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)

MONDAY, MAY 12, 2008

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 33, Number 2

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Page

Introductions by Members

Statements

Natural disasters in Asia

Hon. G.

Campbell

Introductions by Members

Introduction and First

Reading of Bills

First Nations Heritage Protection

and Conservation Act, 2008 (Bill M207)

Karagianis

Right to Know Act, 2008 (Bill

M208)

Toxics Reduction Act, 2008 (Bill

M209)

Robertson

Statements (Standing Order

25 B )

Necklace project in Campbell

River

Trevena

Mining industry in B.C.

Lekstrom

2009 World Under-17 Hockey

Challenge

Fraser

Dangerous offenders

R. Hawes

Capital City Volunteers

Fleming

Richmond Youth Concert Band

J. Yap

Oral Questions

Government action on forest

industry

Simpson

Hon. C.

Hansen

Macdonald

Hon. R.

Coleman

Routley

Carbon offset projects

Sather

Hon. B.

Penner

Disclosure of documents in B.C.

Rail court case

L. Krog

Hon. W.

Oppal

Ralston

Closing of psychiatric ward in

Port Alberni hospital

Fraser

Hon. G.

Abbott

Second Reading of Bills

Greenhouse Gas Reduction

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

Hon. B.

Penner

Simpson

Horgan

Simpson

Trevena

Hon. B.

Penner

Motor Vehicle (Banning Smoking

When Children Present) Amendment Act, 2008 (Bill 36)

Hon. J.

van Dongen

Hon. G.

Abbott

L. Krog

Farnworth

A. Dix

C. Evans

Hon. J. van Dongen

Local Government (Green

Communities) Statutes Amendment Act, 2008 (Bill 27)

Hon. I.

Chong

C. Wyse

Simpson

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir

Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Children

and Family Development

Hon. T.

Christensen

Simons

Chouhan

[ Page 12261 ]

MONDAY, MAY 12, 2008

The House met at 13:34 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Introductions by Members

Hon. S. Hagen: To all members of the House, I am very

pleased to introduce four young artists who are spending a day in the capital to

celebrate their winning posters in the Discover Your Community: History in Art

Poster Contest established by Mr. Speaker. Their winning artwork is on display

in the reception hall for May and June.

They are Tessa Warhurst from George M. Murray Elementary School in

Lillooet, Lisa Xie from Chief Maquinna Elementary School in Vancouver, Derrick

Van Viegen from E.J. Dunn Middle School in Port Alberni and Eric Kim from Prince

of Wales Secondary School in Vancouver. Would the House please join me and the

Speaker in making them welcome.

[1335]

S. Fraser: Following the same line, I had the honour and

pleasure of having lunch with an incredibly talented young man, Derrick Van

Viegen, a grade 8 student at E.J. Dunn Middle School. He's an artist

extraordinaire and one of the winners of the Speaker's 150 poster contest. He's

accompanied today in the gallery and at lunch by his parents Rick and Natalie

and his sister Rachel. Would the House please join me in making them all feel

very, very welcome.

Hon. L. Reid: Today I have 96 students visiting from A.R.

MacNeill Secondary School in Richmond. I had the pleasure of saying hello before

the House sat this afternoon. I'd ask the House to please make them welcome.

H. Lali: I, too, would like to join the member for Alberni-Qualicum

and the minister who spoke earlier. Tessa Warhurst is actually a student from my

constituency who lives in Lillooet, as was mentioned by the minister. She's a

grade 2 eight-year-old, and she is one of the four winners. I think you

mentioned that she was the overall first prize winner of this contest that the

Speaker held. She's here with her mother Nancy Humber and siblings Piper, Meg

and Keenan Warhurst. Would the House please give a warm Victoria welcome to my

constituents.

Statements

NATURAL DISASTERS IN ASIA

Hon. G. Campbell: Today I rise on behalf of British

Columbians to express our deepest condolences to those impacted by the two

recent natural disasters which have affected literally thousands and thousands

of people. Reports out of China today suggest that a 7.8 magnitude earthquake

struck China's Sichuan province. It's left as many as 9,000 people or more dead

and missing, with many, many more injured.

The cyclone that hit the southern delta region of Myanmar,

formerly called Burma, on May 2 has also left thousands and thousands of people

without their homes, in want of support. Really, I think we have to recognize

that these things always come out of the blue, and they have an enormous impact

on the communities that they hit.

I know all British Columbians would want our emergency personnel

and professional personnel to be available. They will be available, subject to

improving the situation. We think we have people that we can offer to that.

I know that this Legislature would want to send our concern, our

condolences and our support and prayers to the governments of both countries and

to the people who have been directly impacted and who will be indirectly

impacted by these natural disasters. Hon. Speaker. I'd ask that you do that on

behalf of the Legislature, as long as everyone agrees that that's what we should

be doing.

Introductions by Members

S. Simpson: Hon. Speaker, I want to join yourself and the

minister and my other colleagues on this side in also congratulating Lisa Xie.

Lisa is the winner of one of the art competitions from Chief Maquinna School in

my constituency.

I would note that not only was Lisa a winner, but in her class

they also took two of the three runner-up spots. So that class produced three of

the four winners in their age category. Lisa is joined here by her parents and

her brother Bolong, Max Xie and Gary Xie. Please make Lisa and her family

welcome.

Hon. R. Neufeld: Today visiting the precinct is a young

mother and her child. I've always said that I adopted this young lady's children

because I haven't had any grandchildren of my own yet. I introduced her first

child a number of years ago, but she brought into the world a little boy born

April 21, at 7 pounds 15 ounces, named Mowat Jardine Sweet. Colleen and Randal

Sweet are northerners, and Colleen worked as my MA for a number of years.

Also, I'm fortunate enough to mention that in the very near

future, I will become a granddad. I won't have to adopt anybody else's. I will

actually have a grandchild to love and care for sometime in June. Montana and I

are both looking forward to that.

[1340]

B. Simpson: In 1981 when I was attending the University of

Victoria, I met a beautiful young woman there who became my wife in 1985. She is

still a beautiful young woman. I don't know what happened to me in the interim.

My wife Trish is here with my two wonderful children, Jill and

Jon. Would the House please make them feel welcome.

[ Page 12262 ]

Hon. M. Coell: I have some introductions to make: LCdr.

Lucie Tremblay, who is the provost marshal of Pacific region and commanding

officer of the military police at CFB Esquimalt, Sergeant Kwaitkowski, MCpl. Jodrey, MCpl. Donohue, Corporal Edwards and Corporal Pettinger.

All are veterans of the war in Afghanistan and have been given the

General Campaign Star for taking

part in operations in the presence of an armed

enemy while fighting the Taliban in that country. Some have taken

part in NATO

operations in the Balkans and wear the medals for those missions. The MPs even

initiated a boy scout unit in Kosovo. Others have been given the special service

medal for their service in humanitarian operations in Sri Lanka, Pakistan and

Central America, assisting those areas in dealing with natural disasters that

have befallen them.

They have performed regular police duties and have assisted in the

training of civilian police in Afghanistan. All are dedicated, brave members of

the Canadian Forces and deserve our gratitude for their service.

It is because of these people and others like them, who are

willing to put themselves in harm's way, that we live in a peaceful, free and

wonderful country. Would the House please make them welcome.

N. Simons: It gives me pleasure to welcome a number of

parents in the House today, all here representing themselves and other families

who have children with autism. I'd like to make welcome in particular Jodi

Tucker and Blair Armstrong, who have come to speak with the minister about the

importance of ensuring that there's adequate and fair access to autism

therapies. Would the House please make them welcome.

R. Hawes: Included among those families are Steve and

Sherry Peters from my riding. Would the House please make them welcome.

G. Gentner: It's a pleasure to welcome to the House today

the grade 10 social studies students from Seaquam Secondary, 112 students from

the largest secondary school in North Delta. It is a school that participates

through my office with the work experience program. I certainly would suggest to

all members of the House that this is a great program that's offered to

volunteers to work in your offices. Could the House please make them accordingly

welcome.

D. Hayer: I have two special guests today. One is Laurie

Carlson, CEO of Mainland Sand and Gravel Ltd., and the other one is Ted Carlson,

president of Mainland Sand and Gravel Ltd. Would the House please make them very

welcome.

S. Hammell: In the gallery there are two visitors from the

constituency of Surrey–Green Timbers. They are here enjoying the ambience of our

beautiful capital city and are in the gallery to watch what we fondly call

question period. Would the House please welcome Vanji Ocropidici and Dr. Nanang

Gilanto.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

FIRST NATIONS HERITAGE PROTECTION

AND CONSERVATION ACT, 2008

M. Karagianis presented a bill intituled First Nations Heritage

Protection and Conservation Act, 2008.

M. Karagianis: I move that a bill intituled First Nations

Heritage Protection and Conservation Act, 2008, be introduced for a first time.

Motion approved.

M. Karagianis: I am honoured to introduce the First Nations

Heritage Protection and Conservation Act. This bill will better protect first

nations heritage objects and sacred sites. The bill amends the Heritage

Conservation Act to include a process by which first nations can trigger

protection orders when heritage sites, objects and remains are discovered.

[1345]

I believe that this bill amends the Heritage Act to provide a

better set of guidelines and tools that first nations, local government and the

province need in order to implement protection, stewardship and conservation of

first nations heritage and culturally significant areas, their artifacts and

their sacred history and, as well, to provide for the creation of a program to

accomplish that goal.

I ask that all members please review the bill and support this. I

move that this bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the

next sitting of the House after today.

Bill M207, First Nations Heritage Protection and Conservation 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.

RIGHT TO KNOW ACT, 2008

G. Robertson presented a bill intituled Right to Know Act, 2008.

G. Robertson: I move introduction of the Right to Know Act,

2008, for first reading.

Motion approved.

G. Robertson: I rise to introduce companion bills that will

create the strongest toxics regulations in North America.

B.C. has lagged far behind other jurisdictions in protecting

people from toxic pollutants, and it's time we became leaders on this crucial

issue for health and environment. People have the right to know what's in their

food and the products that they buy. Communities have a right to know what toxic

substances are in their vicinity. These are the core principles of the Right to

Know Act.

[ Page 12263 ]

This bill provides that suppliers and producers must warn

consumers if their products expose them to recognized toxic substances or to

genetically engineered food. This includes using hazard labels that clearly

identify — with clear signals — carcinogens, reproductive and developmental

toxins, hormone disruptors and other known toxins.

This bill also supports community right to know by establishing a

searchable electronic registry of toxic substances and genetically engineered

foods in B.C. with locations, companies involved and information on dangers

arising from exposure.

This year a Canadian Cancer Society poll of 3,200 British

Columbians showed that 97 percent support legislation that requires labelling of

all products that contain carcinogens. As the Premier has said, this is a

non-partisan issue. It is clearly one that members of this House can work

together urgently to address.

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

second reading at the next sitting after today.

Bill M208, Right to Know 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.

TOXICS REDUCTION ACT, 2008

G. Robertson presented a bill intituled Toxics Reduction Act,

G. Robertson: I move introduction of the Toxics Reduction

Act, 2008, for first reading.

Motion approved.

