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)

TUESDAY, APRIL 15, 2008

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 30, Number 9

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Page

Tributes

Frank Carson

Hon. G.

Campbell

Introductions by Members

Introduction and First

Reading of Bills

Wills, Estates and Succession Act

(Bill 28)

Hon. W.

Oppal

Statements (Standing Order

25 B )

Tynehead Hatchery volunteers

D. Hayer

Gladstone Secondary students in

robotics competition

A. Dix

Lions Gate Hospital Foundation

Sultan

Ev Timms

C. Wyse

100-mile diet

R. Hawes

Queen Elizabeth Secondary School

fundraising event

Hammell

Oral Questions

Ferry fares

G. Coons

Hon. K.

Falcon

Trevena

B.C. Ferries board appointment

and remuneration

L. Krog

Hon. K.

Falcon

Ralston

Fleming

Independent power project

proposals

Simpson

Hon. B.

Penner

Horgan

Hon. R.

Neufeld

Second Reading of Bills

Greenhouse Gas Reduction (Cap and

Trade) Act (Bill 18) (continued)

C. James

Trevena

Macdonald

Hon. B.

Penner

Oil and Gas Activities Act (Bill

20)

Hon. R.

Neufeld

Horgan

Robertson

A. Dix

Gentner

Farnworth

Hon. R.

Neufeld

Public Safety and Solicitor

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

Hon. J.

van Dongen

Farnworth

A. Dix

L. Krog

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Education

and Minister Responsible for Early Learning and Literacy

(continued)

Cubberley

Hon. S.

Bond

Routley

H. Bains

Trevena

G. Coons

[ Page 11369 ]

TUESDAY, APRIL 15, 2008

The House met at 1:33 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Tributes

FRANK CARSON

Hon. G. Campbell: I'm sad to report that one of Victoria's

really distinguished citizens passed away yesterday. Frank Carson Sr. passed

away. I'm sure members of the Legislature will be aware of the fact that Frank

served this region as a city councillor from 1980 to 1990. He was always at the

core, at the heart, of Victoria's volunteer community. He was a recognized

businessman across the capital region and indeed across the province.

I got to know him personally when he was sitting on the B.C.

Transit board back in the late '80s. He always served with honour and with

dignity. He always listened with an open mind. He always tried to bring a way of

bringing people together in the community to accomplish our goals as a province.

He was one of those people that I think everyone appreciated working with.

Carson Hall in the Victoria Conference Centre bears his name as a

reminder of his great contributions, certainly, to this city. I know we'll all

remember his contributions, and I think it's important for the House to

recognize that those contributions were not just to a community but to a

province.

I know the House would want to send our condolences to the family

and our best wishes and our prayers to them as well.

[1335]

Introductions by Members

H. Bains: There are 71 grade 5 students from Strawberry

Hill School joined by their teachers Rapinder Kaur Gill and Harmony Wilson. The

kinds of questions that they asked me when I met them in the hallway…. I'm sure

that one day they will be occupying some of these seats here. Please join me and

extend our warmest welcome to them all.

Hon. C. Richmond: I'm pleased to announce four people in

the gallery today who assisted us in announcing the second year of our tenant

starter kits in the main rotunda at noon. These are the kits that we give to

people moving into housing, who are trying to turn their lives around, or women

fleeing an abusive relationship. The program was a great success, so we've

renewed it for another year.

I would like the House to welcome Marg Gordon, member services

coordinator of the B.C. Non-Profit Housing Association; Donna Sassaman, AHEAD

coordinator; and two people from our shop, Barbara Stewart, manager, and Ben

James, who helped us put today's program together. Would the House please make

them welcome.

R. Sultan: In the precinct today we have 50 students from

Braemar School in my riding, ages eight and nine. They've asked such penetrating

questions as: how many times has the Sergeant-at-Arms actually hit somebody over

the head with the mace, and could we give an example of decisions we have pushed

up to the federal government level? Would you please welcome these

eight-year-olds.

Hon. J. van Dongen: Visiting us in the Legislature today

are two dental hygienists, Paula McAleese from Abbotsford and Monica Maletts

from Chilliwack. Also accompanying them are Cindy Fletcher, executive director

of the B.C. Dental Hygienists Association, and Jennifer Burnett, registrar of

the College of Dental Hygienists. I ask the House to please make them all very

welcome.

S. Simpson: I'm pleased to introduce Gwen Barlee from the

Western Canada Wilderness Committee, who's here having discussions around

private power projects. Please make her welcome.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

WILLS, ESTATES AND SUCCESSION ACT

Hon. W. Oppal presented a message from His Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Wills, Estates and Succession Act.

Hon. W. Oppal: I move that the bill be introduced and read

a first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. W. Oppal: I'm pleased to introduce the Wills, Estates

and Succession Act. This act was prepared with the considerable assistance from

the British Columbia Law Institute. I'd like to acknowledge their help and the

help of over 30 volunteers from the legal, academic and notary communities.

This act will modernize the law of succession and replace four

existing pieces of legislation. It contains a number of important changes that

will simplify the administration of estates and make it more likely that the

wishes of a deceased will be upheld.

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

reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 28, Wills, Estates and Succession Act, introduced, read a

first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at

the next sitting of the House after today.

Statements

(Standing Order 25

B) TYNEHEAD HATCHERY VOLUNTEERS

D. Hayer: There's nothing like a success story, and one of

those is happening in my constituency of

[ Page 11370 ]

Surrey-Tynehead with the efforts of the volunteers of the Serpentine

Enhancement Society. Just recently, we provided the organization with a $9,000

grant to enhance the operations at Tynehead Hatchery. Those volunteers are

dedicated to returning salmon runs to our local streams and rivers, especially

in Tynehead Regional Park where they have successfully transformed the little

creek that eventually becomes Surrey's major river — the Serpentine — into a

salmon producer.

This hatchery doesn't just raise fish. Its volunteers operate an

education program both at the hatchery and in classrooms, which supplies

fertilized salmon eggs to some 40 school groups, and teach children about the

value of protecting our environment and bringing it back to life. After raising

the salmon, the children then go to the hatchery to release them into the

Serpentine River.

[1340]

There are hundreds of volunteers who diligently contribute their

time to keep this valuable hatchery, wildlife habitat enhancement and education

program going. Some volunteer hundreds of hours every year.

Directors include Glenn Wright, president; Ebb Budgell,

vice-president; Julie Budgell, secretary-treasurer; and directors Alan Dobby;

Bruce Easton; Chris Hamming; Lorene Meyer, who is in charge of fundraising; Dave

Woods; and Carol Wright.

Among many other volunteers are Orla Christensen, Frank and Willa

McKnight, Brian Garard, Catherine Kyle, Al Nyberg, Eric Kaipainen, Greg Moro,

Frank Marshalok and many longtime members, including Emil Quinn, Tom and Elaine

Goodwin, and Barry Shiles.

I ask everyone in the House to join me in saluting these dedicated

volunteers and environmentalists. I also ask the members to join with me for

Tynehead Hatchery's 20th anniversary celebrations on Sunday, May 4.

GLADSTONE SECONDARY STUDENTS

IN ROBOTICS COMPETITION

A. Dix: Tomorrow morning, two teams of engineering and

electronics students from Gladstone Secondary in Vancouver-Kingsway will travel

to the Georgia Dome in Atlanta to compete in the World Robotics Championships.

Earlier this year the teams won the right to go by winning the B.C. event and

then the western regional event held in Seattle, Washington, involving western

states and provinces.

The 11 students are Alexander Jew, Alex Mui, Angus Lei, Kelvin

Tam, Natasha Palmer, Jason Khuu, Tony Lee, Henson Truong, Victor Yang, Henry Lee

and Eli Hollett-Feuchtwanger.

I invite the Minister of Education, the Premier and all MLAs to

visit the classroom with teacher Todd Ablett at Gladstone. It is a remarkable

place of learning, and the success of the program is a tribute to the students

and Mr. Ablett. Todd tells the story of how one of the teams in the middle of

the competition in Seattle decided — they were winning the competition, by the

way — to take their robot entirely apart and rebuild it overnight.

Hon. Speaker, I know what you're thinking. The Vancouver Canucks

should take note.

The students qualified for the world championships in February and

only had a short time to raise the $20,000 needed to go. I'm happy to report

that we as a community succeeded in raising the money. I want to acknowledge the

contribution of Global television, whose coverage of the students' success led

to a wave of contributions. The media, a force for good — who'd have thunk it?

I want to highlight, as well, one of the contributors, Rudy Chiang

from the Universal Buddhist Temple, who saw the story in my householder and

matched my contribution of $1,200 to allow the students to finally meet their

goal. Thank you, Rudy.

Imaginative students, a great teacher and involved community — it

is a great story of public education in British Columbia. On behalf of the

Legislature, I want to wish the Gladstone students all the best in Atlanta and

congratulate them for representing our province and our community so very well.

LIONS GATE HOSPITAL FOUNDATION

R. Sultan: In these days of huge health authorities and

complicated 3P funding, it is encouraging to discover old-fashioned philanthropy

alive and well — private citizens digging deep into their own pockets to build

the health facilities they desire.

