well, on some kind of a public registry.

S. Simpson: So it's based on that section. I've got a

couple of questions about that when we get there. But just to be clear, the

minister is saying that the information can be released and that it would be the

government's plan…. It is this minister's plan, certainly, that that information

would be made available to the public through the website or some other vehicle.

Is there anything in the legislation that requires that

information to be released and that doesn't make it discretionary that it be

released?

[1535]

Hon. B. Penner: The bill contains provisions for

regulation-making authority about what types of information must be released

and/or made public, so those are provisions that we can rely on to make it

mandatory to release information. But it certainly is the government's intention

to release the type of information that we've just been discussing.

S. Simpson: We'll get to a question about this

section and

when the regulations anticipate being prepared. But when we look through the

regulatory regime, it talks about establishing the greenhouse gas emissions that

are deemed to be attributable to the use of coal for the generation of

electricity and how much they are and some discussion about where the reductions

or emissions might come from.

The question I have for the minister is: is there somewhere in the

regulation — or should we expect, relatively soon, when the regulations are

written for this — some identification of what level of emissions we're talking

about that Bill 31 will capture under its jurisdiction, based on what the

government knows, what the level of emissions are and what the expectation is

that the application of this bill will be in terms of reducing those emissions

so that we start to get to keep a bit of the scoresheet about how well we're

doing on getting to 33 percent?

Hon. B. Penner: In terms of greenhouse gas emissions,

generally from the province of British Columbia, that information will be

required to be reported at certain intervals, as determined by the bill that we

passed last fall. That was the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Targets Act.

This particular

section or division that we're talking about deals

with electricity. The member will know that the requirement for any proposed

coal-fired electricity generation is zero. It's essentially zero greenhouse gas

emissions through carbon capture and sequestration of any CO 2 and for other

forms of electricity generation that may result in greenhouse gas emissions. I

guess you could think of natural gas as a likely example, a potential example.

There's the requirement to, essentially, report those emissions and then offset

those emissions, whatever they are, using credible forms of offsets.

[1540]

For other forms of electricity that don't generate greenhouse gas

emissions to begin with…. That's not something to be concerned about, whether

it's large-scale hydro, small hydro, wind or some other forms of potential

electricity generation. But as indicated previously, it is our expectation and

intention to disclose the information that's reported about actual emissions and

the offsets that potential generators are relying on.

S. Simpson: I appreciate the answer and the legislation

that we adopted previously that set the targets and had some explanation of how

those targets would be reported. The reason I ask the question is that with this

bill and other legislation we're dealing with in this session…. There are a

variety of bills here that will all, in different ways, have different impacts

on the target of reducing emissions, and they come at it in different ways.

I'm trying to determine whether somebody who is looking for some

detail over the big numbers that we'll get based on the targets legislation that

was passed, which will report out some of the big numbers on, "Here's what our

emissions are, and here's what our objectives are…."

Presumably, when we see the 2012 and 2016 objectives of the

Climate Action Team and however cabinet deals with those recommendations when

they come, we'll be able to see what we're doing for 2012 and 2016, as well as

for 2020. Is there going to be some ability for people who are doing a more

detailed assessment to be able to look and say, "Okay, we're doing fine in terms

of zero emissions on electricity," or on coal-fired power or on any of the

things we'll talk about later this afternoon — or on emissions on vehicles, when

we get to that?

I'm just wondering whether, under the compliance in these reports,

we are going to have the level of detail that will allow people who do that

research to be able to look and say, "We're getting there in these areas. In

other areas maybe we need to do something differently" — to be able to do that

assessment. Will that be available as it relates to the pieces that are covered

by Bill 31?

[1545]

Hon. B. Penner: There are a couple of ways to get at the

information the member refers to. First, dealing with this bill and the

provisions we've talked about already under 76.31(1)(

a) and (b)…. Those two

subsections talk about the types of information that are required to be

reported, and it's our government's intention to release that information.

Just for the record, I'll read it into the record: "(

a) the

attributable greenhouse gas emissions referred to in

section 76.3 (1), as

determined in accordance with the

[ Page 12668 ]

regulations, (

b) if applicable, the capture and storage, or capture and

sequestration, of an amount of emissions from the facility under

section 76.3

(2)." So that's one way information will be disclosed.