G. Robertson: Government has a responsibility to protect

people from toxins. This bill bans toxins that are currently prohibited for use

and sale in other OECD nations, Canadian provinces and U.S. states. It bans

pesticides that are harmful to human health for residential or cosmetic use, on

public lands and around children at schools, day cares and playing fields. This

bill creates a comprehensive toxic and hazardous substance list and sets a goal

for B.C. to achieve a 50 percent reduction of toxins generated by industry by

It also creates a biomonitoring program, testing British

Columbians to inform government decisions on toxic threats. We need smart

regulation of toxins to reduce cancer and other diseases directly linked to

toxins, especially among our children. Strong regulation will save lives and

health care dollars. B.C. will spend over a billion dollars this year dealing

with thousands of deaths and new cancer cases that are caused by toxins each

year.

Finally, we need to regulate toxins to protect our environment,

which is being saturated with toxic pollution at unprecedented levels.

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

second reading at the next sitting after today.

Bill M209, Toxics Reduction 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) NECKLACE PROJECT IN CAMPBELL RIVER

C. Trevena: Some members have been asking me about the

necklace I'm wearing. I assure you it is not a prop; it is a necklace. It's

jewellery, but it's also a quiet statement. It's red, it's tile-shaped, and it's

got a picture of a T-shirt on it. Luckily, it's not unique.

It's part of a project known as the necklace project, which is a

fundraiser to support community activities in Campbell River aimed at the

prevention and awareness of violence and abuse against women. It helps ensure

that events such as the December 6 memorial or the Take Back the Night march and

other such events can take place to raise awareness of violence against women,

and understanding and education about the issue.

[1350]

The necklace comes about as a result of a very moving

anti-violence demonstration — the clothesline project, which I've told the House

about in the past — where women are invited to paint a T-shirt to depict their

own or others' experience of violence. Their messages are haunting, they're

brave, and they're bright. The T-shirts hang on lines in a very dramatic way,

and it's a very emotional display which brings an awareness of the issues and

honours those women who have been abused. Those T-shirts are reflected in these

necklaces.

The idea came about because the organizations dealing with

violence against women keep being told that they need to be sustainable. It's

not an easy task when dealing with something like violence against women. How do

you fundraise? Do you do bake sales or plant sales? Well, a local artisan in

Campbell River came up with the idea of these necklaces, and they're now sold

throughout the city and through the women's centre.

The project is growing, with the women's symbol on some of the

necklaces, and they're on key chains as well. At $15 apiece, it's going to be

slow to become sustainable with these necklaces, but we can only all hope that

such projects are not always going to be needed and that, as a society, we do

finally see an end to violence against women.

MINING INDUSTRY IN B.C.

B. Lekstrom: I rise today to recognize Mining Week in

British Columbia and to celebrate it with all of my colleagues here in the

Legislature and all British Columbians.

I think we have a good-news story to tell in this province about

what mining means to our economy, what it means to the people of this province.

The value of B.C. mining is estimated to be about $5.6 billion for 2007, which

is up from roughly $2.9 billion in 2001. I think it shows, by working together,

the importance of

[ Page 12264 ]

our land base, what the resource can do for all of us in our day-to-day lives

and what we can do by cooperating with industry and government, communities and

the people. It really is a return not for government and the general revenue, as

many might have you think, but for the people who live here — the jobs that are

created, the benefit to our families and our children, allowing us to grow and

prosper.

The issue really is one that we can work together on. The

environment is always something that's on everybody's mind. We want to make sure

that the children of the future — our children, our grandchildren — can enjoy

the quality of life that we've enjoyed through our lives growing up in this

wonderful province and that we do that together. The mining industry, I think,

has come a long way and does a marvellous job.

I would encourage British Columbians, if they have never had the

opportunity, to look at a reclaimed minesite. Do so. I think you'd be quite

amazed at what you see out there with the natural beauty that's maintained after

the mining resource has been extracted.

Mining actually impacts only 0.04 percent of the land base in

British Columbia, yet the benefit is significant to each and every one of us. It

is an industry that has meant a great deal to the northeast part of the province

where I'm from, but also to every region of this province. All of us in our

day-to-day lives are dependent on the mineral explorations that take place

around this province.

We are recognized as leaders in environmental sustainability when

it comes to working with the mining industry around the world. People look to

British Columbia for the contributions that government and the mining industry

make together on behalf of the people we all represent in these chambers. I'm

very proud to be part of a government and be part of a province that promotes

this.

2009 WORLD UNDER-17

HOCKEY CHALLENGE

S. Fraser: Port Alberni loves the game of hockey. Loyal

fans turn out in large numbers to cheer on their beloved Bulldogs, and their

love of the game has led to a very exciting development. For the first time in

history, mid–Vancouver Island communities will be hosting the 2009 World

Under-17 Hockey Challenge, thanks to a bold bid by Port Alberni.

This is outstanding hockey. Players chosen to compete at this

level are of exceptional calibre. The event is an exciting showcase of future

stars. Germany, Russia, Finland, Slovakia and the United States will all be

competing in the tournament, along with teams from five regions across Canada.

The Port Alberni proposal to put on the 2009 World Under-17 Hockey

championship showcased their ability to put on this amazing event with the

unique involvement cooperatively of five other Island communities all working

together. Alberni Valley will share half of the games with Campbell River, Comox

Valley, Oceanside, Nanaimo and Cowichan Valley. All communities will benefit

greatly.

For hockey fans: get ready for the time of your life. Tournament

dates are December 29, 2008, to January 4, 2009. Several exhibition games will

be held on December 28.

[1355]

Port Alberni is certainly no stranger to putting on world-class

events. Anyone who's had an affinity for tall ships already knows that Port

Alberni puts on the premier event in the world. Everyone in the know has already

marked July 11 and 12 on their calendar this year for the Tall Ships Challenge

in Port Alberni.

Pull out your schedules once again and mark December 29 to January

4. That's the hockey challenge, and the stars of tomorrow from all over the

world will give us Islanders and others the best hockey we have ever imagined.

Way to go, Port Alberni. Another class act, and a hard one to follow.

DANGEROUS OFFENDERS

R. Hawes: Blaine MacDougal is a convicted murderer and

rapist with a history of prison escape. On his first day-parole he raped two

women. A decade later on a second day-parole, he again raped a young woman. For

this he was named a dangerous offender.

"Dangerous offender" is not a designation easily obtained by the

Crown, as it must be shown that there is a significantly high risk that the

offender will commit future violent sexual acts. It brings an indefinite

sentence, and its purpose is to protect the public from the most dangerous

violent sexual predators in the country.

The offender is then incarcerated until the risk is deemed to no

longer exist. Clearly, something has gone dramatically wrong in the assessment

process when a dangerous offender like Blaine MacDougal again finds himself in

Ferndale minimum security institution from which he walked away a few weeks ago.

Nine other dangerous offenders who were also housed in Ferndale have now been

transferred to higher levels of security until they can be further assessed.

Thankfully, Stockwell Day, the federal Solicitor General, has

ordered a full review of the assessment and cascading system to ensure inmates

are properly placed and the public is not unduly endangered.

But there's one remaining question that has not been addressed.

Blaine MacDougal was working towards yet another parole when it was discovered,

while he was on an escorted pass, that his personal computer held over 20,000

pornographic images. Why would a known sexual predator with dangerous offender

status have a personal computer with access to Internet pornography while he's

in jail? I can't find one person who thinks this makes any sense whatsoever.

While the corrections system is being reviewed, Minister Day should also review

the use of personal computers in prisons, particularly the use by known sexual

predators.

CAPITAL CITY VOLUNTEERS

R. Fleming: Last month on April 26, I had the privilege to

attend the 20th anniversary celebration of an amazing organization in my

community called Capital City Volunteers. It's an organization founded

[ Page 12265 ]

to improve the social well-being of seniors in my community by linking them

with dedicated volunteers.

Seniors in Victoria may or may not have the benefit of family

nearby, and none should feel isolated or lonely. Capital City Volunteers helps

seniors get to appointments, run errands, get a haircut or just talk about life

over a cup of coffee, and 20 years has seen a lot of changes at Capital City

Volunteers. Originally, it was called the North Park Volunteer Services

Association, and Luella Hillmer was the first coordinator. She was instrumental

in forming the society with the support of the First Baptist Church and

residents of North Park Manor.

The new society then found office space at North Park Manor, and

operations began with a grant from the New Horizons program sponsored by the

provincial government. Initially, most of the services were delivered out of

North Park Manor. But in 1989 Elsie Coles was hired as a volunteer coordinator,

and she continued to advance the society's purpose until retiring in 1995. She

helped broaden the mandate of the society.

The agency's mandate was changed to serve seniors and people with

disabilities throughout the city of Victoria. This new funding and mandate led

the board to hire Karina Wolf as executive director. Karina has led the

organization since 1996.

Although there have been many growing pains along the way in this

organization in its 20 years to keep pace with our aging society's growing

needs, Capital City Volunteers continues to situate itself as a grass-roots

community program that provides a vital link for those who strive to maintain

their independence.

I invite all members of this House to join me in thanking the

literally hundreds of Capital City Volunteers, executive director Karina Wolf,

community services coordinator Nansi Blenkiron and the many volunteers who do so

much for the people they support in my community, and to recognize this

extraordinary milestone anniversary.

[1400]

RICHMOND YOUTH CONCERT BAND

J. Yap: "A painter paints pictures on canvas, but musicians

paint their pictures on silence." How true a quote from legendary orchestral

conductor Leopold Stokowski.

Recently I was fortunate enough to hear some truly inspirational

music at the Richmond Youth Concert Band annual dinner. Those fortunate enough

to be in attendance at the Richmond event were treated to an evening of good

fellowship, good food and great music.

The Richmond Youth Concert Band had its beginnings in 1976 to

perform for the twinning ceremonies between Richmond and its sister city

Wakayama, Japan. It had a humble beginning, initially formed as a small honour

band with a six-week agenda. But the success it experienced in its initial

performances set the groundwork to grow from there into a full concert band with

a jazz ensemble.

Today the band is 45 members strong, with students ranging from

grades 8 to 12. The musicians represent the best of the best, undergoing

rigorous rehearsals and training. The audition process is competitive and brings

out the best in the students. Each year the students are fortunate enough to

attend a musical retreat as well as a focused music workshop. The band has a

bursary and scholarship program so that financial concerns do not deter young

talents from joining the band.

The band also gives back to the community in addition to its

musical gifts. This year's fundraiser brought in $3,000, half of which was

donated to Richmond Family Place.

The band relies on the efforts of many volunteers, especially the

students and their parents. I want to recognize association president Hans Havas

and directors Debbie Tablotney and Grace Tsang for their tireless efforts and

leadership to the band.

I invite all members to join me in congratulating the Richmond

Youth Concert Band on their 30th anniversary of promoting music and building

community among the talented young musicians of Richmond.

Oral Questions

GOVERNMENT ACTION ON

FOREST INDUSTRY

B. Simpson: Last Friday Campbell River saw its last sawmill

close forever, and 257 people lost their family-supporting jobs. Today in

Kamloops another mill is closing permanently and another 200 jobs lost. These

are permanent job losses. They're not temporary layoffs. These workers are

losing their ability to pay their mortgages and support their families. Yet what

do the B.C. Liberals offer these workers? Federal money to cover one-year

tuition and to give them jobs as urban tree-planters.

My question is to the Minister of Forests. Would the Minister of

Forests please explain why the B.C. Liberals are refusing to put provincial

money into a true stability program for forest workers and forest-dependent

communities? Why is that happening?