The Lions Gate Hospital Foundation has served the North Shore for

20 years, during which time it has raised $40 million to build a new emergency

department, state-of-the-art imaging facilities and new minimally invasive

operating suites, including a neurological-surgical OR second to none.

Under the guidance of president Judy Savage and a board chaired by

Carmen Thériault, the foundation has taken on such challenges as raising $15

million from approximately 8,000 of our citizens, topped up by $7 million from

Vancouver Coastal to build the Jimmy Pattison ER facility. Jimmy's contribution

was important, as was Michael Smith's, but the bulk of the funding came from the

little guys.

Their most recent campaign has raised almost $10 million for a

hospice, the North Shore being the only B.C. community of this size without a

facility staffed with end-of-life specialists. Vancouver Coastal is supplying

the land, and the foundation has partnered with the hospice society and Family

Services of the North Shore under founding chair Joanne Houssian to raise the

balance.

[1345]

This is all hard, grinding work, but last week to top up the

hospice fund, Teck Cominco and the Vanderspeck family backstopped an evening of

fun and entertainment at the Meek with Jann Arden and Vicki Gabereau.

This is no fat-cat thing. Most of the foundation's money arrives

in $25 and $50 chunks. Contributors are motivated by the wish to see excellent

facilities

[ Page 11371 ]

in which to house the excellent staff of our excellent health care system.

Others can learn from their example.

EV TIMMS

C. Wyse: Members on both sides of the House frequently

acknowledge the volunteers in their constituencies. We understand how important

volunteers are to the well-being of our communities. Volunteers are the soul of

any city, town or village in this province.

Today I would like to recognize one of the very special volunteers

in the village of Clinton in Cariboo South. Ev Timms has been a dedicated

volunteer firefighter in Clinton for the past 50 years. When he began his work,

Clinton had almost no firefighting equipment and definitely had no fire trucks.

During his many years of service Ev has seen many changes, as the

community now has three fire trucks and a brand-new fire hall which opened last

year. During the 1970s and '80s Ev was the fire chief. When he resigned this

position, he remained with the hall as a firefighter, sharing his wealth of

experience and offering sound advice to the many volunteers on the crew.

Ev also offered his expertise to the new fire chief Robin Fennell,

thereby providing smooth transition in leadership and ensuring the community

continued to be well protected. Ev Timms continues to work for his community and

has been the dispatcher at the Clinton fire hall for the past four years.

This week Ev and his wife Joan are celebrating their 56th wedding

anniversary. Ev's 50-year involvement in the Clinton fire department has been

for almost their entire married life, and undoubtedly she has supported him in

his work and deserves recognition as well.

I ask the House to join me today in thanking Ev Timms for his

dedication, his work and his commitment to the safety and well-being of his

friends and neighbours in the village of Clinton and the surrounding area.

100-MILE DIET

R. Hawes: Ever since James Mackinnon and Alisa Smith spent

a year eating only local foods and published their book The 100-Mile Diet ,

the whole concept has taken off. The notion of eating only locally produced

fresh foods and calculating food miles has captured families throughout North

America.

The hundred-mile diet has now come to Mission. Starting June 1,

Paperny Films of Vancouver will be filming a dozen Mission families, including

mine, who have committed to a total hundred-mile diet for 100 days. They'll

follow these families as they struggle to find sources of local foods to meet

the challenge.

Just think — a hundred days with no coffee, no tea, no caffeine

products, no sugar, no beer or distilled products, no soda pop, no chocolate, no

fruits unless grown within a hundred miles, no prepared foods with additives

manufactured outside of the hundred-mile limit and no McDonald's, Burger King or

A&W — just fresh locally produced and locally grown produce, dairy, meats and

fish.

Already the Mission community is scouring the valley seeking

farm-gate sources. Restaurants and food stores are getting ready to offer

hundred-mile products and meals. James Mackinnon and Alisa Smith will be on hand

through much of the hundred days to provide guidance, support and commentary.

Mentoring committees are being formed and recipes exchanged.

A hundred more families are committing to 50 percent of the

hundred-mile diet. This is an exciting project that's uniting the community and

making everyone more aware of the environmental and health consequences of food

choices. The production will be aired on the Food Network in February and March

of next year.

Provided we in Mission can all avoid caffeine rage and sugar

withdrawal, I think we're up to the challenge. We are all learning the wisdom of

the often-spoken words of the member for Delta South, who frequently says: "We

all have to eat to live."

QUEEN ELIZABETH SECONDARY SCHOOL

FUNDRAISING EVENT

S. Hammell: In light of national volunteer month, I'd like

to recognize the time and effort the students of Queen Elizabeth Secondary in

Surrey have given to executing the annual Roots and Rhythms Extravaganza. This

evening of dance and fashion, now in its eighth year, is considered to be the

highlight of their school term.

[1350]

The student-run multicultural event took place last Thursday, and

for the second year the students decided to give the proceeds to Surrey Memorial

Hospital. The students have indicated they are concerned about the future of the

health care system. Surrey Memorial is located across the street from the high

school, and these students have said they have been directly affected by long

wait lines and the emergency ward situation.

Providing an opportunity for students to get involved in their

community gives youth a sense of ownership and opportunity. The Queen Elizabeth

student body has a significant number of South Asian students. It has been noted

in the local South Asian media that today's youth are experiencing a struggle

between two different cultures — the western culture they are exposed to every

day and are immersed in while at school, and the South Asian culture that their

parents expect them to be part of.

Sometimes these two worlds collide and create issues for our

youth. The Roots and Rhythms event is an excellent way to celebrate the

difference and temper those collisions. Youth who are involved in volunteer work

benefit in the long run as they learn the skills of teamwork, communication and

how to interact in a real-world setting. Through projects like Roots and

Rhythms, they develop self-esteem and leadership skills.

So congratulations once again to the students of Queen Elizabeth

Secondary. Over eight years, more than $13,000 has been raised. Their goal this

year was

[ Page 11372 ]

to raise $5,000, and the students are confident they've exceeded that. So

would everyone say: "Well done."

Oral Questions

FERRY FARES

G. Coons: On the same day that ferry fares were increased

up and down the coast of British Columbia, the hand-picked B.C. Ferry board of

directors were rewarded with a 60 percent, gravy-train boost to their paycheque.

Coastal communities are outraged by the dramatic fare increases, and now they

learn there seems to be plenty of money for handouts to this government's

friends.

The Transportation Minister said, "Boo hoo," to ferry users, and

now he's saying, "Here's the cash," to his friends. Will the minister finally

stand up for ferry users and ferry-dependent communities and put a moratorium on

any new ferry fares?

Hon. K. Falcon: Mr. Speaker, $130 million — that is the

amount that this government provides each and every year to subsidize ferry

services in the province of British Columbia, with $55 million just for the Gulf

Islands alone. That's $55 million a year for 25,000 people.

You can look in any part of the province, and you will not find an

area that receives more government money to underwrite and support important

transportation services than we do with the B.C. Ferries system.

Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental.

G. Coons: This minister just doesn't get it. Cash-cow

payouts to the minister's friends, while ferry users are crippled with

outrageous fare increases. He isn't listening to the people in communities who

depend on ferries. In the Gulf Islands, Powell River, the Sunshine Coast, the

central coast, the north coast and Vancouver Island, residents are all

struggling and in a crisis due to this minister's lack of concern.

The B.C. Liberal government has abandoned ferry-dependent

communities, but they're happy to hand out big bucks to their hand-picked board.

The Minister of Transportation is ultimately responsible. Why won't he support a

moratorium on ferry fares? Is it because he wants to keep doling out the cash to

his hand-picked board?

Hon. K. Falcon: Well now, Mr. Speaker, once again the

member opposite hasn't done his homework. I guess I shouldn't be surprised,

because the member should know that these are not hand-picked board members.

Actually, the communities put forward names. If you have problems with some of

the names they're putting forward, Member, you ought to say so.

[1355]

The other thing I'll tell you, Mr. Speaker, that we won't do…. We

won't do what the NDP did when they were there for ten years and ran up the debt

1,800 percent, bankrupted B.C. Ferries and left us with a fleet with an average

age of 42 years old. That's what we won't be doing under the new structure.

We've seen almost $1 billion invested in new ferries and new

terminals, including a new vessel in that member's own riding, the Northern

Adventure; the Northern Expedition, a new vessel coming on next year;

and a third new vessel that will be in place by 2012. That's delivering results.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Member, just wait.

Member has a further supplemental.

G. Coons: A real disconnect with reality from the minister

over there — 13 board members costing taxpayers over $730,000 a year, directors

getting a collective $233,000 pay raise while people up and down the coast are

struggling to even come up with their fare increases.

It's time for the minister to own up to his accountability on this

file. His government gives B.C. Ferries $130 million every single year. Again to

the Minister of Transportation: why are taxpayers subsidizing fat increases to

the board while ferry users are struggling to make ends meet with these

unaccountable fare increases?