The second way is — again referring to the act we passed last

fall, the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Targets Act, Bill 44 back then, if anyone is

keeping track…. In

section 4 it says: "Beginning with a report on 2008 BC

greenhouse gas emissions, and continuing with a report for every subsequent

even-numbered calendar year, the minister must, as soon as reasonably

practicable for each year, make public a report respecting" — and then I'll skip

to sub (c) — "the actions that have been taken to achieve that progress."

Presumably, that report would delve into various reductions or

increases, depending on the sector. So that would be a source of information.

Currently information is broken down by Environment Canada

reporting. The member will know that every year Environment Canada and

Statistics Canada work together, and I think Natural Resources Canada, too, has

a role in it. They release greenhouse gas emissions data for the country as a

whole, as well as by province.

We've just received the latest data. The most recently compiled

data is for the year 2006, and in the case of British Columbia, it shows a

decrease of 3.2 percent in B.C.'s total greenhouse gas emissions in 2006

compared to 2005. They've also revised the greenhouse gas emissions attributable

to British Columbia for the year 2005. It was a downward revision, indicating, I

think, about a 1.6 or a 1.8 percent reduction from 2004 levels.

So if you take a two-year period, greenhouse gas emissions in

British Columbia from the year 2004 to 2006 have declined approximately 5

percent, according to the National Inventory Report produced by the

federal government and just released a couple days ago. It's apparently now

posted on their website.

[1550]

That's not to say that we don't have a lot more work to do.

Clearly, we do. People will be poring through the numbers to try and determine

if there's any type of trend or for what accounts for the decreases. The purpose

for my mentioning it here is that the federal government does provide a

breakdown by different sectors and industries in terms of their contribution to

B.C.'s total greenhouse gas emissions.

One document I've got, entitled "Emissions

Summary for British

Columbia," shows total greenhouse gas emissions for electricity and heat

generation for the year 2006 were 1.47 million tonnes of CO 2 equivalents —

static in terms of comparison to the previous year. But the member will note

that I said electricity and heat generation.

There's an additional document that I have in my hand, "Annex 9."

There are a lot of pages that were released, so it takes a while to get to the

numbers. Looking at this document, it delves into, particularly, electricity

generation and GHG emission details for British Columbia. This document shows

that overall greenhouse gas emissions, in terms of CO 2 equivalents in British

Columbia for the year 2006 from the electricity generation sector, were 830,000

tonnes — less than one million tonnes, I believe, if I'm reading this correctly.

It's down 50,000 tonnes, I believe, from the previous year, 2005,

and down from 2.3 million tonnes in the year 2001. So it's been a decrease over

the last number of years. One can speculate that that's due to a decreased use

of facilities such as Burrard Thermal, which, while they burn natural gas, still

produce a significant amount of greenhouse gas emissions when they're in heavy

use.

S. Simpson: Those numbers are important, and I'm glad that

the ministry or the government is going to do some more detailed analysis of why

emissions work the way they do in terms of reductions in that.

I would hope the minister would agree that on this project, the

issue around climate change, it's very important that we get our head around

this and do it. It also, I believe, will be deemed to be a work-in-progress for

some time to come, because a lot of the approaches and the initiatives that are

being advanced now haven't necessarily been tested.

When you do things that are as complex as some of what's suggested

here…. The ability to have to go back and rethink them sometimes is a reality of

this, I believe. That kind of data will certainly be helpful in terms of our

determining whether things are working as effectively as we might like or

whether they need to be re-evaluated, and that will best be determined…. Maybe

not "best," but certainly those kinds of numbers will be a significant part of

that determination.

Moving into

section 76.42. It talks about new electricity

generation facilities. It goes on and speaks about what the expectations are

about regulations for facilities developed after February 27, 2007, and talks

about existing facilities and their compliance requirements.

Could the minister just explain a little bit about the difference

between the new and the existing electricity-generating facilities and how they

will need to comply under this legislation? What are they going to have to do to

comply, and what's the difference between their requirements of new and existing

and the use of credits — that whole kind of approach?