Hon. C. Hansen: It is in recognition of the challenges that

forest families around this province are facing that the Premier of this

province, when we knew there was $129 million coming for resource communities in

this province, made the commitment that it was going to be dedicated to ensure

that forest-dependent families in British Columbia are going to get the direct

benefit of those dollars.

It is welcome dollars, the $129 million, and it is in addition to

the $185 million that the province has committed to the Northern Development

Initiative Trust. It is in addition to the $50 million that's been put into the

Southern Interior Development Initiative Trust and the $50 million for the

Island Coastal Economic Trust. We recognize that there are families in forest

communities going through challenges. We're going to stand there with them, and

we're going to support them.

Mr. Speaker: I remind members to listen to the question and

listen to the answer.

Member has a supplemental.

[ Page 12266 ]

B. Simpson: The minister's response begs the question: if

the $129 million wasn't going to forest workers, where else would it go? General

revenue — is that what the minister is suggesting?

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Minister.

[1405]

B. Simpson: So this money was supposed to be directed

there.

As far as I'm aware, there is no opportunity for forest workers to

apply for supports from Northern Trust or any other fund that this minister has

mentioned in his response. The ministry's own website points out that only 5,000

workers will be served by this fund. Since January 1, 2007, 13,000 workers have

been impacted. That doesn't include pre-2007.

So my question to the minister is this. This money will be

oversubscribed the minute it is available. Why won't the B.C. Liberal government

and the Premier add their own funds to this, match the federal money and make

this a real sustainability fund for forest workers and their families?

Hon. C. Hansen: It's as a result of the….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. C. Hansen: It's as a result of the work of this

government over the last number of years that we have seen the diversification

of the B.C. economy. It's as a result of the work of this government over the

last number of years that we have seen a net increase in jobs in British

Columbia of over 430,000.

We have a range of programs in place to assist forest workers,

their families…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. C. Hansen: …and their communities. We will continue to

make sure that those families are supported by this government, whether they are

in temporary layoff and waiting for mills to start up again as markets recover

or whether we are seeing new industries that must be encouraged in these

regions.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a further supplemental.

B. Simpson: It's a result of this government's forest

policies that we have lost the diversification in the forest sector over the

last seven years. It's a result of this government's failure to intervene for

forest-dependent communities and forest workers…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

B. Simpson: …that we are now at 13,000 forest workers whose

jobs are threatened and a fund that may assist 5,000 of those workers.

Again, my question is to this minister. If this minister isn't

willing to answer it, if he needs the Premier's permission, then let's have the

Premier answer it. Will the B.C. Liberals at least match the federal money and

make this a fund that will truly help these workers out?

Hon. C. Hansen: This member knows the challenge of the

markets in the United States. He knows what is actually the cause of the

downturn in the….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Minister, just take your seat.

Members.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. C. Hansen: This member knows the challenges that the

forest sector is facing in terms of markets in the U.S. today, but we as a

government are standing and supporting forest workers around this province. We

are supporting communities; we're supporting economic diversification.

I challenge the member to actually go on line and read the

backgrounder in the press release from last Friday. One of the programs

announced last Friday by the Premier was tuition support for displaced forest

workers. That will benefit 5,000 workers alone, never mind the other programs

that will be there to support those families.

N. Macdonald: B.C. Liberals have pushed the forest industry

to complete collapse. There are over 46 major wood-processing facilities that

have been closed. There are over 20,000 forest workers that have lost their jobs

under this government's watch — 13,000 with this minister alone this year. It's

not only millworkers; it's not only loggers.

It's also the province's high-tech sector, with Coe Newnes in

Salmon Arm. They're going down, with 110 jobs lost and 220 more at risk. Coe

Newnes is a high-tech company. It is known continent-wide for its high-tech

support for mills and for the machinery that it provides. The jobs are going to

be devastating to Salmon Arm, but they are also a devastating loss of expertise

for the province.

So the question is: what specifically is the minister going to do

for Salmon Arm, for those high-tech jobs in Salmon Arm? What is he going to do?

[1410]

Hon. C. Hansen: Let's actually just talk for a minute about

some of the unemployment rates we saw in the 1990s compared to what we're seeing

today.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

[ Page 12267 ]

Hon. C. Hansen: If you actually look at the unemployment

rates in the Thompson-Okanagan region, they've been hitting record lows.

We recognize there are forest families in forest-dependent

communities that are going through some big challenges today. We are supporting

them. But in addition, we've created an economic environment in British Columbia

today that is producing jobs and that is producing new opportunities for those

families and new opportunities for those communities.

All I can say is that if the forest industry was going through the

kind of challenges in 1996 that it's going through today, the entire economy of

this province would be on its heels. But because we have such a strong economy,

we can support those communities, and we can create the diversification they

need.

Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental.

N. Macdonald: So this government won't put up the Forests

Minister. We're asking forestry questions. They've given up on getting him

answering questions, but if another minister is going to stand up, there has to

be some improvement on the quality of answers.

What every single person in this province knows is that B.C.

Liberal forestry policy has been an abject failure. We see it each and every

day. Some 13,000 workers this year….

Now even cutting-edge companies like Coe Newnes, which was until

Wednesday Salmon Arm's largest private employer…. Now 110 people are out of

work, and 220 are at risk. These workers have been offered no severance.

Like tens of thousands of people in this province, they are being

affected by this government's poor policy. These are people with mortgages to

pay, but all the minister has to offer is some federal money to pay for

scattered programs like tuition for some.

So the overhyped pronouncements by this Premier are worth nothing

to them. This government came to power promising to increase jobs in forestry.

Mr. Speaker: Can the member put the question, please.

N. Macdonald: To the Minister of Forests: will he admit

that B.C. Liberal forest policies have crushed B.C.'s most important industry?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. R. Coleman: I think it's time for you to be honest

with British Columbians over there on the opposition. Be honest with British

Columbians. Tell them the truth about the North American markets. Tell them the

truth about the dollar. Tell them the truth about the changes in housing starts

in the United States.

Why don't you tell the people the truth? Quit selling false hopes

over there. The reality is that we're doing everything possible to work with our

forest sector, and we'll continue to do so in the province of British Columbia.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Just take your seat, Member.

D. Routley: Mr. Speaker, 13,000 jobs have been lost under

the watch of that Forests Minister, and he doesn't have the gumption — or the

government doesn't — to put him up to answer questions until he thinks he's on

the last one. Well, he's not.

Some 13,000 family-supporting jobs have been lost, and the real

tragedy….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

D. Routley: No, the real crime is that thousands of those

jobs were lost unnecessarily. Pulp mills with markets…. Pulp in 2002 was $500 a

tonne. Today it's $840 a tonne. Sawmills with markets can't get logs. It's

because of his policies around logs and pulpwood.

[1415]

News for the minister: those workers don't want to be transitioned

out of their jobs. They want their jobs, and he can give them to them. He has

the power, with the stroke of a pen, to change those policies and get fibre to

those mills. That's not a market matter. That's a policy matter brought on by

that minister and that Premier.

When will they step up and do something to reverse that, and bring

wood to our mills?

Hon. R. Coleman: Once again, the member opposite refuses to

be honest with the people of Vancouver Island and the people of British

Columbia. Why don't you be honest? Why don't you go and have a conversation…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. R. Coleman: …with the pulp and paper sector in British

Columbia? You quoted a year, hon. Member. If you go talk to them, do you know

what they'll tell you?

Whatever increase in the pulp price they've gotten has been lost

in the increase of the dollar. They'll tell you. I was actually in meetings with

the pulp sector only a week ago, and that's exactly what they told me.

Quite frankly, why don't you people start to be honest with

British Columbia? First of all, there's fibre available for pulp mills in the

province of British Columbia, and we get it to them when they need it. We've

told everybody that wants to come and look at Harmac that we'll find the fibre

if they want to have a look at that business. We'll continue to do that, in

spite of the fact that they want to be disingenuous and not tell people the

truth.

[ Page 12268 ]

Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental.

D. Routley: Well, the minister said to quit selling false

hopes. You know what, Minister? It's not a false hope to the pulp mill workers

to deliver them fibre to a market that they can fill. It's not false hope to

deliver cedar logs to cedar mills to fill markets they can fill — except that

this minister created a monopoly so they can't get those logs. That is what's

happened.

This minister and this government fiddled away the best markets in

North American history. Just like bad chipmunks, they didn't put any chestnuts

in the tree. Now the winter of markets is upon us, and the communities we

represent are on their backs when they're being asked to fight back. This

minister, this bad chipmunk that failed to put chestnuts in the tree during the

good times, now points to us.

Deliver to the workers and the communities of British Columbia a

promise today, Mr. Minister.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

D. Routley: Promise them that you will reverse your

policies, deliver fibre to those mills and keep those jobs in British Columbia.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. R. Coleman: I learned a long time ago that when nobody

had a valid argument, they would resort to insults because they had nothing else

to put on the table of any valid information.

So $129 million, community development trust; $17.25 million going

to tuition for workers; $85.5 million for transition for older workers; and

$26.25 million for job opportunities, announced by the Premier on Friday.

The fact of the matter is that we work with companies. We find

them the fibre. That isn't the issue here. You better start being honest with

people, because we're going to work with the communities to find their future

while you spend your time delivering negativity and putting your constituents

down when you shouldn't be doing so.

CARBON OFFSET PROJECTS

M. Sather: Ecosystem Restoration Associates, a carbon

offset company, cut down over 300 red alders along the North Alouette River in

Maple Ridge, along with native shrubs. They're planting little seedlings, and

they're going to sell this project as a carbon offset project.

It's really troubling that these kind of anti-environmental

initiatives are happening, particularly when so many more companies are getting

into the carbon offset business. My question to the Minister of the Environment

is: what is this government going to do to provide oversight to carbon offset

companies?

[1420]

Hon. B. Penner: I'm not familiar with the specific case

that the member just referenced, but I will endeavour to look into it. It's

worth noting that the opposition has been opposed to almost every single

initiative we've brought forward to combat greenhouse gas emissions.

We continue to wait….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Just stay seated, Minister.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. B. Penner: They've been opposed to every renewable

energy project that's gone forward in British Columbia in the last seven years.

They've voted against, in principle, a cap-and-trade system to limit industrial

greenhouse gas emissions. They're opposed to a carbon tax, which academics and

environmentalists support as a way of putting a price on carbon instead of using

the atmosphere as a free garbage dump.

It's time for the opposition to say what they would do to combat

greenhouse gas emissions rather than just spouting hot air during question

period.

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Minister.

The member has a supplemental.

M. Sather: Well, I don't know what the research and the

minister are doing, but it was on TV on Global last Friday night. But anyway,

research….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

M. Sather: Red alder is part of the natural….

Mr. Speaker: Member, just take your seat for a second.

Members. Members.

Continue, Member.

M. Sather: Red alder is a naturally occurring species that

puts nitrogen into the soil and provides the soil for the conifers that will

come later on. What this company did in cutting all that alder down…. They

opened this area right along a floodplain to more erosion. As well, the trees

that they've left there…. The community is really upset that these are going to

get into the river and cause a logjam. In addition to that, they cleared a whole

bunch of wildlife habitat in bird nesting season.

How can the people of British Columbia have any confidence in

carbon offset projects like this if the government has no oversight, isn't

paying attention and maybe doesn't even care?

[ Page 12269 ]

Hon. B. Penner: I understand the opposition gets their

research through the media, and we've already seen that demonstrated before.

I've already indicated we will be looking into the matter that the member raises

here today.