Hon. K. Falcon: Well, Mr. Speaker, I'll tell you one thing

we are doing differently. We are making sure that people who are appointed to

the board actually have some knowledge and experience.

Interjections.

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

Continue, Minister.

Hon. K. Falcon: Oh, I know it's a shock for the members

opposite to think about things like ability and skill set when you appoint

people to the board. After all, when they appointed people, they would appoint

MLAs from their own government. They would appoint labour leaders. One of the

more famous moments in B.C. Ferries history is the labour leader they appointed

who, after the fast ferries fiasco, commented and said: "Well, what the hell do

I know about building boats?"

Well, I'll tell you. We actually want to have people on a board

that know a thing or two about building boats, that know a thing or two about

overseeing a complex large organization and that deliver a capital program of

almost $1 billion in four years and continue to improve service.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

I remind the minister to be careful in his choice of words.

C. Trevena: What the minister clearly doesn't understand is

that the latest round of fare increases is

[ Page 11373 ]

putting a whole new level of hardship on people who live in ferry-dependent

communities, people who live on those islands and work on those islands. But the

minister thinks 60 percent for the board members — a 60 percent raise for them —

is just fine. Forget about the people who live in the communities.

Maybe you should take time to listen to people who are there.

Families are leaving. People feel trapped. The economy is suffering in all those

communities because fares have become unaffordable under his watch, under this

government. So to the minister: will he stop ignoring the very real concerns of

North Island families and put an end to his unfair fare increases?

Hon. K. Falcon: You know, I wish we lived in a world where

we haven't seen oil prices in the last five years go from $35 a barrel to $110.

I wish that wasn't the world we lived in, but I will tell you this, Mr. Speaker.

When we added $7 million in additional dollars to reduce fee increases on the

northern minor routes, we got no support from those members opposite. When we

said we did not want B.C. Ferries to have to pay $13.9 million in GST as a

result of doing the right thing and going out and finding a replacement vessel

for the Queen of the North , we didn't get any support.

[1400]

Every penny of that $13.9 million that the federal government, who

we worked with to bring those dollars back to British Columbia so that we could

use them, as we are, to keep fares down on the northern and minor routes — and

without any support from the NDP opposition….

Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental.

C. Trevena: I think the minister is missing a beat here.

We're talking about $730,000 that is going to board members coming out of

taxpayers' pockets and coming out of ferry fares, which is completely

unjustifiable. We have communities that are suffering. We have families that are

suffering. We have a simple situation where parents can't take their kids to

swimming lessons because they can't afford the ferry fares. People say they feel

like prisoners in their own homes.

No one at B.C. Ferries will tell people in my community when to

expect the next fare increase or the next fuel surcharge. The minister cannot

blame everything on the increase in oil prices. This is getting unaffordable. It

is getting worse.

I would like the Minister of Transportation to first come and

visit my constituents, and then when he does, tell them when those huge raises

of the board became more important for him than affordable fares for people in

British Columbia and people in northern communities.

Hon. K. Falcon: I'll tell you what I will tell her

constituents and what I will tell all ferry-dependent communities. There is a

big difference between what took place in the decade of the 1990s.

Interjections.

Hon. K. Falcon: Just a minute. You're going to like this

part. You will like this part. I promise.

The big difference is that although the NDP managed to increase

fares by over 70 percent, unfortunately, it was done at the same time that there

was virtually no investment in the fleet, no investment in terminals. They ran

up the debt 1,800 percent. They bankrupted the corporation. They had the worst

labour relations record that anyone could remember.

So what have we got today? I'll tell you what we've got today.

We've got a new independent ferry system with $837 million of capital in the

last five years. We've got renovated terminals. We've got a stable labour

climate, and we've got better service being delivered to the folks in those

ferry-dependent communities.

B.C. FERRIES BOARD

APPOINTMENT AND REMUNERATION

L. Krog: I represent the third-poorest constituency in the

province of British Columbia. The average family income in Nanaimo is $49,000 a

year. A director now will get $48,000 a year for part-time work. So I've got a

suggestion for the minister. I've got families in Nanaimo who will happily take

up a part-time position for $48,000 a year. I am asking this minister today to

tell this House that he will direct that board to roll back that outrageous 60

percent increase now.

Hon. K. Falcon: Well, first what I will say to the member

is that I agree with the member to the extent that I think that is a lot of

money. I actually phoned the chair of the board, and I made it clear that the

position of this government was that I thought that was far too generous an

increase.

Interjections.

Hon. K. Falcon: Just a minute. I'm glad we can all agree on

that.

Where we disagree with the members opposite is that the

predilection of the members opposite, through a decade of government, was to

interfere in every aspect of the ferry corporation.

The ferry corporation has been structured so that it's independent

of direct political interference. The decision they made was based on an

independent report they had by a resourcing firm called Hewitt Associates.

I happened to disagree with the conclusion of that. I let the

chair of the board know we disagree with that and that we didn't think that was

a particularly wise decision, but they are independent. They have the ability to

make those decisions independent of political interference.

[1405]

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

L. Krog: You know, hon. Speaker, I don't know what the

minister thinks about the intelligence of the

[ Page 11374 ]

average British Columbian. But when they know that the only shareholder of

the corporation is the government of British Columbia, they know it's their

money. They also know that this minister can tell that board to roll it back.

Again, I'm asking this minister to show some leadership. He can

get on the phone and complain. Let him get on the phone today and tell them to

roll it back.

Hon. K. Falcon: This is a classic example. The NDP can't

pick and choose. I heard the same members telling me that I needed to interfere

with the B.C. Ferries decision to build some ferries over in Europe. You know

what? When they were delivered ahead of

schedule and $20 million under budget,

where were the NDP? When they were in government — let's remember this — they

made the decision to interfere.

They said they had to build fast ferries, and $463 million later

three of them are still parked in Howe Sound doing absolutely nothing with no

benefit to British Columbians. I'll tell you, Mr. Speaker, that is the

difference between this government and that opposition.

We will not be interfering, as the Auditor General said we should

not be. We will not be micromanaging the decisions of the B.C. ferry

corporation. They are to make their decisions in the best interests not of

politicians, not of your friends in the shipyard unions, but of the 20 million

people a year that use B.C. Ferry Services.

B. Ralston: I want to deal with another example of

non-interference by the Minister of Transportation. Chris Gardner is an old pal

of the Minister of Transportation. The two of them were right-wing student

radicals at Simon Fraser back in the 1980s.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Just take your seat for a second.

Member for Surrey-Whalley, do you want to start again.

B. Ralston: The Minister of Transportation's pal Mr.

Gardner managed the by-election campaign in 2004 in Surrey–Panorama Ridge for

the now member for Langley. Mr. Gardner is, in certain quarters, rumoured to be

a candidate for the B.C. Liberals in the 2009 election in the riding of

Surrey–Panorama Ridge.

Did the minister appoint his pal to the B.C. Ferries board of

directors to encourage him to run as a candidate, or did he appoint him as a

consolation prize for not running as a candidate?

Hon. K. Falcon: Now, I would have hoped…. This is a great

example of how the NDP…. When people of excellent qualifications put themselves

forward for a position, that opposition immediately starts attacking them.

So let me ask the members opposite: what part of his

qualifications do they have a problem with? Is it the fact that he has a law

degree? Is it the fact that he was a senior corporate finance specialist for one

of the largest investment banks in the world? Is it the fact that he lived in

Asia, working with one of the largest law firms in Asia, and speaks Korean? Is

it the fact that he's the vice-president of one of B.C.'s fastest-growing

private sector companies? What part of that resumé package offends the members

opposite?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Minister, just take your seat.

We're not going to continue until it's quiet.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. K. Falcon: So you see, Mr. Speaker, there is an important

difference. The difference is that we will put people of excellent calibre and

excellent qualifications onto a board without any apologies. The fact that they

may be supporters…. They joined 50 percent of the population in the latest poll

that supports this government, unlike the plummeting support for the NDP

opposition.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Member has a supplemental.

[1410]

B. Ralston: The minister modestly forgot to mention Mr.

Gardner's most important credential. He's a pal of the minister.

He was appointed on April 4 to the board of B.C. Ferries. The

order was retroactive to April 1. On April 1, the pay for directors jumped 60

percent. Did Mr. Gardner make his acceptance conditional upon receiving a 60

percent pay increase?

Hon. K. Falcon: These questions are actually embarrassing,

Member. You should be embarrassed to ask those kinds of questions.

I'll tell you, Mr. Speaker. You know, just for once it would be

nice if the Leader of the Opposition actually said to her people that rather

than trying to constantly attack people who do public service and are serving

the public of this province….

I will point out again for the member opposite the stark contrast

between the calibre of appointments that our government has a record of making,

with the calibre of appointments that they made. A union leader they appointed

to the Ferries board, whose most famous comment after the fast ferries fiasco

was — Mr. Speaker, I think you admonished me not to use the word, "What the heck

do I know about building boats…?"