[1555]

Hon. B. Penner: My understanding is that any new facility,

one that doesn't currently exist, would be captured, effective immediately, or

upon this legislation coming into legal force and effect. Pre-existing

facilities — for example, Burrard Thermal, if that facility is still going to be

generating at that time — would be required to meet these requirements by 2016.

S. Simpson: I'm going to move ahead, because we do have

lots to do this afternoon, to division 5, the general attributes on page 8 of

the bill. I just have a couple of questions around "Inspection powers for

purposes of divisions 3 and 4." It talks about inspections. It talks about:

"Without limiting the powers of an officer under any other provision of this

Act…."

Could the minister tell us: is the officer a conservation officer,

or is the officer somebody else?

[ Page 12669 ]

Hon. B. Penner: A good question from the member.

Section

76.51(1), as you'll note, says: "Without limiting the powers of an officer…." So

it refers to that term. I've just checked. The term "officer" is defined in the

existing Environmental Management Act. The term "officer" is defined thus: "(

a) a person or class of persons employed by the government or a municipality and

designated in writing by a director as an officer, or (

b) a conservation

officer."

In practice, I believe what this means is that the environmental

protection division of the ministry would be responsible for these duties. But

we have the capability, through the existing definition, to have the director

designate a municipal officer or employee to also fulfil some functions under

this act, if that's deemed appropriate. A conservation officer would also have

authority under the act to perform any of the tasks described herein.

[1600]

However, in practice, it's the staff of the environmental

protection division that do the routine inspections or follow-ups. If those

routine inspections lead them to believe that there is significant

non-compliance — I'm referring, in my mind anyway, to a recent example arising

out of Abbotsford, and the member probably knows what I'm alluding to — then

they contact the conservation officer service when they believe it's now past

the point of just doing inspections but time to investigate a possible

prosecution.

Somewhere, at that point, a handoff occurs, and the CO service

takes the lead, still with support from the environmental protection division.

At a certain point, the environmental protection division staff would say, "Over

to the CO service," to lead an investigation which they believe would likely

lead to charges or at least the recommendation for charges.

S. Simpson: I do have questions related here to any

expectations because of the additional work. Obviously, putting this set of

regulatory regimes around greenhouse gases in place for industry is going to

significantly increase the amount of work that ministry officials have on their

plates.

I know that the minister is expecting staff that can provide him

some advice around the audit and oversight question we talked about earlier, and

I'm happy to leave this question if it's better to be left for when somebody can

answer it. It's a question around staff resources and expectations that the

government has about the implementation of Bill 31 and what that means in terms

of increased resource requirements for the ministry to be able to do the work

that these new regulations will require.

Hon. B. Penner: Additional resources were provided to the

Ministry of Environment for the policy development work that led to this

legislation and other pieces that we've been discussing this session. Some of

the information the member is looking for might be more appropriately addressed

during budget estimates discussion, which I understand may be taking place as

soon as tomorrow, according to what I've been told by a certain House Leader.

We'll see what happens with that.

[1605]

I don't have the specific details, but I can make a general

comment, though, that some of these provisions don't kick in until 2016 in terms

of existing generating facilities and the requirements that they have to offset

their emissions so that they're net zero. Some of the extra oversight that would

be required doesn't take place until 2016. That does give us some time to

consider allocation of resources within the ministry, but I can probably give

the member a better answer tomorrow.

S. Simpson: We'll get at that at some point tomorrow, I

assume. I'm going to move past…. We talked about the

section under

"Confidentiality…." We've already had some discussion about what will be made

public, so I won't go back over that again. I think that at this point, in terms

of sections, that actually completes my questions on

section 2.

Sections 2 to 7 inclusive approved.

section 8.

S. Simpson: Just a question in regard to the automatic

administrative penalties identified in 115.1. We know that when we look at

offences farther on, the offences can be significant. I believe that one set of

offences is in the $1 million range, and the other one is in the $200,000 range.

It talks here, under subsection 2, about how "an administrative

penalty under this

section must be paid to the government on or before the

date…." What are we looking at in terms of administrative penalties? When we

consider that offences are in the$1 million range, what kind of range are we

talking about for penalties, under administrative penalties?