However, we continue to await any sign of leadership — any sign of

leadership at all — from the opposition when it comes to greenhouse gas

emissions, reducing emissions or providing for our energy needs in British

Columbia. You know, the only thing they've put on the table so far this session

in terms of their energy plans or their energy ideas is to continue to import

power into British Columbia well into the future.

They're opposed to self-sufficiency. They're opposed to wind power

projects. They're opposed to run-of-the-river projects that even have

partnerships with first nations. That opposition hasn't shown any leadership at

all when it comes to the environment.

DISCLOSURE OF DOCUMENTS

IN B.C. RAIL COURT CASE

L. Krog: On Friday the Premier's former deputy minister

confirmed that he reviewed and discussed documents seized by the RCMP in the

B.C. Rail corruption case. Mr. Dobell also confirmed he did not sign an

undertaking that would have given him the ability to see those documents. In

other words, Mr. Dobell was not entitled to see or discuss those documents.

These undertakings were sworn in order to protect the integrity of the RCMP

investigation into the B.C. Rail corruption case while seized documents were

vetted for privilege.

Question to the Premier: can he explain why Mr. Dobell received

access to these confidential documents contrary to the undertaking sworn in

court?

Hon. W. Oppal: The member opposite is obviously referring

to evidence that he's heard in the trial that's before the Supreme Court. We

have made it clear throughout that we will not comment on anything that's before

the Supreme Court, because it's improper to do so.

Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental.

[1425]

L. Krog: The documents shared and discussed with Mr. Dobell

all deal with the second round of the bidding process, the round where the issue

of the consolation prize arose. That means those documents go to the heart of

the B.C. Rail corruption trial. When Mr. Dobell reviewed those documents, he was

also told that the RCMP was going to interview Ministers Collins and Reid about

the documents. The special prosecutor instructed that this information not be

shared, yet we know it was.

Does the Premier agree that sharing this information with Mr.

Dobell may have provided the means for Mr. Collins, Ms. Reid and others to be

informed about the nature of the RCMP's concerns prior to the interviews, and

does the Premier not agree that this is a serious breach in the integrity of the

RCMP investigation?

Hon. W. Oppal: Well, I'm somewhat disappointed in the

member opposite, who is a member of the bar. He obviously has.…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Continue, Attorney.

Hon. W. Oppal: He has obviously ignored the

well-established principle of judicial independence. We will not ignore that

principle on this side of the House.

B. Ralston: The Premier felt comfortable enough to discuss

these issues last spring in estimates debate here in this very room. Mr. Dobell

confirmed Friday that he was under no obligation of confidentiality with respect

to these documents. He had not signed an undertaking to the court. During the

period in question, there were at least four cabinet meetings involving many of

the people who were to be interviewed by the RCMP.

The Attorney General must see that the disclosure to Mr. Dobell

tainted the investigation. This wasn't a leak from the RCMP. This wasn't a leak

from the special prosecutor's office. It occurred between the Ministry of

Attorney General and the Premier's office. What is the Premier going to do about

it?

Hon. W. Oppal: These issues are all before the Supreme

Court of British Columbia. Madam Justice Elizabeth Bennett is hearing the case.

She will make the appropriate findings, and we'll live by them.

Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental.

B. Ralston: The issue of the documents before the court was

discussed here in estimates debate in spring 2007, so that excuse simply doesn't

wash. The Ministry of Attorney General informed the Deputy Minister to the

Premier about key documents that the RCMP wished to use to question Ministers

Collins and Reid. This was contrary to a protocol approved by the Supreme Court

restricting access to the documents to four people only.

These actions of the Ministry of Attorney General may well have

tainted the integrity of the RCMP investigation. If the Attorney General won't

act, will he at least agree that the matter be referred to the RCMP for their

investigation?

Hon. W. Oppal: If the process was tainted, we'll let the

judge make that finding. We don't have to make that finding here.

CLOSING OF PSYCHIATRIC WARD

IN PORT ALBERNI HOSPITAL

S. Fraser: The Vancouver Island Health Authority last week

shut down the psychiatric ward at the West Coast General Hospital in Port

Alberni with only two days' notice. The ward is now closed despite opposition

from the community and from doctors. I know the

[ Page 12270 ]

minister will say that this is because one of the psychiatric doctors was

leaving the community, but it is well known in Port Alberni — and the minister

should know this — that general practitioners play a very vital role in

psychiatric care. There is no reason why that can't continue in the designated

ward.

The ward is an integral part of the health care continuum of Port

Alberni and the entire west coast and Pacific Rim, and everyone in the community

understands that it is a vital service. Everyone understands what a mistake it

is to close the ward. The closure is about hurting communities, not about

helping patients. Will the minister commit to reopening the ward?

Hon. G. Abbott: It is interesting that this member of the

Legislature would submit his political judgment in place of the medical

judgments of the professionals at the Vancouver Island Health Authority. The

fact of the matter is that Port Alberni has lost one of its two psychiatrists.

They are not able to maintain the programs at the hospital as a consequence of

that.

[1430]

As the member knows well, Vancouver Island Health Authority is

recruiting extensively to replace this position. But until it is replaced, they

will not be able to provide those services. It is perhaps unfortunate that we do

have, provincially and nationally, a shortage of psychiatrists. That is one of

the consequences of the lack of investment in health care professionals in the

1990s by the NDP government.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

The member has a supplemental.

S. Fraser: I mean, the answer doesn't befit a minister of

the Crown. It's more like an answer from an uninterested spectator. For a moment

I thought I was asking a question on forestry.

We've heard this before from the minister and from VIHA — that

it's a worldwide shortage. The problem with doctor shortage in Port Alberni was

solved by the former chief of staff and the local community, which worked

together a couple of years ago. The response from VIHA and the minister was to

fire the chief of staff, because it made them look bad.

Another thing. There's nothing on the VIHA website. There are no

ads for this position. There are no ads on the Health Match B.C. website.

There's nothing. The minister is patently wrong here. Simply put, this closure

is unnecessary and will only serve to put patients and staff at risk in this

community.

My question is to the Minister of Health, or to the spectator of

health. There is no reason for the psychiatric ward to close. There is no reason

to transport psychiatric patients for hours. There's been no discussion with the

RCMP. There's been no discussion whatsoever. This government is picking apart

health care in the region. On Wednesday the minister gave the community two

days' notice that that ward would be closed. Will the minister today give the

community two days' notice that he will ensure it's reopened?

Hon. G. Abbott: One of the things I will not be doing is

submitting the political judgment of the member for the medical judgment of the

Vancouver Island Health Authority. That I will not be doing.

I know the members opposite don't like to hear this, but when the

1990s started, there were 128 physicians being educated annually at the

University of British Columbia. When the decade ended, in fact to 2001, there

were…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. G. Abbott: …128 physicians being graduated annually

from the University of British Columbia.

Last fall our government, after its investment, saw 256 students

registering — 256 medical students at UBC, at the University of Victoria and at

the University of Northern British Columbia.

[End of question period.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: I call second reading debate of Bill 31,

Greenhouse Gas Reduction (Emissions Standards) Statutes Amendment Act, 2008; and

in

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

the Ministry of Children and Family Development.

Second Reading of Bills

GREENHOUSE GAS REDUCTION

(EMISSIONS STANDARDS)

STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 2008

Hon. B. Penner: I move that Bill 31 now be read a second

time.

I'll canvass in a bit more detail than I did in first reading some

of the key elements of Bill 31. The first portion….

Interjections.

Hon. B. Penner: Mr. Speaker, would you like me to pause for

a moment while some members calm down?

Mr. Speaker: Members, would you go about whatever business

you have outside the chamber.

Continue, Minister.

[1435]

Hon. B. Penner: The first portion of this bill consists of

amendments to the Environmental Management Act. These amendments will add new

provisions to address the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions

[ Page 12271 ]

from certain industry sectors, one of them being waste management facilities,

which includes landfills, sewage treatment plants, waste incinerators and

recycling or composting facilities.

New authority being added to the act will allow the government to

require operators of specified waste management facilities to capture and manage

greenhouse gases produced by wastes that they handle. This legislation will

allow the government to regulate a wide range of sources and techniques to

mitigate greenhouse gas emissions generated by the decomposition of waste.

[K. Whittred in the chair.]

The intention is to focus on landfills first. As a sector,

landfills are a significant source of greenhouse gas emissions, accounting for

about 8 percent of British Columbia's total greenhouse gas emissions. The main

component of landfill gas is methane. Tonne for tonne, this gas has a greenhouse

gas impact in the atmosphere that is 21 times greater than the effects of carbon

dioxide, which is the most common greenhouse gas.

Regulating for the capture of methane from landfills is,

therefore, an effective way to make significant headway in reducing British

Columbia's contribution to global greenhouse gas emissions. When compared to

some other greenhouse gas reduction actions, capturing landfill gas is also a

relatively efficient way to reduce emissions.

The other industry sector being addressed by the addition of new

authorities to the Environmental Management Act is power generation. These

amendments will put into law two key commitments in this government's energy

plan concerning greenhouse gas emissions from electricity generation facilities.

The first of these commitments is to require that there be zero

greenhouse gas emissions from any coal thermal electricity generation in British

Columbia. This means that coal-based generating facilities will need to capture

and store or sequester their greenhouse gas emissions. The legislation

recognizes that some coal-based generation facilities may use more than one kind

of fuel. For those facilities, the requirement to capture and store or sequester

applies only to the coal-related emissions.

Since it may not always be feasible to separate the actual

coal-related emissions from emissions produced from other fuels, the legislation

provides that the requirement to capture and store emissions can be met by

storing or sequestering greenhouse gas emissions from the same facility that are

equivalent to the emissions produced by the burning of coal. The overall aim is

to ensure that coal-based generation facilities in this province will not add to

the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

This legislation also recognizes that technology is evolving and

that ways to both capture and store or sequester emissions will improve and

change over time. With this in mind, the act provides authority to make

regulations on acceptable methods and standards for the capture and storage of

emissions.

The second energy plan commitment addressed by this legislation is

the requirement that all new electricity generation will have "zero net"

greenhouse gas emissions and that existing thermal facilities will have zero net

greenhouse gas emissions by 2016. This means that greenhouse gases produced by

these facilities must be offset.

Specified producers of electricity, which will be defined by

regulations based on their use of fossil fuels other than coal, will be required

to report on their emissions and balance any greenhouse gas emissions that they

do not store or sequester by using offsets, much like the compliance framework

proposed as part of the Greenhouse Gas Reduction (Cap and Trade) Act.

The net zero emissions requirement will apply not just to

load-serving public utilities like B.C. Hydro but to all generation facilities

connected to the grid, including independent power producers. Together these two

requirements — zero emissions for coal-based generation and net zero for other

electricity generation — will allow the province to reduce greenhouse gas

emissions from our electricity generation sector.

Along with this government's support for renewable energy sources

like run-of-river hydro projects, expansion to B.C. Hydro facilities, future

wind power projects and wood waste, the new provisions in the Environmental

Management Act will ensure that British Columbia will continue to have one of

the lowest greenhouse gas emission electricity sectors in the world.

This bill also contains legislation developed by the Ministry of

Forests and Range. The bioenergy strategy amendments to the Forest Act will

provide new licensing provisions that will enable the better use of wood residue

for mountain pine–beetle attack timber as a source of power, thereby encouraging

the development of the bioenergy sector.