I'll tell you. It is important that people of calibre and quality

with law degrees, with senior executive experience and with corporate finance

experience actually know what they're doing when they're overseeing a complex

major organization like B.C. Ferries. I'm proud of that appointment, and I'm

proud of our record. I'll put it up against their record of absolutely atrocious

appointments any day of the week.

[ Page 11375 ]

R. Fleming: We've learned a few details here this afternoon,

and one was that the minister phoned the board chair and requested that the

outrageous increase to director pay be rolled back. He was very disappointed

that the board chair didn't listen to him.

Now we've learned that his friend is on the board and that his

appointment is retroactive to April 1. I wonder if the minister will consider

asking his new friend who's on the board to ask the chair at his very first

meeting to roll back those increases and tell them: "No pay increases for

directors until ferry fares are rolled back and frozen for B.C. customers."

Hon. K. Falcon: I have to say I'm rather amazed. This is a

week-old story. I'm glad the NDP have finally clued into it. I just came out of

19 hours of budget estimates, and not once did I hear the member talk about this

issue. Just yesterday I was in budget estimates talking about Ferries. Not once

did the members talk about this. This may be new to members opposite. It's

certainly not new on this side.

Why doesn't the member opposite go to the B.C. Ferry Authority

website and look at the criteria they lay out that they're looking for in people

to be appointed to the board? I'll touch on some of them. Accounting and finance

experience — that would be important for the members opposite to note, because

they had none on the board when they drove the ferry corporation into

bankruptcy. Legal experience — that's something they call for, just like this

individual Mr. Gardner with his law degree. Marketing.… I realize that the

members opposite….

Interjections.

Hon. K. Falcon: Do you have a concern with the law degree?

Is that the issue? Is it the corporate finance experience with one of the

largest investment banking firms in the world that offends the members opposite?

Is it the fact that he speaks an Asian language that offends the member

opposite? I'm really having difficulty trying to figure out what part of the

qualifications they have a problem with.

INDEPENDENT POWER PROJECT PROPOSALS

S. Simpson: The firm Kerr Wood Leidal has prepared an

analysis for the government, identifying over 8,200 potential rivers and streams

for private power projects covering more than 1.2 million hectares of British

Columbia. If this doesn't perpetuate a gold rush mentality, then I don't know

what does.

Now that we've learned we're not talking about 500 or 600 sites

but that more than 8,200 private power sites are on the table, will the Minister

of Environment agree to support our call for a moratorium on these projects at

least until a comprehensive economic, environmental and social analysis is done

and a provincial plan is developed with real consultation?

[1415]

Hon. B. Penner: It's April 15. We're into our third month

of the session. The member of the opposition just asked a question. That's his

13th question in question period, and it's the very first one that he's directed

to me. So I'm pleased to finally….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Minister, just take your seat.

Members.

Hon. B. Penner: I'm pleased that the Environment critic for

the opposition has finally seen enough interest in the environment that he's

asking me a question during this session.

In terms of the opposition's approach to energy planning, we've

heard it from their Energy critic and from their other members that they would

prefer that B.C. continue to import electricity from fossil fuel sources outside

of our borders.

That's not our government's agenda. We have a commitment to the

environment. We've got a commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. We've

got a commitment to stimulate economic activity in British Columbia. We're going

to follow through on that commitment, even if the opposition can't see their way

forward to supporting green projects in the province of British Columbia.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

S. Simpson: What would be good is if this minister had

enough respect for British Columbians to have gone and talked to those 1,200

people who showed up in Pitt Meadows and the thousands of people around this

province who are concerned about this giveaway. If he would get out of his

office and quit hiding in his office and talk to British Columbians, we'd be

better off.

Hon. Speaker, I find it hard to believe….

Interjections.

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

Members.

Continue, Member.

S. Simpson: I find it hard to believe that the government

commissioned this work if they don't plan to use it — more than a thousand sites

in the Lower Mainland, 700 on the Island and 3,000 on the north coast among

others.

Be clear. It's not only these projects that are intrusive on their

own. They all require transmission line systems that are equally or more

intrusive. So if the minister won't support….

Interjections.

[ Page 11376 ]

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue, Member.

S. Simpson: If the minister won't support our call for a

moratorium, will he commit today to no intrusion into our class A parks or

conservancy areas by these projects or their transmission systems?

Hon. B. Penner: By now, members should know — at least the

member opposite should know; everybody else seems to — that I've already made a

decision with respect to the park boundary application for the Upper Pitt.

Here are some other facts that the member may not be aware of.

When we came to office, there were 26 operating independent power projects in

British Columbia. Today there are 19 additional. Under the NDP, the largest

single IPP in B.C.'s history was approved, and you're right. It wasn't a

run-of-river project. It was a fossil fuel–burning project.

As a result, B.C.'s greenhouse gas emissions from the electricity

sector went up 300 percent between 1996 and 2001. That's the record of the NDP.

They would prefer to burn fossil fuels to generate electricity. We're looking at

clean, green, renewable hydroelectricity.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

J. Horgan: I'm certain that my participation in the debate

will lower the volume a little bit as we move forward through question period.

I was pleased to hear the Minister of Environment say one down

and, as my critic for the environment said, only 8,200 more to go. I'm going to

move over to the member beside the Minister of Environment and ask the Minister

of Energy if he can confirm: of these projects that are being proposed, will the

B.C. Transmission Corporation be on the hook for building those transmission

lines through class A parks as the minister wants to do?

[1420]

Hon. R. Neufeld: I'm glad they dream in 8,200 numbers, but

what they should get to is reality. British Columbia needs 30,000 gigawatt hours

of electricity within the next 20 to 25 years, with the anticipated growth.

That's not my number. That's the B.C. Utilities Commission's number and B.C.

Hydro's number.

We need 30,000 gigawatt hours of electricity. We need to acquire

that. As the Minister of Environment said, we want to acquire as much of that as

we possibly can from green sources, which they are totally opposed to.

On top of that, we've actually asked B.C. Hydro to account for

15,000 of those gigawatt hours through energy conservation — something that

group across the way never talked about and haven't talked about. That's the

highest target of any jurisdiction in North America for conservation, and we're

proud of it.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Member has a supplemental.

J. Horgan: I guess I'll take that as a no with respect to

going through parks. They're going to go wherever they want to go, and I guess

we'll take that as the ratepayers are going to be paying for transmission lines

to hook up expensive power, low-grade power, for their friends to bring to the

load centre in the Lower Mainland.

A simple question for the Minister of Energy — a very, very simple

question for the Minister of Energy. Will we be on the hook for increased costs

as a result of this misguided policy?

Hon. R. Neufeld: Always interesting to hear the NDP try to

blow everything out of proportion. I guess 8,200 is the new number today. Maybe

tomorrow it'll be 10,000. I don't know. Maybe the next day it'll be a hundred.

They don't speak reality at any given point in time.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. R. Neufeld: Prior to 2001 there were 26 IPPs. Of those

26, 19 were storage. Those were run-of-the-river projects. Since we came into

office, 13 projects — 13, not 8,200. Absolutely ridiculous.

That's garbage — what they talk about. It's not even worth

listening to, but it's the fear factor that they try to perpetrate. I wish for

once they'd speak the truth.

[End of question period.]

Orders of the Day

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

reading debate on Bill 18. In

Section A, I call Committee of Supply — for the

information of members, continued debate on the estimates of the Ministry of

Education.

Second Reading of Bills

GREENHOUSE GAS REDUCTION

(CAP AND TRADE) ACT

(continued)

C. James: I rise today to speak in the debate on Bill 18,

intituled the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Act, a bill that in fact says absolutely

nothing about how the government intends to achieve that goal. It's a bill

that's already found itself mired in controversy related to the heavy-handed

secrecy provisions that this bill contains.

[1425]

It's a bill that empowers the government to do what it pleases

when it comes to implementing a cap-and-trade regime without any legislative

oversight or, in fact, any public input. It's a bill that in many ways

[ Page 11377 ]

embodies the deeply flawed process which the Premier and this government are

taking in the fight against global warming.

[K. Whittred in the chair.]

Like never before, the political constituency to fight global

warming has formed. The time for action has come. It's our generation's greatest

challenge. British Columbians from all walks of life, from all parts of the

province, are ready to do their part to save the planet. No more debates about

whether global warming is real. No more arguments about whether human beings are

to blame or can actually impact change. The environmental community, business,

labour and everyday families are coming together to do their part.

They know that the transition isn't going to be easy. They know

that it's not going to happen overnight, and they certainly understand that

everyone is going to have to make sacrifices. They also know that the stakes are

too high to turn away and pretend that global warming isn't the biggest threat

to our collective future.

Indeed, most British Columbians came to that understanding long

before the Premier or anyone else on that side of the House did. When the

Premier was still fighting the Kyoto accord and arguing that B.C. could do very

little to impact global warming, British Columbians were in fact doing their

part. They were looking at how they could reduce their impact on the

environment. When British Columbians were leading the way, doing what they could

to develop a green future for this province, the Premier was in fact on the

wrong side. He was fighting progressive environmental progress.