Hon. B. Penner: The approach taken here will be similar to

the approach that we discussed yesterday with the cap-and-trade legislation. We

want to have a similar approach to what our partners in the WCI are going to be

adopting, so we'll be having some ongoing discussions with them.

The model will be similar, in that you probably want to have a

multiple of what you think a company may see as a benefit for skirting the

regulations so that, should they run afoul of our regulations and not comply,

they know with certainty that the amount they'll pay will be greater than the

amount they would save by skirting the regulations.

S. Simpson: I appreciate that point. What we don't want to

occur is the cost of doing business to end-run the regulatory requirements to be

a cost that isn't of significant enough impact on the company that they think

it's worth doing that versus meeting the requirements. I'll look forward to

seeing some information at some point about what that set of penalties is.

[1610]

[ Page 12670 ]

Moving to page 12, under "Imposed administrative penalties —

failure to apply emission offsets." Under subsection 1(

a) at the top of the

page, it says, "If the director is satisfied on a balance of probabilities

that…" and then goes into a list. Could the minister explain what "a balance of

probabilities" means in terms of this?

Hon. B. Penner: The member's question is eerily reminiscent

of a law school exam question, so it's causing me to have some flashbacks here,

not all entirely positive. But with some trepidation, I'll endeavour to answer

the question.

The contrast is the criminal standard of proof required by courts

— proof beyond a reasonable doubt. There have been many lectures and books and,

I suspect, court decisions written about what constitutes proof beyond a

reasonable doubt. But proof on the balance of probabilities is the civil

standard that's applied by our courts. It typically is referred to as 50 percent

plus one, in terms of what's most likely to have taken place.

Changing venues completely, an example might be a well-published

murder prosecution a number of years ago, where a certain former NFL football

player was acquitted of a charge of murder but subsequently was successfully

sued for damages in a civil proceeding. Substantial damages were required,

arising out of the same set of facts or circumstances.

The court found that there wasn't sufficient evidence to meet the

criminal test of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, but a subsequent court

decision in the same state, California, found that there was sufficient evidence

on a civil standard to assign culpability or liability and then to assess

damages. So what we're talking about here is the civil standard of, in layman's

terms, 50 percent plus one in terms of probability.

S. Simpson: So I would assume — because I know that some of

this is appealable to the Environmental Appeal Board — that that's the

interpretation that the appeal board has when they make judgments about appeals.

I'll assume that that's the case.

I'm just going to step back again to the appeals or the

administrative penalties. So if I'm to understand this correctly — just to see

how this works — the director makes the determination that there's been some

breach of the regulation or that the reporting is not adequate or accurate or

whatever and supplies a certificate, a fine to the operator.

The operator has a limited amount of time to make a decision on

whether to appeal or not, whether to say: "Okay, I did it. I'm culpable." They

pay or they appeal or they ignore it, and then it moves to a different level and

potentially becomes an offence under the offence category. Is that roughly how

this works?

[1615]

Hon. B. Penner: If an entity or individual is assessed an

administrative penalty and they do not pay the indicated amount, that becomes a

debt owing to the province of British Columbia, and I believe civil action could

be initiated on behalf of the province to recover that debt. It wouldn't

necessarily mean that charges would be laid.

Charges may be laid even in a situation where someone has not been

assessed an administrative penalty. It depends on the seriousness of the

infraction and the judgment of the investigating officers or the officer under

the legislation. There will be a continuum or a number of options that people

working under the act have in terms of what they consider to be the appropriate

recourse, depending on the infraction that occurs.

Sections 8 to 14 inclusive approved.

section 15.

B. Simpson: This bill now switches to the Forest Act, and I

believe the minister may have to change staff. If we can take a few minutes

until the minister brings the appropriate staff in, that would be fine.

The remaining sections of this bill are actually two major

sections for the Forest Act. The first has to do with the introduction of some

tenures — how people access our land base for fibre for a bioenergy facility.

Then the next section, the final

section of the bill, goes into giving the chief

forester the right to apportion areas of the land base for different types of

cut or for different reasons.