This government is committed to taking action on climate change

while also creating new economic opportunities for rural communities. We also

want British Columbia to be self-sufficient again in meeting our electricity

needs, and we've set a target date of 2016 for accomplishing that. All these

goals are discussed in the energy plan and the bioenergy strategy. The bioenergy

strategy makes it clear that we can make better use of our abundant natural

biomass resources such as wood waste and mountain pine beetle–kill timber.

This bill delivers on this idea by encouraging the use of wood

fibre as a potential source of bioenergy power. The provisions in this bill will

improve access to fibre in several ways. 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. This will streamline the issuing of licences

and eliminate government's obligation to conduct a duplicate competitive award

process.

[1440]

A new form of the licence-to-cut tenure is also being created

called the fibre supply licence to cut. It will provide access to timber that is

desirable for bioenergy or other purposes, including piles of waste wood left at

roadsides or landings. The rights of existing licensees will be protected by

ensuring rights to these piles are

[ Page 12272 ]

issued only if the primary licensee has no interest in the waste wood.

Authorities concerning forestry licence to cut are also being

updated to do two things. First, the amendments will allow this form of licence

to be used to enable the removal and processing of waste timber at roadsides and

landings.

Second, the changes will enable the existing forestry licence to

cut for standing timber to be direct-awarded to successful applicants responding

to B.C. Hydro's call for power.

Authorities in the forest legislation concerning timber scaling

requirements are also being updated by this bill to facilitate the measurement

of chips and other material to support the bioenergy industry. This will

facilitate more efficient and cost-effective operations. These amendments will

also create the means to enforce the chief forester's partition of the allowable

annual cut for certain purposes, such as the harvest of beetle wood.

Lastly, this bill contains minor housekeeping amendments to the

Forest Act and the Forest and Range Practices Act.

To sum up, the amendments to the forest legislation will further

the work of this government in achieving its bioenergy strategy, creating new

opportunities for rural communities and ensuring sounds management of forest

resources. Meanwhile, the amendments to the Environmental Management Act will

provide new authority to address greenhouse gas emissions from waste management

facilities and electricity generation.

I'll take my place and see if there are any comments from the

opposition on second reading.

S. Simpson: I am pleased to have the opportunity to stand

and speak to Bill 31, the Greenhouse Gas Reduction (Emissions Standards)

Statutes Amendment Act, 2008. This particular piece of legislation deals with a

couple of changes, some very specific changes — though there's not information

to tell us what the results of that will be — related to forestry in the

province and the creation of new tenures.

This is of concern, certainly, to the industry, to first nations

and to others, and I'll look forward to having the opportunity a little bit

later in this discussion to speak to that. I would acknowledge that I am the

designated speaker on this bill.

The bill also deals with changes that relate to coal-fired

electricity and, in particular, to carbon capture-and-storage approaches or

strategies related to that, strategies that we'll talk about a little bit as I

proceed. We know that technology certainly is not developed today and presents

some real challenges for us as we move forward around how that will work.

It also talks, significantly, about other forms of electricity

generation and zero emissions on electricity generation. What the bill talks

about generally, when you look at it…. As the minister referenced in his

comments, it does go back and deal with the energy plan that was introduced last

year.

The disappointing thing about the bill is that it really doesn't

take the discussion that was in the energy plan and advance it any further than

what was put in that document at that time. So we've had a significant period of

time pass, and this piece of legislation doesn't tell us a lot more about what

will actually occur or not occur because of the plan.

The plan itself, the energy plan, referenced a number of items,

and we were told at that time to wait for the legislation. We were told that

when the legislation came, it would inform the plan, and it would tell us what

was anticipated. It would give us some substance and detail in regard to how the

government planned to move forward — in this case, around emission standards.

[1445]

Unfortunately, the legislation doesn't do that. What the

legislation does is…. This piece of legislation is very similar to most of the

bills that the Minister of Environment has introduced in regard to climate

change issues in this session. It's an enabling bill. Now, what that means, for

people who might be listening, is that it's a bill that creates a framework for

taking certain actions — actions that are vague at best.

It authorizes a regulatory regime. People who are interested in

this debate and certainly concerned about the issue of climate change and

greenhouse gas emissions should know that those regulations now are done by

cabinet. What that means is that there is no legislative oversight. In most of

these instances, as with other pieces of legislation that we'll talk about a

little bit, the bill says very little about what the government actually hopes

to achieve. It says little about the analysis that has been done, if any, to

tell us where we're going. There are no background, supporting documents

provided for this legislation.

Instead, it says, "Trust me," again, for the minister and for

cabinet to put in place any regulations that they deem appropriate. There is no

need to have any consultation about those regulations. It's not a requirement.

There's no need to have any discussions with members of this House about those

regulations. It is not a requirement. There's no need to inform the public about

what's being deliberated so that input can be got before decisions are taken.

As we know, the level of secrecy that has been embraced by this

Premier and by this minister and this cabinet around the whole climate change

issue…. And the secrecy continues to be a matter that is mind-boggling for most

people — that on this issue of such global importance the government would

resist talking to British Columbians about their plans or engaging British

Columbians in helping to evolve those plans.

Instead, what we have is another piece of enabling legislation

that suggests that there may be some changes made. The minister would tell us

that it's a piece of legislation that fulfils the commitments of the energy

plan, but to fulfil the commitments of the energy plan, in my view, requires the

government to tell us much more than they're prepared to tell us in Bill 31. It

would require the government to talk to us about how they actually get at some

of these challenges that are identified in the bill.

[ Page 12273 ]

How do we actually get at those zero emissions that they talk

about for electricity? What is the coal capture and storage, the sequestration

strategy? How is that going to get put in place? As we know, there's a great

amount of work to be done on that issue before it gets commercialized in a way

that industry can actually accomplish the sequestration that everybody talks

about and that we certainly hope is successful. There is an open and very public

debate about whether that will or won't work. There are people who are clear

advocates, and I would be hopeful that carbon capture and storage can be made to

work.

It's very important for us, certainly, as a province that has a

pretty strong coalmining industry and one that needs to be able to proceed. But

we need to find ways to do that with additional technology that deals with the

results of that industry in terms of those buyers of our coal who primarily use

it to burn for electricity production. We, of course, as British Columbia,

should feel some obligation to be working to develop that carbon

capture-and-storage technology to be able to sell it as a complement to coal as

we move forward.

Getting back to the reference that I was making in terms of what

the bill does and doesn't do, the bill doesn't talk about…. It's interesting.

The bill talks about greenhouse gases in its introduction, its subject matter

and its title.

[1450]

Yet I would challenge anybody — and the minister, maybe at some

point when he gets to close comments — to get up and point out in this

legislation where it actually talks about how greenhouse gas emissions get

reduced by this bill, what the approach is to that, how much they might get

reduced by, what kinds of penalties might be put in place for those who don't

follow the approaches here, how the technology for sequestration will get

developed and what the projections and expectations are about reducing emissions

from that.

The problem is that that information…. This bill, this

legislation, doesn't touch those matters in any way, shape or form. It doesn't

talk about any of the issues about how we get at greenhouse gas reductions, and

that's a problem. It is the same problem, I think, as I've pointed out, that we

see with pretty much all the legislation that's been brought by the Minister of

Environment on this issue in this session. We will get to talk about it all, or

certainly a good portion of it, before the government brings closure.

Every one of those bills functions in much the same way as this —

as an enabling piece of legislation. That's a problem.

If you talk to people who are experts in this field — whether it

be academics, people in the environmental community, people in the business

community — they look at bills like Bill 31 or Bill 18, the cap-and-trade bill,

and their response to us is: "It tells us nothing about what the government is

actually going to do. It gives us no formal process to engage in these

discussions. It gives us no confidence that the government is going to develop

plans that are sustainable for British Columbia and that will, first of all,

actually lead to reductions in greenhouse gases; second, that will provide

support for industry and for communities as they cope to deal with these

reductions in emissions; and third, that actually engages us in a discussion of

these solutions."

Bill 31 does none of that. It doesn't offer that opportunity up in

any way, shape or form for British Columbians, for the business community, for

the environmental community. Nor did, for example, Bill 18, the cap-and-trade

bill that we are in the process of discussing now.

Just to speak a little bit about the kind of challenge we have

here. On the issue of coal and coal sequestration, I spoke a moment ago about

the challenge of actually getting at this technology and determining what this

technology can and can't do. Well, there isn't a technology today. There

certainly are some pilot projects. There are some investments going on in

Saskatchewan and elsewhere. The federal government has put some dollars in play

to try to develop some capture-and-storage solutions, but it hasn't been done

yet.

So we don't know what this looks like. For people who might be

listening, essentially the process largely for this with coal is what's called a

gasification process where you separate out the gases, the CO 2 , or the carbon

dioxide, and the hydrogen mostly, and then you find ways to sequester or store

the CO 2 underground — which is the primary gas around greenhouse gases.

It's a complicated piece of work to do that. There is work going

on. I know in the United States they have invested significantly in looking at

sequestration or capture-and-storage strategies. There are investments going on

in Saskatchewan.

I would note that there is no investment in looking at that in

British Columbia that we can see. Certainly, the government has talked about it

in their energy plan. The minister has talked about it, but in terms of actually

investing dollars in helping to see how that works, we haven't seen dollars

invested to support that kind of research and technology.

[1455]

That has to raise a question, and it is a question about

credibility. The question about credibility is this: if, as a government, you

put forward a plan as one of the cornerstone plans of a piece of legislation on

how you're going to reduce emissions through a strategy or a technology that is

in its formative stages, that has not been developed yet, that has not been

commercialized yet and is not being put into place yet…. You put forward pieces

of legislation that say, "This is what we're going to accomplish," using

something that is unproven. Then you refuse in your budget or anywhere in the

legislation or anywhere else to talk about how you, in fact, will support the

development of that technology.

It is irresponsible to simply say that we're going to adopt a

technology that everybody knows doesn't exist yet. There's been some hopeful

work done. There certainly have been other efforts made around this, but the

technology doesn't exist. That is the shame with this legislation. It is another

piece of legislation, much like most of the rest of the legislation we've seen

that comes with the

preamble "greenhouse gas reduction" in it from the Minister

of Environment, that is not

[ Page 12274 ]

based on any work. It's legislation that's based on shallow rhetoric. It's

legislation that's based on trying to grab a headline.

Maybe just to give you my sense of why this has happened in this

session with Bill 31, with other bills. When the government brought the budget

forward, there was a lot of hype around how this was going to be the green

budget for this government, framed largely around the fuel tax. We did get a

fuel tax in the budget, and I would note that that piece of legislation is a

substantive piece of legislation. It provides the details that the legislation

offered up by the Minister of Environment — like Bill 31 — doesn't.

I would say that the fuel tax does provide a significant amount of

detail, and it's easy enough to read that and to be briefed on that by ministry

officials and to understand where this goes. The shortcomings, the places where

the government doesn't have answers in that bill and where the Minister of

Finance didn't have answers, are easily identifiable, and ministry staff would

acknowledge that they don't have answers around those questions. But it is a

substantive bill. It does talk about what penalties look like. It does talk

about dollars and cents. It does talk about levels. It does talk about all of

those things.

Bill 31, like Bill 18, talks about none of those things as an

enabling piece of legislation, and it embraces technology that isn't

operationalized yet. So that's a big challenge. I guess the question…. We'll,

hopefully, have some discussion of this, should we get this bill to committee

stage, and we'll have to see whether the government brings it for committee

stage or not. When we get this bill to committee stage, we'll certainly be

looking for an explanation of how the government and the minister plan to

accomplish those things that are identified in the bill.