As we debate this bill, I think it's important for us to take a

look at the past, to take a look at the record of this government. In 2001 when

the Premier came in, he embarked on an anti-environmental agenda. In fact, many

of those cuts continue to this day. We saw conservation officers cut. We saw

environmental protection laws rolled back. We saw the agricultural land reserve

weakened. For a time, we actually saw this Premier eliminate completely the

Minister of Environment, giving him and his ministers free rein to run roughshod

over environmental progress.

The debate we've been having in this House of late, around the

liquidation of our forests and gifts of land to the big forest companies over

the opposition of communities, is a powerful symbol of the disconnect between

the illusion of the government's newly acquired green rhetoric and the reality

of their anti-green agenda.

So are the skyrocketing transit fees that we see implemented by

this government in cities like Surrey, where it now costs $10 to take a return

trip to Vancouver.

So is the government's continued promotion of offshore oil and

gas. So, again, are the record subsidies that this Premier and this government

are giving to the oil and gas industry — dollars that could actually be spent on

green initiatives or on relieving gridlock in our emergency rooms, on improving

education in the classroom, on providing child care or fighting child poverty.

So is this government's gas tax, a measure that actually hits

average families hard while letting the big polluters off scot-free.

So is the Premier's obsession with secrecy on anything to do with

climate change. What's so disturbing about this — and it's clear in this bill as

well — is that it's a secrecy that's harming the broad-based constituency we

have in British Columbia to actually act on climate change. It's so critical

that people buy in, and they can't buy in if they're being shut out.

We can't expect British Columbians to just take this Premier's

word for it, to take as an

article of faith that the Premier and his sequestered

team know exactly what's right. British Columbians are deeply engaged in the

political life of this province. They are deeply concerned about the future of

our planet. They believe passionately in their rights as citizens to be heard

and to have input on laws that affect their lives.

[1430]

Only when that happens will we all feel the collective sense of

ownership over the decisions and the sacrifices we must all make to achieve

great things for our province. Is that what we have in this bill that's in front

of us?

No. In fact, Bill 18, just like every other climate change

proposal that has come forward from this Premier, has been conceived in secret

and imposed on high. In doing so, it's contributing to the growing anger and

frustration that's undermining people's beliefs that we can all take collective

action to meet the challenge of global warming.

Unlike the Premier, I've taken time to go out and talk to British

Columbians. I've taken time to travel to every corner of this province, to hear

people speak passionately about the work that needs to be done, to hear people

speak passionately about the need for all of us to take responsibility.

I can also tell you, Madam Speaker, that I've heard very clearly

from people that they're angry that the government says: "You can just make a

choice and change your behaviour."

On my recent trip to the north, I had someone say to me: "When I

have to travel two hours to get an ultrasound that I'm required to get, how can

I make a real choice when there is no other alternative there for me?"

I heard it from school trustees who are concerned about how

they're going to pay the extra costs without making cuts to classrooms, on

budgets that are already stretched by this government, on things that are

already downloaded on to them by this government.

I hear it in the concerns of local governments already coping,

again, with downloading from this government, when they don't have a choice of

imposing that cost somewhere else. They're just forced to make cuts or pass the

cost on to homeowners, which is the last thing most local governments want to

do.

I hear concerns from commuters who are expected to pay the

ridiculously high transit fees. I hear it from forest workers already hit by the

worst downturn in living memory.

Now, just as in this bill, those British Columbians haven't been

included in the discussion. Those voices

[ Page 11378 ]

haven't been heard by this government. This government thinks it has all the

answers, and they expect British Columbians to sit quietly and take it. Well,

British Columbians aren't going to sit quietly and take it. They're speaking

out. They want to do their part for climate change, and they expect to be

included in the discussion.

If there's one underlying message in Bill 18 and certainly in all

the information that has come forward from the Premier around climate change….

He's saying to British Columbians: "Just trust us. We know what's right for you.

Just let us introduce whatever kind of cap-and-trade we think will work,

whatever we please, whatever makes sense to us. We — the Premier, the executive

council — we're the best ones to do what's right. And don't worry. When we

decide the time is right, we'll inform the public. But we'll decide. As Premier,

as government, we'll decide when the public should know. When the deal's done,

we'll make sure that we give you the broad outline, but we may keep the details

a secret."

Well, there's nothing about fighting climate change that requires

this kind of secrecy from this Premier.

Let's take a look at other jurisdictions. Other jurisdictions, in

fact, are engaging citizens in the solution. Only in British Columbia are people

being kept in the dark. If we take a look at cap-and-trade, what this bill is

all about, other partners in the western climate initiative are actually

providing citizens with the information they need to be informed and participate

in this debate.

Other partners aren't keeping the public in the dark. Other

partners are engaging people in this debate because they understand — unlike

this Premier — how critical it is that everyone be engaged in this process.

[1435]

In a recent letter to the Environment Minister, the Information

and Privacy Commissioner wrote that Bill 18 overrides the freedom of information

laws. I quote from that letter: "It's a matter of significant concern,

considering the importance of environmental protection measures related to

climate change and the need for openness and accountability in monitoring and

enforcement of such measures."

Well said. Well said because it once again points out the

secretive nature of this government and that they're heading in the wrong

direction.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner hit the nail on the head.

In a democracy, openness, accountability and public oversight are fundamental to

managing change of this magnitude. Bill 18 does not do that. This bill goes in

the opposite direction. This bill, in fact, shuts people out. This bill is the

opposite of openness and transparency.

New Democrats strongly support the implementation of

cap-and-trade. It's a critical piece to our climate change agenda. It's critical

for us, as a province, to move in that direction. But the devil is in the

details. If you take a look at other countries and other regions, the potential

for failure — for market distortions and for massive wealth accumulation with no

impact on greenhouse gas emissions — is actually enormous. Other jurisdictions

have shown that, if you don't do it properly and if cap-and-trade is done in the

wrong direction.

If we take a look at Europe, the allocation system proved to be a

failure. Far more credits were allocated than were necessary, which created a

huge credit market and an actual increase in emissions. But will we know, on

this bill, whether that's going to occur under this government? We have no idea,

and we won't be told unless the government decides it wants to share

information. We won't actually know.

Again, if we take a look at those experiences, it has led many to

conclude, including those of us on this side of the House, that a system of

credit auctions is a fairer and much more effective form of cap-and-trade and

that we need to be looking in that direction. But do we have any idea what the

government's doing in this direction? No, because this bill in front of us

doesn't let us know what the government's going to do. It doesn't let the public

know what the government's going to do.

This bill is silent. Bill 18 is silent on what kind of

cap-and-trade model is going to be applied. That's up to the government. No

discussion. No public input. No debate. By simply handing the government the

authority to implement by regulation whatever it deems — without public

involvement, without any oversight and, certainly, without any public buy-in —

we greatly increase the chance of failure.

Now, on every important policy decision related to cap-and-trade,

this legislation gives the government full discretion to make the decisions

behind closed doors on offsets, on reporting and monitoring, on penalties. It's

a one-sided monologue, with the Premier calling the shots. In fact, that's like

every decision that the Premier's climate change conversion has brought forward.

The public has been shut out.

Well, on this side of the House, we profoundly believe that the

government is making a very serious mistake by taking this secretive approach to

the most important challenge of our time. If we are going to be successful on

climate change, we need buy-in from all British Columbians. We need everyone to

feel that sense of duty and ownership over solutions. Every British Columbian

must know that their individual sacrifice is broadly shared by their fellow

citizens and by everyone in our province.

Bill 18, in fact, fails to provide that assurance. It empowers the

government to override public will. It empowers the Premier to continue acting

in secret. In doing so, Bill 18 undermines the very goal that it's supposed to

achieve, which is a lasting reduction in greenhouse gases.

The Iroquois talk about the principle of the seventh generation.

They say we must always consider the impact of our actions on the seventh

generation.

[1440]

Well, to get there we must also consider the generations in

between. We must ask ourselves: have we set a path that our children can follow?

By not including this generation of British Columbians in this discussion, I'm

very afraid that the path this government is choosing

[ Page 11379 ]

will affect the generations to come in a very negative way.

This is a critical debate. This is a critical issue for this

generation and future generations. We need to do this right. We need to ensure

that everyone is engaged in this most important discussion. We need to ensure

that the actions we take are implemented in a way that will have lasting impact

on support for our province, for our country and for the globe.

The bill in front of us does not do that. It does not move in a

direction that includes the public in dialogue. It is, once again, a secretive

act by this government. I stand here to say no to that secrecy, no to the

direction the government is taking. Let's do it properly. Let's ensure that

climate change action really occurs.

C. Trevena: I rise to speak on Bill 18, the cap-and-trade

bill. As I speak about this, one of the items in the news today that I think we

should all be aware of is that sea levels could rise by 1½ metres by the end of

the century, which is a great deal more than the IPCC, the Intergovernmental

Panel on Climate Change, forecast in its assessment last year. This is really

significant, and it's going to cause huge damage, particularly to low-lying

countries.