We're going to canvass, under

section 15, the bioenergy tenure. I

wonder if the minister could just spend a few minutes explaining the general

intent of this tenure and the changes to the Forest Act, and then I have some

explicit questions. But what is it that the government is attempting to do with

this act in a general sense?

[1620]

Hon. B. Penner: Fairly generally, because the member's

question was fairly general, the purpose of this suite of amendments contained

in this bill but pertaining to the Forest Act will be to provide for new

licensing provisions to enable better use of wood residue from mountain pine

beetle–attacked timber as a source of power, thereby encouraging the development

of the bioenergy sector. The amendments will give government the authority to

issue a forest licence directly to successful applicants responding to calls for

power from B.C. Hydro.

The purpose here is to streamline the issuing of the licences and

eliminate the government's obligation to conduct a duplicate competitive award

process in these circumstances.

B. Simpson: So will all successful bidders to the B.C.

Hydro call be able to obtain a new tenure under this proposed tenure?

Hon. B. Penner: It's been pointed out to me that the

amendment that constitutes

section 13.2 gives the Minister of Forests the

authority to designate a particular energy supply contract as a bioenergy supply

contract and to then specify the maximum allowable amount of cut that would be

made available for that purpose. I am told that in practice, through policy, the

Minister of

[ Page 12671 ]

Forests will designate only those contracts offered by B.C. Hydro that are

specific to the bioenergy sector. So it's not just any call for power, but the

Minister of Forests will designate particular calls that are contemplated in

this section.

B.C. Hydro, in turn, will have a dialogue in advance of them

issuing calls for proposals or awarding contracts. They'll have a dialogue with

the chief forester so that they don't offer contracts in excess of the available

supply of timber. They will be advised by the chief forester of the amount of

timber that could be made available for this purpose and will tailor their call

for power and their offer of contracts accordingly.

B. Simpson: I will come to those questions about how that's

determined when we get to

section 13.2.

[1625]

With respect to my question, though, I asked if all successful

bidders on the bioenergy call will be able to get access to this tenure. It's my

understanding that B.C. Hydro is doing two calls. The first call is supposedly

for existing tenure holders who would not require an additional tenure. That

call is in due process just now. The results of that call won't be out until the

early part of June.

If we get a sufficient response to that and if existing tenure

holders or pulp mill operations or whoever has access to existing fibre

opportunities…. If that results in a sufficient production of bioenergy, will

this tenure be necessary, then?

Hon. B. Penner: With respect to the member's question about

whether or not B.C. Hydro might still need additional sources of electricity

after completion of the first call, I'm advised that it will likely take

somewhat longer than what the member is suggesting it will take. I think he had

said that in June they'll have the results. I'm not sure of the exact date, but

I think it might be somewhat longer than what the member is contemplating.

Whether or not B.C. Hydro requires additional supplies of

electricity is going to be assessed by B.C. Hydro. They have an integrated

electricity planning process where they do energy forecasting, and they have to

report to the B.C. Utilities Commission to justify their assumptions. That's a

fairly involved process, so I'll leave it to the professionals to determine what

amount of electricity may be required.

In terms of what fibre supply may be available, I'm told that the

Ministry of Forests has identified a supply of timber that would be available

regardless of the results of the first call. As the member noted, the first

call, which is currently in process, is for existing tenure holders. The second

call would be about awarding addition tenure.

B. Simpson: Okay, the first call, as the industry

understands it, is to be conducted on the presumption that no new tenures would

be issued. There would not be a fibre supply tenure or a bioenergy tenure done.

That's the presumption that they've been given in order to respond to B.C.

Hydro's call for bioenergy power. If that's the case and if that does meet the

needs, then one could presume that this change to the Forest Act becomes

unnecessary — if it meets B.C. Hydro's needs for a bioenergy call.

That's the point that the industry has been trying to make with

the government. Why go into this so hastily — and for a whole bunch of other

reasons, which I'll canvass shortly — when we haven't completed that first call

with the existing tenure holders? In fact, one of the senior members of the

Ministry of Forests said at a bioenergy meeting last fall that no policy changes

would be required in order for us to move into bioenergy, which caused some

gasps in the room at the time.