Getting back to what I was talking about. This is part of the

reason, I suspect, that this bill, along with a number of other bills that are a

lot like it…. Pretty shallow. Not much in the way of substance. Back-load

everything into regulation so that the minister, or more correctly the Premier,

can write those regulations in due course somewhere down the road and can do it

in secret, talking to whoever they want to, but not having to tell anybody who

those discussions are with.

What we had, though, was a budget that said it was the green

budget. It talked about a fuel tax that, in fact, was brought forward, and it

then said that there would be a number of initiatives. We were told about a

plan, a climate change plan. We haven't seen that plan yet. Maybe we'll see it

sometime in the next couple of months after we're out of this place.

We were told that there would be a plan. Well, the budget really

brought the tax, and it brought a handful of items that got PST exemptions

through 2011. In terms of climate change, greenhouse gas emissions, that's

largely what was brought. We'll get a chance to talk about the tax when the

government deems to bring that piece of legislation for debate.

[1500]

What we do know is that there was this huge vacuum after the

government had told us that this was the green budget. That vacuum has now been

filled up, so to speak, by half a dozen pieces of legislation, mostly under the

name of the Minister of Environment, though some under other ministers. It's

been brought forward to say: "Here you go. We've cobbled together what might be

the climate change plan."

The problem, of course, is that those pieces of legislation don't

connect to each other very well. They certainly don't look like a plan or at

least a plan that any thought has been put into. And of course, they don't

connect to the other activity going on in the province and other public policy

of this government. We'll talk about that a little bit — in the area,

particularly around this, when it comes to questions around forestry and

bioenergy and the total disconnect between what's being discussed here and the

state of affairs in our forests in British Columbia today.

What we have is a situation where we do need to get at this issue.

We would call on and certainly encourage the government that if they're going to

adopt legislation like this — if they're going to come forward and talk about

things like sequestration — they actually put in place some resources and some

expertise to be able to go out and explore that issue; that they make available

to the public some understanding about what the state of affairs on carbon

capture and storage is — information about what research is going on in those

areas and some understanding of when it's reasonably expected and, hopefully,

some understanding from an independent authority about when that technology

might be in place and when we might expect it to proceed.

There clearly is a large debate about that issue around carbon

capture and storage. That issue is often spoken about in terms of whether we

should or shouldn't be doing carbon capture and storage. For us, in coal, I

think it makes sense. We would be supportive of looking at an effective program

that actually got us there. We would like very much for the government to come

forward and tell us where that program is and how we might expect to see that

program moving forward.

Part of the challenge we have is also with some of the things that

we know aren't in the bill. We know there are things that are, of course, in the

energy plan.

[Interruption.]

S. Simpson: There you go. Somebody is paying tonight.

Interjections.

S. Simpson: There are pieces of the energy plan that aren't

enabled by this particular legislation, and we will look to see where the

legislation comes for that. The bill doesn't talk about ensuring that the clean

or renewable electricity generation continues to count for at least 90 percent

of new generation, which the government has talked about, but we don't see that

in this particular piece of bill.

We know this is a very big issue in communities. We've heard from

people in first nations communities

[ Page 12275 ]

and others. It doesn't talk about how it deals with issues around coalbed gas

practices in North America and here in British Columbia and how we will deal

with that.

I would note that the bill, when it talks about emissions

reductions, doesn't talk about how it gets that flaring and fugitive gas from

our oil and gas sector. We haven't heard anything about that. The government has

said continually that their goal is to eliminate that by 2016 and to reduce by

half the flaring and fugitive gases by 2011, I believe.

The challenge, of course, is that we're getting pretty close to

2011, and we still haven't heard how that might occur to get that 50 percent

reduction.

[1505]

This might be an ideal piece of legislation for the government to

have included that piece in and said: "Here's how we're going to get at flaring

and fugitive emissions." That would have been a positive thing for the

government to do. It would have been a substantive thing for the government to

do, because we do know that flaring and fugitive emissions are a significant

problem and contribute to our emissions. Yet we didn't hear anything about that.

We didn't hear anything about that at all.

I know I have colleagues in the House who will speak to this

matter as well, but I want to move my discussion over a little bit to the

section on bioenergy.

The bill purports, really, to be designed to help emissions by

getting us into bioenergy in a more substantive way than we are today. But what

it doesn't do — and this is unfortunate…. It talks about getting into bioenergy.

It talks about significant changes, particularly around forestry and around

tenure relationship. But it gives us no idea about what those reductions in

emissions might well be. It doesn't tell us what we can expect to get in terms

of reduced emissions there.

While the number is a modest number in the fuel tax bill, the

Minister of Finance told us in the budget that her expectation was that by 2020,

the fuel tax would reduce about three megatons of emissions. I think she said

that. I think the budget number says that.

That's an optimistic number, but the three megatons is the number

there. That would be a little more than about 2 percent of our overall emissions

in British Columbia. That's what will be accomplished by the fuel tax, and we'll

have a discussion here about whether or not that constitutes an effective tax

when that piece of legislation comes. At least there was a number that said:

"Here's what we think we're going to accomplish by doing this."

In regards to this bioenergy strategy…. Among other things, we get

no number. We have no idea what will be accomplished by this approach to

bioenergy. But while we have no idea how this works, what we do know is that

this notion of creating a whole other set of tenures for bioenergy creates a

complication in a sector, a key industry, that is in crisis.

We discuss this industry in question period just about every day

because of the 13,000 people…. Some 13,000 jobs gone in the last year or so

because of the crisis that has been created. We would say, and we know, that a

significant part of that crisis relates to fibre supply. We know a significant

amount of that crisis relates to the lack of fibre coming into mills for them to

be able to do the work that they can do, and that is a huge, huge problem.

We now are looking at creating here, under this structure,

probably an opportunity for the private power operators to look at how they get

into bioenergy. The discussion here isn't around how we can in fact begin to

create maybe opportunities for others who are already working to be able to take

advantage of some bioenergy opportunities that already exist with existing

facilities, where there's some room to work around that.

The suggestion here is that if we're going to harvest trees for

the purpose of bioenergy, there's a serious question about the economics of

this. We know the government has not judged the economics of this industry very

well, and that's reflected in the 13,000 people who don't have a job today, who

did have a job a year or so ago.

What we know, of course, when we look at this…. We can look at

what that effect has been on this sector. We've seen 271 jobs lost in Mackenzie.

We've seen 530 jobs in Harmac. We've seen the Fort St. James mill — 270-odd jobs

there.

[1510]

These are all situations where the question of the future of the

forest sector and tenure — and supply is a key piece of that — has not been

addressed effectively by this government and is arguably not being addressed

effectively now. Yet we have Bill 31, and what Bill 31 is prepared to do is in

fact create the potential, the framework, for a totally different approach to

how we deal with some of these issues.

It's done without at this point…. At least it hasn't been made

available to us. We haven't seen the science — that we're going to burn that

wood waste, and we're going to burn that wood product — to really understand

what the implications of that are for reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. I

think most of us here would say that maybe that works well. We're accelerating

the loss of carbon from primarily, in this case, the dead forests or wood waste.

We might accelerate that by burning it. There's no doubt about that.

But we don't know what the long-term implications of doing that

are. That's a question that requires an answer. It's a question that requires an

answer not just around this issue around bioenergy, but it's the much broader

question around climate change and the lack of plan.

Maybe when the climate action team reports out in July, they will

have done the work. Hard to say. Maybe they'll have done the work. Maybe at some

point the secretariat will release information, but hard to say. There's

certainly no indication of that now, as to the independent assessment of a

number of these schemes of the government and what the actual projections are on

reductions in emissions.

I understand the government is paying Mr. Jaccard pretty well to

deal with these things, so maybe he's

[ Page 12276 ]

going to do those assessments and provide that information. The hope we would

have is that if he's doing this work or if they've contracted somebody else or

if it's being done in house by Mr. Whitmarsh and his team — if it's being done

by anybody in a substantive way — they will make that information available.

They will be able to talk about Bill 31 and what the bioenergy strategy in Bill

31 looks like. What does it mean in terms of emissions, and what are the

challenges in terms of emissions? But we haven't seen any of that. We haven't

seen any of that at all.

We also know that we have a current situation where there is an

issue around planning in the forest sector. As I said previously, that is a

discussion that comes up in this House on a daily basis as members on this side

go home to their communities or visit other communities in this province and

hear from forest workers and their families and hear from the leadership of

those communities who see a crisis unfolding in front of them, see their jobs

disappearing and are looking for help and for a plan that they think will work.

But we don't have that plan right now. Instead of a plan being

done that will actually deal with those challenges around the forest industry,

the government is suggesting here in Bill 31 adding a new layer of tenure

without any review of the impact on annual allowable cut on mid- and long-term

timber supplies — on how that will work.

The question becomes: is it responsible to take that kind of

action when you haven't done the work on the industry and on the sector in the

first case? That is a challenge.

I think that with the bill, we need to look at a couple of things,

and I'd like to talk a little bit about some of those things that we need to

look at. We are looking for a much better explanation around how, in fact, we

get to zero emissions in electricity. The bill talks about offsets as an

approach to do that.

[1515]

We on this side of the House are of the view, in regard to the use

of offsets, that offsets provide an interim tool while you develop the

technology to actually reduce emissions. They shouldn't be a way to buy your way

out of responsibility to reduce emissions. They provide a tool that gives you

some time to do that work to reduce your emissions.

That's an important tool, and we're supportive of an offsets

program as a tool to be used for that. We are much less enthusiastic about the

ability of industry or others to buy their way out of taking action to actually

reduce greenhouse gases by deciding it's a cost of doing business to buy

offsets.

As you know, there were questions raised today by the member for

Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows in regard to what those offset programs look like,

needing to have a good understanding of which programs are available for offsets

and how they should be used — how you deal with organizations or groups that

want to put offset businesses in place — and ensuring that they are in fact

delivering on their promises and that if we're buying into a particular set of

offsets as are suggested in Bill 31, we are in fact accomplishing the objectives

of net zero that the minister talked about.

The problem is that we don't have that information. The government

has not made that information available. We have no sense right now about what

the government's policy on offsets will be.

In some cases, and we may find this, there may be industries where

for the foreseeable future reducing emissions is a challenge that we can't get

around. Aviation may be one of those sectors. Progress is being made, but

depending on who you talk to, it has a long way to go before we see significant

reductions in aviation. Aviation is an area where offsets might be a reality for

us for an extended period of time.

If we identify industries that fit that bill, then they should be

identified and labelled as such. There should be reporting and monitoring around

that and insurances that those industries as well, even where it's somewhat more

challenging, are continuing to strive to find the reductions in emissions that

we know need to be put in place.

We don't know from Bill 31 what the government's intentions around

offsets are, other than that they reference offsets in the bill as a way to get

to net zero around electricity production. So the question then becomes: what is

it that we're doing around getting to net zero there?

We also know there's a discussion in the bill…. The bill speaks to

enforcement. The bill speaks to the ability to get at ensuring that records are

in fact retained, etc., in regard to some of the pieces of the bill. I look

particularly at the waste management facilities. In other sections of the bill

it also talks about records being kept.

What it doesn't talk about anywhere in the bill is who has access

to those records. How transparent will that be? How available will that

information be for the public so that they can have confidence that the

expectations that are supposed to be accomplished by the bill…?