I preface my remarks with that because I think that both sides of

the House are very aware of the huge impact that climate change is having, the

rapidity of it, and the need to find solutions quickly and find effective

solutions. I think that both sides of the House are aware that cap-and-trade for

greenhouse gases works.

It was first introduced in the 1990s, when all we had to worry

about was acid rain. We were very concerned about that — the fact that we were

seeing huge amounts of pollution brought in through the rain. A system of

cap-and-trade was brought in, in the United States, and it worked. It was

effective. It was also a comparatively cheap way of working.

Since that time, many jurisdictions have looked at cap-and-trade

as a very effective way of moving forward on issues that need to be dealt with.

Now we're looking at it for dealing with climate change. I think, as I say, that

both sides of the House are aware that this is a good way forward.

But what is of real concern about the government's views on

cap-and-trade is that we don't know what they are and that we are being asked to

vote on a piece of legislation that gives us no details. While we agree that we

need to be moving forward in this way of using the market, through

cap-and-trade, as a carrot-and-stick approach to encourage polluters to reduce

their emissions and to make sure that we are dealing with something as

fundamental as climate change — so we are trying to bring back our emissions and

restrict our emissions — we don't know what is being suggested.

This is enabling legislation. The government can say, "Well, it's

okay. We just need this framework to take us on. Once we've got the framework in

place, we can go ahead and have our discussions with the western climate

initiative and bring back the details," but those details won't come before this

Legislature.

[1445]

This Legislature is in place so that we can examine such important

things as details that are going to be going into a cap-and-trade bill so that

we can actually say if it's going to be effective. We can ask the questions. We

are not going to be allowed to ask the questions because of the structure of

this bill.

I picked up Bill 18, when it was tabled, with great excitement.

Here we are. We have cap-and-trade. We have a pioneering move through what this

government is doing in North America. Let's move on cap-and-trade — very

exciting. I flick through it. Where are the figures? What are the levels that

the government wants to put on levels of emissions? What are the benchmarks?

What are the details?

Like many people, I was very disappointed, because we need to have

those fundamentals. We need to have those details and the baselines because we

have to go into this with our eyes open. We all need to know what is going to be

involved. We all need to know what the targets are going to be and how we're

going to achieve them.

Whether we're talking about 33 percent below 2007 levels by 2020,

whether we're talking more or whether we're talking less, this is something that

we all have to know. The way this legislation is set up — and this is the

concern and why yesterday we were asking to have it referred to a committee and

today are debating the substance of the bill — is that it is asking us as a

Legislature to put a huge amount of trust, as the Leader of the Opposition said,

into the cabinet, into the climate change secretariat, into the people who have

been taken away from the ability to ask questions.

So the government, through this bill, is asking us to agree to

something that we just don't have any details on, which is really somewhat

irresponsible I think. It would be irresponsible for us to say, "Yes, this is

it. This is the correct way forward. This is the way that we want to take B.C.

forward on climate change," without any details. It would be completely

irresponsible.

Voting on something without any information is not the way

forward. It's saying: "Okay, that's it. We abrogate our responsibility. You guys

go and decide it, and we'll trust you." Unfortunately, I really don't trust the

government on a number of these issues.

We also need to ensure that we know what the government is saying

and planning, because this is going to have a huge impact on the way that we as

a province move forward. We can't kid ourselves. This is going to have an impact

on our economy. We're talking about major industry being involved in a program

which is going to reduce their emissions and how they deal with the trade in the

emissions and with the credits — how the whole system is going to work.

It's going to have a major impact, and this major impact is coming

at the same time that we have other bills introduced to deal with climate

change. We have the carbon tax, the fuel tax. We have the bill on biofuels and

ethanol. These are different ways that the govern-

[ Page 11380 ]

ment is looking at trying to reduce greenhouse gases, and there are going to

be others. I'm sure there are going to be others at the same time that

communities are also looking at how they can reduce their footprint and make

sure that they are sustainable and have the resilience to go forward into the

coming years, into the coming century.

It is going to have a huge impact. So it would be irresponsible

for us as legislators to approve of something without knowing what that impact

is going to be, and we're not going to know what that impact is going to be if

the government doesn't put these details in the piece of legislation that is in

front of us.

I really don't understand what the concern is — why that

information isn't there, what the worry is and why the government is being so

secretive. If those figures were there, we would be much more likely to support

it. If we could look at it critically and say, "We like those targets. We think

that maybe we would suggest this way…." But there's nothing. It's a skeleton. We

can't do that blindly. As I say, it would be completely irresponsible.

[1450]

I've mentioned in the past, and other colleagues on this side of

the House have mentioned, that the NDP, the New Democratic Party, has a standing

committee on environment and economy linked. This committee has been talking

about a sustainable B.C. It has a document which looks at that and has a concept

of a sustainable B.C. act, which would make sure that there was a commitment to

social, environmental and economic sustainability.

It's the big picture. We have to be looking at the big picture

when we're talking about this. We have to be looking at greater concepts, not

just frameworks, not just a one-off piece of legislation. We've got to be

looking at the big picture, because this is the way that we are moving forward.

All sides of the House, I would hope, agree that we are in a period of

transition. We are in a period where we are shifting from this society we've

known for the last hundred years and the industrialization we've known for the

last 150 years, and we're moving on to a different level.

I would hope that there was some vision, some way of bringing

together that societal, environmental and economic view in one package. I would

hope that by giving us a fuller bill on how to reduce greenhouse gases and on

the cap-and-trade, this would be part of it. But we don't see that. We don't see

what the government's real vision is.

Instead, we see the sense of: "Trust us. We're part of the western

climate initiative. It's all going to be okay. Just go ahead, and we'll fill in

the details later. We'll fill in the details when the western climate initiative

comes back in August and says that we've come to an agreement." The western

climate initiative is largely the western United States, ourselves in British

Columbia, and Manitoba.

It's not just rhetoric. People do want to know how it's going to

work. It's not just the concepts. We're talking here about industry. We're

talking here about our economic engine. I would've thought that they would want

to know how it's going to work. I'd have thought that they'd be putting a lot of

pressure on this government to say: "This needs more detail. We can't expect to

go forward. We can't expect to support you. We can't expect to plan unless we

have more details, unless we know what's going to be expected of us."

But in this bill, we don't even know what industries are going to

be included. For instance, aviation and other major industries bring about 40

percent of our greenhouse gas emissions. I mentioned the other day that on the

top-ten list of polluters is the cogen plant in Campbell River. What impact are

these plants going to have on that?

What is the government thinking for other industries? I mean, are

we looking at oil and gas? Are we looking at the producers of fossil fuels — the

miners, the coalminers and other extractors? Are we looking at the big

industrial complexes? Are we looking at — as I suggested yesterday when I was

discussing the referral — just aviation? These questions aren't answered. I'd

have thought that there would be a lot of pressure from industry on the members

opposite, on the government side, to say: "We need to know."

I've also got to say about the importance of the forestry

industry. There's no description here about how that is going to play into

cap-and-trade. There is absolutely nothing. One of our biggest economic drivers,

the forest industry — communities dependent on it, and there is no reference to

how it's going to play in.

So as I say, I would have thought that there would be a huge

concern by industry. I know that Jock Finlayson, the Business Council of B.C.

executive vice-president, is uncertain. He is quoted in The Vancouver Sun

last week as saying: "This negotiation about pursuing environmental goals…. A

number of us have yet to see how B.C. strategy reflects that. The whole thing

seems to be run by the climate action secretariat, but it doesn't have a mandate

to worry about industry. Its only mandate is to deliver on the greenhouse gas

reduction goals that the government has set. But you have to do that in a

cost-effective way."

There is some questioning there, but there aren't any answers. So

from all sides — whether it is business, industry or this side of the House —

there should be some answers. We would hope that there are some answers. It's

interesting that Mr. Finlayson mentions the climate action secretariat, which

is, again, not public.

[1455]

These issues are too important to be kept behind closed doors.

These issues cannot be kept in somebody's pocket. They cannot be kept secret. We

have to be able to be discussing them openly. If we can't discuss them openly, I

don't think we as a province can really move on.

The other issues that have huge business impacts and impacts for

everybody are how the permits under the cap-and-trade are going to be allocated.

This is done using a business model, using the market. It harnesses the market

to encourage a reduction of emissions.

[ Page 11381 ]

As I said at the beginning of my statements, it is proven that

this is a very effective way, using the market to encourage a reduction of

emissions. It has been found to be much more effective than the old

command-and-control style, where the government imposes an across-the-board cut

in emission standards. This way, one company can be reducing and trading its

excess capacity to another.

We don't know how the permits, which allow the trades, are going

to be issued in the first place. The cap-and-trade has been used in other

jurisdictions. It has been successful in some places and not successful in other

places. In the European Union in 2005 the government distributed a number of

carbon credits. There were problems.

So we should be looking at lessons learned from other places. We

should be seeing what has worked for them, what their ideas are, what can and

can't work and see more of that substance. That substance isn't here. We don't

know whether those permits are going to be auctioned or allocated, and this is a

huge distinction.