We need to be crystal-clear whether or not this change to the

Forest Act, the possibility of an alternate tenure explicitly for bioenergy,

will be needed if, in fact, the existing licensees can meet B.C. Hydro's call or

B.C. Hydro's apportionment for energy from bioenergy sources.

[1630]

Let me flip it on its head. If a company gets a successful

bioenergy supply contract under the first call, would they be eligible, then, to

access additional timber or additional fibre through this new tenure that is

proposed? Would they be able to increment their fibre supply through this tenure

if they're a first-call successful bidder?

Hon. B. Penner: I think the most succinct way for me to

answer this question is that we are not contemplating awarding any of this

tenure to people participating in the first call, for the purposes of the first

call that's currently underway for bioenergy.

But we are also not going to disqualify someone who is successful

in the first call from participating in the second call. They will be entitled

to bid competitively, and they'll have to be competitive with others in order to

be successful in the second call. If they are participating in the second call,

then they can play by the same rules as the others participating in a second

call.

B. Simpson: I want to be very clear about this, because it

is a question that the industry has about the nature of this tenure.

If a company — particularly pulp mills, which are the ones that

are for the most part bidding under the first call — is successful on the first

call for bioenergy power, they have to meet the requirements for that bioenergy

contract under existing fibre supply.

If for some reason they believe that over the long-term time frame

of them producing energy, they have to get more fibre than what they've got

available to them, they will then have to go through another call process in

order to qualify to get access to fibre under this tenure.

[S. Hammell in the chair.]

Is that a correct understanding of the constraints that will be

put on them if they are successful in the first call?

[1635]

[ Page 12672 ]

Hon. B. Penner: I'm advised that B.C. Hydro, before

awarding contracts to proponents in the first call-for-energy proposals, will

undertake a detailed fuel plan analysis. It's a requirement that the proponents

put forward a detailed business plan or business case about their fuel supply

situation. B.C. Hydro is not going to take on the fuel supply risk for these

contracts, and they will scrutinize the plans put forward by the proponents.

I expect that they'll do the same for the second round as well,

for the general call for bioenergy proposals that will come later.

B. Simpson: Thank you for that. I don't know if the

minister…. There's a cartoon floating around that speaks volumes to what's going

on just now in this sector. There's a Brink's truck that pulls up to a sawmill.

It's there to collect the sawdust and the chips because it's becoming that much

of a premium, as the sawmilling industry comes down, to get access to those raw

materials.

Risk analysis for a cogeneration facility untenured specifically

for that purpose is a very risky business, because you don't know the vagaries

of the marketplace and what's going on. If the first-call winners don't have the

ability to get access to these tenures without going through an independent call

process, we could be whole-log chipping in this province like crazy in order to

simply feed the bioenergy contract requirements under the first call.

I think that's a question British Columbians ought to be asked

before we engage in this — whether that's what we want to do, to default down to

standing timber to power through a whole log chipping process. I think British

Columbians deserve that as a public consultation process.

Let's get into the meat of this, because it answers the question

about whether or not the two are linked. The bioenergy supply contract

definition is the B.C. Hydro call for power. The successful proponent or bidder

gets a bioenergy supply contract.

Then in 13.1 it goes on and talks about how to apply for a cut. It

says, under

definitions on page 16, "eligible bioenergy application." That's the

application for the non-replaceable forest licence — someone who's got a

successful bioenergy supply contract.

My question to the minister is…. This seems like we're setting up

a chicken-and-egg. How does an independent power producer, which I presume would

be the proponents or the companies that would bid on this, ensure that they have

the right cost configuration, that they know what the supply is and that they've

got all of that information in order to put a successful bid in to B.C. Hydro,

which will then — according to the minister, if they do the same on the second

bid as they did on the first bid — do some kind of risk assessment on whether or

not they've got the fuel supply they need to be a successful producer of

bioenergy?

They get the bioenergy contract, and then they've got to come to

the Ministry of Forests and negotiate their fibre supply agreement.