At some point presumably in regulation, we're going to see some

kind of numbers put to these regulations. We're going to have a reasonable

expectation about what the actions of Bill 31 should accomplish in terms of

reductions in emissions. What should we reasonably expect?

What will we measure against? There should be some explanation —

and it's not here — about how we will measure those reductions. Will the

companies measure those reductions and report it? Will the government measure

those reductions themselves? How is that all going to work? We don't know that

yet.

[1520]

I'm assuming that we're going to see some broader framework for

how we measure those emission reductions. We're going to see that at some point

from the government. It's apparently not going to be in this session. Maybe it

will be in the spring or at some time in the future. We don't see any of that at

this point to know what we should reasonably expect to accomplish and how it

gets measured.

[ Page 12277 ]

As important — and this is certainly an issue that is a critical

for us as the opposition — is how that gets reported out to the people of

British Columbia so that everybody has access to information that will tell them

what the government reasonably expects to accomplish in emission reductions,

what is actually being accomplished and how it fits with these particular pieces

of legislation and these particular bills. A number of them are in front of us

today. How will we measure those reductions in emissions in regard to those

bills? It will take us a little bit of time until we get to that.

Part of the challenge, of course, is around needing to have a

better sense of how the government will apply this particular work to other

policies in the province. We have the booming oil and gas sector. As I noted, we

saw nothing in this legislation about controlling flaring in that sector. It's

something that we think needs to be done.

We know the coal industry is a very important industry. Coalmining

is very important. It's an important sector for us to be able to take advantage

of. However, we have no sense about what we can reasonably expect to accomplish

there.

We have no sense about how we measure progress. Are we to expect

that in 2016, I believe, we will have sequestration in place? Should this

government survive through the next election, are we to hear silence between now

and whenever on these issues? Or is there some way that British Columbians can

get to know how that carbon capture and storage planning is going and who will

be doing the work?

Possibly that's not going to be at issue at all. It may be that

instead what we will see is the government simply silent on this issue until

such time as the federal government or Saskatchewan or West Virginia or the U.S.

government or somebody else comes up with a plan that works, and then the

government may look to adopt that. I guess that's not an unreasonable approach

to take.

It is essentially the approach that the government is taking

around tailpipe emission standards, as they relate to California, in another

piece of legislation that we will presumably soon see in front of this House,

where the government doesn't really know how they're going to approach this.

That's again reflected in the legislation. It's much like this legislation or

like Bill 18 on cap-and-trade. There at least we do know there's work being done

in California on tailpipe emission standards. Should California ever settle its

legal differences with the Environmental Protection Agency in the United States,

that may actually move forward, and we might make some progress on that.

In that instance, it's important to know that California, a

jurisdiction unlike British Columbia, pays a lot of attention to transparency

and to making information available to their citizens. They have done a pretty

good job of that in relation to a whole range of climate initiatives that

they've taken, including the issues around tailpipe emissions and how they deal

with that.

Not so much, here in British Columbia. We have levels of

unprecedented secrecy here in British Columbia. In California they talk to their

citizens about issues that are important to them. We do things differently in

British Columbia, as we know.

This is a bill that we'll be looking for more information on as it

goes forward. I would say: does everybody in this House want to find a way to

have clean coal, as it's called, where we can effectively sequester CO 2

emissions and be able to allow coal to go forward? Absolutely. It's particularly

important in British Columbia, because our coal industry is an important

industry for us.

[1525]

We're starting to see this now, as there's more and more talk

about carbon tariffs and issues like that. We will start to see, at least in

some countries, greater pressure if you're exporting products like coal that are

significant CO 2 generators. There will be tariffs attached to that.

That's not necessarily a bad thing. If we're going to move forward

on climate initiatives here, we may see ourselves doing similar things as well.

But we can expect that to occur at some time in the not that distant future. If

we had could develop that technology and sell it, it would be an excellent

thing. Along with the coal, that would be very positive. That's a very good

thing. If we can make that progress, that would be great.

The challenge here is some lack of confidence that this bill

really takes us anywhere in that direction. It lays out a framework about what

we might like to see but doesn't tell us anything about how we get there. It's

the same thing in relation to electricity production, where it talks about a net

zero on emissions there — a very positive thing. We certainly want to get our

emissions down.

Of course, we know that in terms of electricity, our emissions are

pretty good because of the vision — it wasn't necessarily for the reason of

climate change — of W.A.C. Bennett and the creation of B.C. Hydro and the

creation of our heritage dams and the progress that we've made there. It's very,

very important for us to continue to support B.C. Hydro and move B.C. Hydro

forward on these issues, and we would be very keen to do that. The more work we

can do around net zero emissions, all the better.

The same around change as it relates to waste management

facilities, to manage waste-generated GHGs. That's another piece in the bill

that I haven't spoken very much about. Absolutely, waste management is a very

important issue in British Columbia. We know that in Vancouver, of course, we

have the debate going on between incinerators versus landfills and what the

future holds.

I anticipate that the Minister of Environment at some point will

have something specific to say about his views on that as it relates to Metro

Vancouver. Clearly, whatever the decisions are there, we do need to ensure that

how we manage our waste management is done with a recognition of greenhouse gas

emissions and with a recognition that we want to drive those emissions down to

the lowest possible levels.

Again the legislation, Bill 31, tells us nothing about how we get

there. Instead, it lists a long list of

[ Page 12278 ]

questions for regulation that will be answered in the regulatory process by

the minister, by the Premier, by the cabinet — a series of questions that

basically encompass all of the substantive information related to dealing with

those emissions. That, of course, reflects on exactly what we're being told as

it relates to the coal sequestration and to the electricity.

The other matter, though — and that's the one that's a little bit

more concerning — certainly is the issue around bioenergy and the question there

around whether this is in fact the right time to be doing those kinds of

tenures, whether there isn't a better way to approach that, whether we need to

make some changes around that. That's a piece of the legislation that is

concerning, considering the current state of affairs in the forest industry

generally.

It's a

section that other members will speak more about in this

debate, and it's a

section that we will look to explore more when we get to

committee stage and begin to deal with committees.

I look forward to us being able to move into a committee

discussion. I have a number of colleagues who, as with myself, are supportive of

the aspirations of the bill to bring greenhouse gas emissions down. However, as

I've said, we don't see anywhere in here where that actually occurs. We do have,

in particular, serious questions around the tenure issues around bioenergy that

are in the bill. So we will have an opportunity to have some more debate.

[1530]

Every member, of course, has the prerogative to stand and speak to

this legislation. Just as an aside, it would be nice, having watched a number of

bills go through this House — and I know that colleagues of mine have said this

on this side — if we engaged in a debate that engaged both sides of the House.

Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to occur all that often.

[S. Hammell in the chair.]

Instead, we have a practice where the minister gets up…. Most

ministers — some are a little more verbose than others — get up and tell us for

15 minutes what the bill will do and read their notes and then take their place.

Then the debate settles, and there is no more debate from the government side of

the House, and issues are raised on this side.

It's unfortunate that members of the government side don't appear

to see value in actually talking about why they've put forward particular

legislation. It's unfortunate that members of the government side don't see any

particular value in talking about what their constituents do or don't think

about a piece of legislation.

Instead we have this practice now where, as I said, the minister

gets up and talks for 15 or 20 minutes, and then what happens after that is that

the government side goes silent. This side raises issues that have been raised

for us by our constituents, by stakeholders, by community interests, by local

community leaders and elected officials, but clearly, it's not a debate the

other side feels a need to engage in.

Deputy Speaker: On Bill 31, Member.

S. Simpson: Bill 31 does create another piece of

legislation that I hope won't be treated that way. So I'm looking forward very

much to having ministers and members on that side get up and fully engage this

debate along with this side. I look forward to committee stage when it comes,

and now we'll see who next wants to speak to this bill.

J. Horgan: It's a pleasure to rise and speak to Bill 31,

the Greenhouse Gas Reduction (Emissions Standards) Statutes Amendment Act, 2008.

As my colleague the Environment critic has just articulated, we have yet again

another enabling piece of legislation. As with many things, it's quite often the

best to start at the end and go to the beginning. I'll just turn to page 29 in

the bill, where it says "Commencement," or in other words, when the bill will

come into force.

With most legislation, it comes into force at royal assent. For

those in the gallery who are unaware of this, the Lieutenant-Governor comes to

this place, takes the chair. The Clerk announces the name of the legislation,

and it becomes

an act and comes into force. That's called royal assent.

So the overall act will, of course, come in with royal assent. If

you go to page 29 of the bill and read the commencement section,

section 37, it

says that sections 1 to 14 are by regulation of the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, sections 16 to 23 are by regulation,

section 26

is by regulation, sections 28 to 34 are by regulation and

section 36 is by

regulation of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, which is the cabinet.

What we have today, which is what we've had several times

throughout this session, is legislation brought forward by the government that

provides a framework, a shell, for some activity in the future, some regulations

that will come into force once the cabinet decides just what the heck they are.

I don't have a problem with that. I think that in fact, the more

time we invest in getting things right, the better off we're going to be and the

more my constituents will embrace the work that we do here. But the troubling

part is that the government is alleging that these series of bills that all will

be incumbent upon regulation prescribed by cabinet or the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council are going to happen sometime in the future.

If this is in fact the fight of our lives, if climate change and

managing our greenhouse gas emissions is the most important activity we can

undertake in this place, why wouldn't we want to do it in cooperation? Why

wouldn't we want to do it together to ensure that the solutions we're seeking

are consensual and in the interests of all British Columbians? Well, we're not

doing that with this bill, and we haven't done it with a series of other bills

as we've been proceeding.

[1535]

I know the Forests critic is going to be speaking about the

bioenergy sections of this legislation, and I will only touch upon that briefly.

Before I get to that, I

[ Page 12279 ]

want to just talk a little bit about where we find ourselves at this point in

time.

There are some three weeks remaining in the legislative calendar.

We have, I believe, 20-odd bills on the order paper, this being one of them.

It's a 30-page bill with a lot of dense detail, particularly around the

bioenergy section, which is new territory for all of us. It's new territory for

the industry, and it's new territory for B.C. Hydro and, I'm fairly certain, for

leg. counsel.

I think that the last time significant changes to tenure and

access to fibre took place in this province was, certainly, well before many of

us were in this place, save and except our good friend from North

Vancouver–Seymour who, of course, has been here forever. I say that in a

positive way. I think he is the longest-serving member — he and the member for

Peace River North and, I guess, Kamloops, while I'm making the list. A lot of

elder statesmen on the other side.

The challenge we have — as the Environment critic, the member for

Vancouver-Hastings, has so ably articulated — is that we have a forest sector in

crisis. The industry is shedding jobs by the thousands. In my community in

southern Vancouver Island the Minister of Forests, so disinterested in forest

jobs, allowed Western Forest Products to remove 28,000 hectares of private lands

from the tree farm licence, not to continue forestry in the region but, in fact,

to encourage real estate licences.

So when we're talking about the bill and bioenergy in the forest

sector, certainly the member for Shuswap will see the correlation between wood,

fibre and energy as it's articulated in this bill. So I won't go into too much

detail, because I know he can follow along, even without a bouncing ball.

The challenge in my part of the world is that the forest sector is

in crisis. Certainly, we hear from members in the Interior, the Deputy Premier,

those from upcountry and the member from Omineca that beetle kill has been

devastating for communities, the environment and the people who live there.