This side of the House would advocate auctioning the permits,

because that generates revenue, which the government can then use. It's nice to

actually earn some revenue. The government can use it and put it back into

climate change initiatives, put it back into the cap-and-trade initiative for

other complementary policies, help build up the climate change vision and just

move forward a little bit. So we would hope that that is the way forward.

As I say, the European Union in 2005 started off on a very, very

ambitious cap-and-trade system and distributed these carbon credits. I'd like to

quote Michael Dorsey from "Carbon Trading Won't Work," where he says: "The

credits were based in large part on what the firms estimated their annual carbon

dioxide emissions would be. Because these credits were given out, not auctioned

off, the firms did not pay for their pollution. Yet they stood to make money by

selling them."

So the European Union had a problem where firms were making a lot

of money on this, and the system didn't work. That's why we need to see how

these permits are going to be allocated, and we need to see it right now. We

don't want to wait until we've approved this legislation, this skeleton, this

enabling act — passed it on to say, "Well, it's okay. The cabinet will deal with

it, and they'll tell us how it's all going to work," and then find that we've

got a massive failure.

We can't afford a failure. Whether it's sea levels rising, whether

it's pine beetle, whether it's huge windstorms, we are seeing the impact of

climate change. We cannot afford to get it wrong. It would be irresponsible for

us to approve something that might allow us to get it wrong.

In the secrecy, we don't know what the penalties are going to be.

We don't know what the government is suggesting if firms don't meet the cap or

break the cap. We don't know how it's going to be enforced. Enforcement, again,

is part of the way that you make sure that things work.

Is it going to be self-policing? Is industry going to be the ones

who are saying: "It's okay. We met our limits. We're fine"? Or is there going to

be another authority, another body that is going to come in and say: "We will

make sure that the limit is met"? We don't know that. This is very troubling

when we're dealing with something that is so fundamental.

[1500]

B.C. is, as I say, part of the western climate initiative. The

western climate initiative plans, by August, to have more details. It's one of

these ones where I think that the government, in its sense of urgency of dealing

with climate change, wants to push everything through. It would be better maybe

to wait and see what comes out in August and then, in the fall session of the

Legislature, bring us back something that has more detail and has some figures

and that has been discussed and agreed much more broadly.

It's very interesting that the other jurisdictions in the western

climate initiative, as I say — western states in the United States and Manitoba

— are being much more open about what's going on. We just don't see what the

government is doing. When we don't see what the government is doing, it is very

concerning. It's very concerning that the Privacy Commissioner has raised red

flags about this, has written to the minister and said: "You could be violating

freedom-of-information acts here."

We really have to have a much broader idea. We have to have more

details before we can support it, because we agree that climate change is a

fundamental. It is the biggest issue that we're going to be dealing with.

We are at the beginning of the 21st century, when we have the

opportunity to lay down a really strong foundation for our approach as a society

on how we want to deal with climate change, how we want to go forward, how we

want to work together and ensure that we can continue having an economy that

will support us, that we can have communities that are strong and that we can

have a healthy lifestyle — how we can move forward.

These are the very basic blocks that we are working on at the

moment. These pieces of legislation that are in front of us — whether it's the

cap-and-trade or other ones — are part of those blocks. We need to make sure

that we get it right, because we have a legacy.

The legacy isn't what's going to happen in three years' time at

Whistler. The legacy is what's going to happen many years down the road in all

our communities. If we get this wrong, we've got a huge burden for our children,

our grandchildren and, as the Leader of the Opposition said, the seventh

generation.

While I strongly believe that we have to find a way of dealing

with greenhouse gas emissions and while I believe that cap-and-trade is a way

forward — it's been proven to be a way forward — I'm very, very disappointed in

this bill. I'm very disappointed that we have something that's so pioneering, so

advanced here in B.C., and that we're going to have to end up voting against it

because of the lack of detail.

When we could be looking forward and we could be looking at how we

work together to move forward in the 21st century and beyond — and at how we

make

[ Page 11382 ]

sure, when we're developing and nurturing our society as we go forward in

this very new way of looking at things, that we're doing it with everybody

knowing what's happening, with none of it happening behind closed doors and with

everybody feeling confident that we're making the right decision — it's with

regret that I stand here and will be opposing Bill 18.

N. Macdonald: I rise for second reading to talk on Bill 18,

which is the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Act. It's enabling legislation for

cap-and-trade.

Earlier we had a motion that came from the critic for the NDP on

the environment where we suggested that this legislation needed to go to the

public for six months, that a legislative committee needed to engage the public,

include them and make them part of discussion on what is a critically important

issue, a critically important initiative and an initiative that we need to make

sure is done properly.

The piece that was talked about in the throne speech was about a

number of initiatives that the government intended to bring in this legislative

session to deal with climate change. I think it's clear that British Columbians,

Canadians and many people throughout the world recognize that it's an issue that

is going to challenge us and that needs to be dealt with. That makes it

particularly important to do this properly.

[1505]

What we said here in the NDP immediately was that we recognized

that big polluters are going to have to be part of finding the solution. Major

industry, the aviation industry — they need to be part of finding the solution.

We need to balance the needs for a strong economy with the need to deal

seriously with this issue. Individuals need to be part of finding a solution,

but so do the major industries, aviation and those parts of the economy that are

fundamentally the biggest polluters.

Cap-and-trade. What people need to understand is that that is a

fairly broad, overarching description of a strategy that can mean many, many

different things. So beneath that term cap-and-trade, you can approach things in

many very different ways. The term that has been used is that the devil is in

the detail. It is the detail that is important, because within the term

cap-and-trade you can either do this properly, or you can make it so that it is

fundamentally flawed and that it will fail.

So that the public understands what cap-and-trade is…. It's a

pretty basic idea. You measure, as accurately as possible, the greenhouse gases

that are being emitted by the major polluters — the large industry and the

aviation industry. You put a cap, a ceiling, on how much greenhouse gas you're

going to allow to enter the atmosphere from those sources.

You put a cap, and then you put in place a system that is going to

accurately reflect, through what is essentially a new type of carbon currency,

the reality there on the ground. There are many different ways that you can then

allocate what is essentially permission to pollute. There are many different

ways that you can do it. How you choose to do it is a fundamentally important

decision that needs to be made.

If you do it by auction, you get one result. If you choose to

simply hand out the credits to pollute, you get a different result. Those are

decisions that are fundamentally important as to whether this — what is called

cap-and-trade — is going to work. It is just one of hundreds of decisions that

need to be made, and need to be made properly. If you get it wrong,

cap-and-trade will not work.

The idea with cap-and-trade, then, is having established what is

essentially a carbon currency. You give industry the flexibility and the

incentive to be creative in finding solutions for reducing their greenhouse

gases, and you reward that creativity with something that will be of value,

which will actually be worth substantial amounts of money — enough money to get

business to invest in changing behaviours.

It is an idea that is really appealing. It is also suitably

flexible, if it is set up properly, so that it gives businesses that are going

to have more challenges, in terms of changing their behaviour, the ability to

buy credits from other polluters who have these credits. They have the ability

to then transition at the pace they're able to, into a business that will

pollute less and put less greenhouse gas into the atmosphere. It is an idea, a

concept, that fundamentally can work.

You have the principle put forward in this bill — even in the

title, "Cap and Trade" — that is supportable and an idea that political parties

on both sides are going to have to use as part of a strategy to move forward.

[1510]

That's the first part. You have a principle, a general idea, which

is going to be part of the solution. Has it been used in other jurisdictions? In

forms, it has. My understanding is that when the Americans, in particular, were

trying to deal with acid rain, they used a form of cap-and-trade.

That was back in the '90s, and it was a system that seemed to bear

positive results. So they set up a system that could be described as

cap-and-trade around solving a serious and difficult issue regarding acid rain,

and they used it successfully.

Members earlier have talked about the European Union experience

with using cap-and-trade to deal with greenhouse gases. They have entered the

cap-and-trade. They've experimented with cap-and-trade. They got in there

quickly. What they have found is that in doing that, they have misstepped, and

there are mixed results.

There are things that as we move forward, we should be aware of

and consider. They were not able to do that, or they didn't set it up completely

properly, and so they have misstepped. It points to the fact that when you set

this up, you need to do it properly. We need — we have a responsibility — to

make sure that we learn from what that jurisdiction has done.

As members have talked about, you also have the western climate

initiative, which British Columbia is part of, where there is a wider attempt to

put in place a regime for cap-and-trade.

The fundamental problem with this legislation is that it is

enabling legislation, which means that what

[ Page 11383 ]

we have in front of us in the House is incredibly vague. It gives us — it

gives the public, the people of British Columbia — no clarity in how the

cap-and-trade system is actually going to be set up. It is that detail that is

going to be so important and so fundamental as to whether this is going to be a

successful exercise or one that is deeply, deeply flawed.

What we're being asked to do is essentially trust the Premier and

cabinet and those that are closest to him to put in place all of the detailed

parts of the cap-and-trade system, and that is something we could not

responsibly do in my view. We could not responsibly remove those decisions from

public purview, from being tested in this Legislature, from being tested by the

public of British Columbia.