Am I understanding this correctly — that they don't have any fibre

supply agreement in place prior to being a successful bidder, that they need to

have a contract with B.C. Hydro before they enter into negotiations with the

Ministry of Forests to get access to the land base? Is that the correct order?

[1640]

Hon. B. Penner: The term I used earlier is that it's

something of an iterative process, and I think that term applies with respect to

this question as well.

As I indicated earlier, the Ministry of Forests does some scoping

as to the amount of timber supply that they believe is available. They make that

information available to B.C. Hydro but also to the proponent and, frankly, to

the public as well. I'm told that right now on their website, the Ministry of

Forests is indicating about 4.3 million cubic metres is available for up to

20-year terms.

B.C. Hydro is advised of that. They receive the bids. They assess

them and I guess nominally apportion the amount that would be required for those

bids that are the more promising ones. Then that information gets relayed back

to the Minister of Forests as to who the successful bidders are in B.C. Hydro's

eyes.

That initiates a process where the Minister of Forests may award

the tenure to the appropriate parties, the appropriate proponents who have been

selected by B.C. Hydro as the successful bidders. At some point, then a forest

licence would be issued, but not until, I believe, a facility would be actually

constructed. That would be a condition, I guess, of the licence — that a

facility would have to be actually constructed.

Based on that, I'm advised there is sufficient certainty or

assurance that the proponents believe they could go and secure financing to get

their projects done. As to just how or why that is, it might be better to ask

the various proponents or independent power producers exactly how those

financing arrangements work. But I would suspect that this iterative process

I've just described has been the subject of considerable policy work over the

last year or so since the government has announced our intentions to pursue a

bioenergy strategy.

B. Simpson: Well, I can tell the minister, and I'm sure the

staff there know, that there is considerable contention right now about our

annual allowable cut levels — about whether or not they're sustainable long

term, about whether or not there's actually volume there for the existing

licensees, let alone adding an additional licensee.

This tenure is also a tenure for standing timber, not just waste.

There are questions about the viability of actually bringing this material in

and creating energy from it. The government's own studies question the economic

viability of this entire enterprise. To my knowledge there hasn't been one iota

of public consultation — not one — on moving down this path.

There have been some consultations that have occurred with

different sectors. The pellet industry has

[ Page 12673 ]

written a very strongly worded letter to the minister asking what happens to

them. I guess my question would be: why isn't this a pellet licence? Are we

going to start issuing pellet licences now? Are we going to issue bioethanol

licences? How are we going down this path?

[1645]

The pulp industry has expressed their concerns, the sawmilling

industry has expressed their concerns, and the pellet industry has expressed

their concerns. That's the context for the questions that I have here.

I'm conscious that we have very little time for debate here, and I

guess I'll be forced to get to some of the nitty-gritty of this.

If we go to

section 6, page 17, at the bottom of 13.1. It's

subsection 13.1(6) where it talks about the applicant refusing to enter into a

forest licence. As the applicant refuses to enter into the forest licence, then

it looks as though the minister may just simply expand the annual allowable cut

of an existing licence.

I wonder if the minister can explain. Under what circumstances

would an applicant, which has a successful bioenergy contract…? The minister has

already admitted that the ministry would have done the due-diligence work to

make sure the fibre is available. A five-year non-renewable forest licence has

been offered to them. They reject that offer. That's what this appears to

indicate. So then the minister could simply increase the annual allowable cut on

an existing or a pre-existing forest licence.

I don't understand how that works. I don't understand why you

would then just be able to uplift an existing licence. Why not just do that as a

matter of course? Maybe if the minister could explain the need for subsection

(6) here and clarify why, if you're refusing one licence, you would get another

licence lifted.

Interjections.

The Chair: Members.

Hon. B. Penner: With respect to the member's specific

question pertaining to subsection (6), that's there so that if there is a

proponent that has been going through the process and gets to the final stage of

actual construction of a project and for some reason changes their mind or backs

out or is unable to complete, and the timber supply that had otherwise been

allocated notionally for that proponent is no longer needed or able to be used

by that proponent, then the Minister of Forests can redirect it to somebody else

who is already part of the B.C. Hydro call process.