We all want to find ways to try and address that problem, and

perhaps a vibrant bioenergy sector may well be one of the tools to get there,

but I'm not so sure. We don't have all the science in on what the impact of

particulate matter will be. We don't have all the science in on whether the

escape of any carbon as a result of burning is going to happen at an accelerated

rate that would, in essence, make it not net neutral, as the minister or the

government would allege, but maybe something completely different. By burning

that beetle wood, we may be creating a larger problem than we're solving.

Certainly, we would want to wait until the science could come in on bioenergy

before we move too quickly on that.

In division 3 of the act we have the coal-based electricity

generation section. This is an interesting one. Were it not for the good work of

the government on the other side, we wouldn't need this section, because it

wasn't until they came to power that anyone even contemplated burning coal to

generate electricity in British Columbia.

No government until this one went to the private sector and said:

"Hey, come forward with your ideas to make fast money on electricity sales." In

result, we had two coal companies come forward, Compliance in Princeton and

Wapiti in the northeast, and they were able to sign contracts with B.C. Hydro to

sell electricity generated from coal-fired systems in Princeton and Tumbler

Ridge. Because of the good planning of the burghers on the other side, we have a

section in

an act saying: "You cannot do what we just did." It's really

brilliant.

Of course, before we had our epiphany about the importance of

climate change, we were more interested in fostering an independent power

production sector in the economy here in British Columbia. So coal plants were

okay. "Let's sign them up." Then all of a sudden we changed our minds. The

lawsuits are piling up, so now we have legislation before this place to restrict

the use of coal to generate electricity.

Now, I don't have a problem with that. I know the member for

Shuswap will remember that I was hypercritical of the government at that time

for taking what was the cleanest, greenest public utility in North America and

forcing it to buy power generated from coal.

[1540]

At the same time, I think we have to recognize that as a producer

of coal, the net exporter…. We export coal all over the world. I had the good

fortune of being in the member for North Island's constituency, 350 feet under

the ground at the Quinsam coalmine. It was an interesting experience, I have to

say. People are working. They're on the ground. They're mining coal, and we're

exporting it. They're using it in and around Vancouver Island for industrial

purposes, for cement, for assisting with the burning of chips to make steam.

There's activity involving the coal sector. You look at the

enormous profits coming to Fording and other companies active in the southeast

of the province in the Kootenays, as well as in Tumbler Ridge and in the

northeast of the province. Coal's a pretty big deal in British Columbia. It's a

pretty big deal.

So when we have the government bringing forward legislation to

correct the mistake they made with respect to generation of electricity with

coal, you would have thought that they would have said: "Why don't we become

world leaders in sequestration technology? Why don't we invest in finding

solutions to the world's problems, which are by and large being created today by

coal-fired plants in the Far East?"

I'm told — it's anecdotal, because it just seems to be rolling off

the tongue of those who are speaking about climate change — that virtually every

other day a coal-fired plant is being built and operated in China to meet the

needs of the burgeoning economy there. It's a big problem. It's a big challenge.

We need to displace coal as a source of electricity. If we can't displace it, we

certainly have to find a way to capture the carbon, capture the greenhouse gases

and sequester them in some meaningful way.

In principle, I certainly would support the

section of this bill

that pushes us in that direction, but I'm very

[ Page 12280 ]

mindful — and I know the government would be mindful — that were it not for

their misbehaviour two years ago, we wouldn't have to deal with that here in

British Columbia, because there were no coal plants. We hadn't contemplated any

coal plants until the B.C. Liberals came to power. It's an interesting challenge

indeed.

Why not invest in that sequestration technology? The noted adviser

to the government Mark Jaccard, who the member for Vancouver-Hastings referred

to in his remarks, has written extensively about sequestration technology and

the importance of capturing that carbon and sticking it back in the ground.

With all of the oil and gas activity we have in the northeast, I

would think that investing in coal generation in the northeast with a view to

sequestering that carbon in the holes we're plugging in the ground to bring up

gas would make a lot of sense. It would make a lot of economic sense. It would

make a lot of sense in terms of the impacts on the environment.

But we don't see anything about investing in that. We only see a

rearguard action. I would suggest — and certainly, I'll canvass this with the

minister in estimates — this is a rearguard action to try and forestall any

legal action that will be coming B.C. Hydro's way as a result of the contracts

they signed at the behest of the B.C. Liberal government to purchase power that

was generated by burning coal.

That's an interesting paradox for the government to explain when

we get to committee stage. The tragic thing, though, is that we have no

guarantee that we'll get to committee stage on this legislation, as we have no

guarantee that we'll get to committee stage on a host of other bills that have

been brought to this place.

Hon. B. Penner: It's up to you.

J. Horgan: The minister advises that it's up to us as to

when that will happen.

Well, I thought — I've heard the Premier say this, and I've

certainly watched the member for Peace River South live this — that we were all

free spirits in this place, all sent from our 79 constituencies to exercise our

personal, individual judgment on legislation that comes forward to this place,

but I hear now that the Minister of Environment is saying it's up to us.

If we don't talk about the bill, we'll allow more talk on the

bill. It's an inconsistency, certainly, that's not lost on the member for Peace

River South as he diligently reads through all of the legislation tabled in this

place.

That should be the responsibility of all of us. It should be the

responsibility of all of us to come here, be as well informed as we can be and

exercise our judgment on behalf of our constituents. I won't be able to do that

in a fulsome way without access to the minds of the minister who tabled the

legislation and the officials that helped draft it.

That's the important work we do at committee stage. As much as I

enjoy standing here at second reading speaking on and on about the flaws and

inconsistencies of the legislation, the real hard work comes at the

clause-by-clause discussion. Both the minister and his staff are well aware of

that.

[1545]

When we get to the questions around coal and sequestration, I'm

certainly hopeful that we'll have some answers as to whether this is in fact a

rearguard action to forestall litigation or if it is an opportunity for us to

move into a new era of coal carbon sequestration, which the government's

pre-eminent adviser on these matters, Dr. Jaccard, has suggested is within

reach, although the technology has not yet been perfected.

With that, I'd like to move again. I want to just talk for a

minute…. I heard one of the government's commercials this morning when I was

getting ready to come to the Legislature. It's one of their commercials around

what people should do with their $100 dividend as we address the challenges laid

out before us here with Bill 31.

The perky voices on my radio were telling me that there's a whole

host of things I could do to make the world a better place. I could get a new

pair of running shoes, I could get some compact fluorescents, or I could get

some weatherstripping. And I'm thinking to myself: my, oh, my. The opportunities

are limitless there. Buy running shoes, a couple of lightbulbs and some

weatherstripping. That's what I'll do with my $100.

But what are we going to be doing about fugitive gases in the oil

and gas sector? What are we going to be doing about routine flaring? How are we

going to address those challenges that big industrial emitters are conducting

right now? What's the government's response to that? It's not in this

legislation. It's not in the cap-and-trade legislation that we saw last month.

It's not addressed by the carbon tax.

We have the three fundamental pillars — the three legs on the

stool, if you will — of the so-called "Trust us, and we'll get to the

regulations as soon as we've had some time to think about it" climate change

package. Their solution is to get perky people to tell me every morning when I

get up to come to work: "Don't forget your compact fluorescents, your

weatherstripping and your running shoes, because that's what we want you to do

to help solve the problems of climate change."

No money for commuter rail on southern Vancouver Island. We still

have to keep people in cars here. No money to deal with urban sprawl. We've

released thousands of hectares of land at Jordan River for development purposes

so that we can grow condos instead of forest workers, real estate licences

instead of fallers. That's the plan of the government. Impose restrictions on

individuals; don't impose restrictions on industrial polluters.

It's a sad day when $30 million worth of advertising tells me to

go buy a pair of running shoes, while the oil and gas sector, reaping the

largest profits in the history of corporate anything, are allowed to continue to

emit greenhouse gases with impunity. That's the challenge we face as a

community, as a society and as an economy, and it's not addressed at all in this

legislation or in any of the other bills that have been brought forward by the

Minister of Environment and his colleague the Minister of Energy to this point

in time.

[ Page 12281 ]

Again, as I stand here in my place representing the people of

Malahat–Juan de Fuca, they expect me to speak up on their behalf. They expect me

to say that the Environmental Management Act may well need revisions. Let's see

what those restrictions are. Let's look at the regulations before we give a

blank cheque to the Minister of the Environment.

Most importantly — and I know that my colleague for Cariboo North

will talk at length about this — before we establish a new industry, a bioenergy

industry, in a province that has been dependent, has prospered and will continue

to thrive as a result of hydroelectric generation…. Before we go down that road,

let's see what we can do about fixing the industry that is virtually on its

knees.

Mills closing, jobs lost, and the government says, "I've got a

good idea. Let's put more stress on the land. Let's put more stress on access to

fibre by giving out new licences, new tenures, to those who happen to get their

application in to B.C. Hydro ahead of everybody else" — more gold rush

mentality, no planning, no forward thinking.

"Large emitters, do what you will. Individuals, be sure to go out

and buy your weatherstripping. Be sure to go out there and try to find

alternative ways to get back and forth to work and get the kids to the rink.

Make sure that you're using your car as little as you possibly can, even if you

don't have transit opportunities in your community. Find another way."

"Get some running shoes," the Minister of Finance said. So $30

million worth of ads to tell me that I need compact fluorescents,

weatherstripping and running shoes. Well, that's just great. That's just

fantastic.

[1550]

What's EnCana going to do? Well, EnCana's shares just split.

They've got a whole bunch of new plays for natural gas in the northeast. They're

going to be poking holes in the ground. Greenhouse gases will be emitted. No

sanctions, no repercussions, just more profits to the Crown, which can then be

given, of course, in corporate tax breaks to the supporters of the government.

It's a pretty simple circle, one that seems fairly transparent to me and to

anyone who spends even a modicum of time looking at this legislation.

The solutions to the problems are complex. I do not doubt that for

a moment. Nor do I doubt the effort of the Minister of Environment in trying to

come up with solutions. But the best way to proceed, I would suggest, is that

rather than dumping legislation that's half-cooked, why not sit down with all

members of this place, as we have been elected to do, to debate these pieces of

legislation not necessarily in an adversarial way but in a consensual,

cooperative way. Let's bring forward all of the talents in this room, all of the

talents from around the regions that are represented here, and sit down and come

up with some solutions.

That's not the choice the minister has made, and that's not the

choice the Premier has made. Instead, he has suggested that making climate

change a partisan issue is the way to salvation and that that's the solution.

Just today, hon. Speaker, in question period…. I know that we're

supposed to be focusing on the bill, and it will come back to that very quickly,

I assure you and members on the opposite side.

We had a question from one member on this side of the House about

the impact of some tree cutting and some tree planting with respect to offsets.

Offsets are a significant portion of Bill 31. For those who are watching at home

or in the gallery, what it proposes is that if you emit greenhouse gases, you

can purchase offsets to supplement that or to ensure that you're in balance —

the net zero impact with respect to electricity generation that's outlined in

section 3.

The member for Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows asked a very simple

question to the Minister of Environment. Rather than give a straightforward and

direct answer to that question, the minister chose to instead come back with a

partisan, vitriolic assault on the opposition for not being in favour of

anything, for hating this, for hating that and for trying to get in the way of

legislation such as Bill 31.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Every time I hear the

member for Vancouver-Hastings speak about issues like this…. We preface those

remarks by saying that we want to work with the government. We want to work with

non-go