It couldn't be to some other forest company outside of the B.C.

Hydro call-for-energy process. It's fairly restrictive, but it's to make sure

that the fibre supply can be used for the bioenergy call.

Just to back up again, as I indicated earlier, there's information

on the Ministry of Forests website indicating the total amount anticipated to be

available for this purpose. I think it's estimated at 4.3 million cubic metres

on an annual basis. That information is made available to B.C. Hydro and the

proponent. People will make bids based on that.

[1650]

Once B.C. Hydro determines the better bids, a certain amount is

then notionally allocated to those proponents. They get busy, they secure

financing, and hopefully, they build a facility. Upon achieving commercial

operation, then they would be formally issued the licence.

If at that last stage they back out, change their minds, don't

complete or whatever, then the amount of timber supply that had been notionally

allocated to them could be redirected by the Minister of Forests — this is

spelled out, I think, in subsection 6(b) — to another forest licence applicant

who's been part of that process.

Now, I just want to respond to…. The member has twice now made

kind of derogatory remarks about our efforts with respect to stimulating a

bioenergy sector or pursuing bioenergy at all in British Columbia. This, I must

say, I find surprising, considering that I'm holding in my hands a letter from

the very same member, the member for Cariboo North, dated March 5, 2008,

pleading with the government to make sure that his community is the very first

one in British Columbia to have a bioenergy facility and project in his

constituency. Yet here he's speaking in derogatory terms about this undertaking.

Just for the member's benefit, I'll read a

section of the letter:

"I noted with disappointment that despite waiting a long time for the strategy

to be unveiled, the plan does not indicate which communities will get such a

project or what the qualification criterion is." The final sentence: "I

sincerely hope that you will make Quesnel one of the first community energy

projects announced under your government's new bioenergy strategy."

From the letter, one would surmise that the member supports a

bioenergy strategy and developing bioenergy facilities in British Columbia,

presumably for the jobs and economic opportunities that they can provide British

Columbians while meeting our target of attaining electricity self-sufficiency by

2016. I'm not sure if the member has now changed his view and wants to rescind

the letter that he sent to the Premier on March 5 of this year. That's just over

two months ago. Maybe he's had a change of heart since he wrote that letter.

B. Simpson: If that's the best defence that the minister

can come up with on the substantive questions that are being asked here about

how the government is going to go into bioenergy, it's rather pathetic.

As my letter does state, it's rather pathetic of the government to

say in their bioenergy strategy that they're going to designate ten communities

and not name even one of the communities. That was the point of my letter. When

you've got communities that have been trying for the last 18 months to get the

government's attention to try and figure out what's going on, then you would

think that at least a few communities would be named.

Community energy facilities are very different than the kind of

bioenergy that we're talking about here,

[ Page 12674 ]

which is going on through the call for energy from the existing tenure

holders and from the tenure that would be given under this. So it's not a change

of heart. It's a difference in the nature of the energy production we're talking

about.

Revelstoke has already got a community bioenergy facility that's

very different from anything we're talking about under calls for proposals from

B.C. Hydro. So let's pay attention to what's actually going on in this bill.

The question I have then, if we go on finally to this section….

We're on

section 15, and I'm supposed to cut off debate here around five o'clock

to move on to two other bills.

The minister has made a couple of comments about the 4.3 million,

etc. Is that based on a new timber supply review in the mountain pine beetle

area? Was a new timber supply review done?

As members of the Ministry of Forests staff know, there is

contention in the mountain pine beetle area as to what the standing volume is,

what the availability of tenure is. Are we oversubscribed, especially in the

Vanderhoof area and the Quesnel area? Are the existing tenures already

oversubscribed on the land base and the volume is not there? Has a new timber

supply review been done in order to warrant that there's actually a long-term

sustainable supply of bioenergy source tenure for this supposed emerging

industry?

[1655]

Hon. B. Penner: I'm advised that the chief forester has in

fact turned his mind to that question and is satisfied that there is and will be

sufficient timber to meet that stated quantity over a 20-year period.

The member should keep in mind that as the years advance, the

nature of the beetle-killed wood is changing. The percentage that is suitable

for sawlog purpo