So you have some of the big players in B.C. industry. You have

some of the biggest polluters who are major donors to the B.C. Liberals, and

there is no question that that influences the agenda for the party and for this

government. That to me is clear, and I think to most British Columbians, that's

clear.

If you have a cap-and-trade system that's fundamentally designed

by big polluters, it's not going to work for the rest of us. It is not a system

that is going to work for us. So there is a real danger when we set up a

scenario where cabinet and the Premier — untested in this Legislature — behind a

cloak of secrecy are able to set up a system.

You can be sure that there are lobbyists. You can be sure that

there are discussions going on and have gone on for a long time in secret about

what this cap-and-trade system should look like. I think what is predictable is

if you do it in secret — if you only include those businesses that have, quite

frankly, a massive vested interest in designing a cap-and-trade system that will

make them money — then you will end up with a cap-and-trade system that will not

deal effectively with the problem of climate change but will make businesses a

tremendous amount of money in what is essentially an economy based on this

currency in carbon.

[1515]

There is a clear responsibility for all members of the Legislature

to look at this legislation and insist that it be more than simply a framework,

that it be more than just enabling legislation, that some meat is put on the

bones so that we actually know as a Legislature what we are agreeing to. As it

stands, it is unclear to the public and to this Legislature the direction that

the government is going to go.

I would bring the public's attention to the B.C. energy plan and

use it as an example of where the public interest is compromised to serve

private interests. That's something that should be fundamentally troubling for

all British Columbians. It's certainly something that we're going to pay for.

When you look at the possibilities of cap-and-trade being set up

in a similar way, we have a situation, which we are predictably setting up, that

is going to damage the public interest — not only damage the public interest but

cost the general taxpayer money. It is also going to be a failed initiative in

what is fundamentally important to British Columbians, which is dealing with

climate change.

Just a reminder about the B.C. energy plan and what our experience

has been with that since 2002-2003 when it was first put forward. You had the

independent power producers of B.C. — you had Alcan; you had Teck Cominco — in

there lobbying this government and pushing them in a certain direction. That

lobbying was done in secret. That lobbying pushed government to put in place an

energy plan that very clearly served their interests and very clearly

compromised the interests of British Columbians. That's a pattern that repeats

itself many, many times over these past seven years.

We'll just talk about it for a minute to set up the parallels or

the possible parallels with the cap-and-trade. The B.C. energy plan is this. The

B.C. Liberals chose to restrict B.C. Hydro from building run-of-the-river and

wind projects despite the fact that they have the capacity to do that, despite

the fact that B.C. Hydro had identified many, many sites where wind and

run-of-the-river projects may be feasible.

Ratepayers paid to identify sites. With the B.C. energy plan, you

then had those sites. Those sites were turned over to private interests, and

they were able to grab them for as little as $5,000 to $10,000. That is in no

way in the public interest, but it certainly suited private interests that were

closely connected to the B.C. Liberals.

You then had EPAs given from B.C. Hydro. B.C. Hydro was required

to give EPAs that were so lucrative that they essentially funded or will fund

the building of the power-generating plants.

You then had, very often, public land given for roads. You had

public land given for the site of the power plant. You had public land given for

the transmission lines. In fact, ratepayers were even going to pay, according to

Dr. Calvert's book, for the transmission lines. We will pay, despite the fact

that these are often in isolated locations.

The other point, and another key point, is that when the contracts

are up — and the contracts are between five and 25 and 40 years — these

facilities then become part of a private system that can sell into the North

American grid.

What you have is a very important part of what should be B.C.'s

strategic economic plan put into place with interests that conflict with the

public interest. With cap-and-trade, you have that same possibility — especially

if it is going to be put in place, if it's going to be organized, in secret.

With cabinet, with the Premier, you have a complete cone of

secrecy around it. You have secrecy that permeates this government. It is the

culture of this government, and you have concern raised in a number of circles.

[1520]

You have it not only with the opposition, but you have many in the

public. You even have Mr. Loukidelis, who is the officer of this Legislature who

is responsible for freedom of information and for privacy. What he has raised

with this legislation, as he did with Bill 16 and as he does with Bill 20, are

concerns around

[ Page 11384 ]

this cone of secrecy that you're setting up around this system.

My experience — not only here but, I think people would

understand, in general, and the experience that most people would have — is that

things done in secrecy are fundamentally going to be problematic in a few areas.

First, it builds the opportunity for corruption, which we want to avoid. We need

to make sure, if we set up a system, that it is open enough and that we can be

clear that things are going to be done properly. Everything about the system

that we've set up with the parliamentary system is based on that openness, that

testing of ideas. That's one problem.

The second problem with secrecy is that it breeds sloppiness and

incompetence. We see that with a number of projects that have gone on in British

Columbia in recent years, including the example that I use often, which is the

Vancouver Convention Centre expansion project.

It is a project that would have been best done in an open and

transparent way so that the public could truly test the numbers that were being

put forward, so that they could question immediately when the project started to

go sideways. It would have benefited from the lack of secrecy.

Similarly with cap-and-trade, if you allow that secrecy, you are

inviting problems for the system that you are going to set up. What we need to

do with these initial steps in trying to deal with climate change is engage the

wider public. We need to make an open effort — that's a key — but this is not an

open effort. It needs to be a sincere effort, but it's questionable whether this

is a sincere effort to actually deal with climate change.

It needs to be open, it needs to be sincere, and it really needs

to be successful. It has to work. Early missteps will jade the public with

initiatives to deal with climate change, and that's something we cannot afford

to do. We have to have the public confident that the government is moving in a

direction that is rational, that is thought through and that is transparent. We

have to make sure the public feels that all are sharing equally what is going to

be a burden.

The first step that the government took with the gas tax was a

misstep. It was a misstep because it did not consider the impact on rural areas,

and it was met immediately with opposition from rural and northern residents who

quite justifiably felt they did not have the options that people in other parts

of the province may have had and, therefore, felt they were going to be

penalized with cost — without having the options to make the choices that the

government said they should be able to make.

If the government had included the wider population rather than

having a secret secretariat — it meets in secret, and who they meet with is

secret — and if they had engaged the public in any meaningful way, they would

have heard pretty clearly the difficulties that people in the north and rural

areas had with that approach. There would have been an opportunity to fix it and

get it right, which is the critically important thing with any moves you make on

greenhouse gases.

With cap-and-trade, it's the same thing. You have to have clear

ideas, and you have to be moving in a way that the wider public has confidence

in the approach that you're taking. If you look at climate change and the

impacts it will have, what is often said is that the communities that are going

to do best, the communities that are going to be most resilient, are the

communities that are able to react to the changes that climate change will bring

— the changes in the economy and the changes environmentally. To be able to

react, individual communities and individual citizens have to be fully engaged

and informed in the political process.

[1525]

I think one of the fundamental differences between the philosophy

of this side of the House — the NDP, the opposition currently — and the

government is that we do not believe in approaching a problem from a top-down,

elitist way. We feel that the strength and the solutions lie in the wisdom that

comes from the wider population. That's where the ideas sit, and what we need to

do is involve people and tap into that common sense, into that experience.

That's where solutions come from.

I'll give you two examples of how that can work. We have an

initiative with the B.C. NDP that's called Sustainable B.C. It is a set of

principles, a set of ideas that started in individual kitchens with people

talking about how to move an issue forward. It then moved into constituency

groups. It moved then to a provincial council and eventually to the convention

of the B.C. NDP. It took a long time and a lot of work to bring those ideas

together, but you have ideas that are thoroughly thought through and that you

have a wide number of people fully invested in. Those ideas have flowed up to

put together a package that we call Sustainable B.C.

Similarly, we have, within the rural caucus, ideas that have come

out of community meetings in our own communities about what rural B.C. needs to

look like. Those ideas have flowed up into the things that we talk about here.

From the top down is a fundamentally flawed way of doing things, in my view. It

is the way this government does it, and it is the way they intend to do it with

cap-and-trade. A far better idea — in fact, a necessary way — is to engage the

general population and bring them into what is going to be a very important

initiative.

What you have with Bill 18 is cap-and-trade enabling legislation.

You have the idea of cap-and-trade, which is supportable in principle and really

has to be the way that we move forward — it certainly looks like the most likely

tool that you would use, some sort of cap-and-trade — but beneath that you have

nothing. You have no explanation from this government of what that's going to

look like.

We are asked to trust that they are going to do the right thing.

Our experience has been that they will do something that will suit a narrow

corporate interest and that, therefore, will not be in the public interest, in

the wider interests of people in British Columbia. For that reason — that lack

of detail — until it comes, you could not responsibly stand in this House and

say that it's supportable.

You couldn't responsibly say that we'd turn over those sorts of

key decisions to a hidden, secret group of

[ Page 11385 ]

people to have them flesh out what this will look like. To do that would be

the height of irresponsibility. I stand to say that the principle is the

direction we need to go in. But until we have detail, I would not — with any

degree of responsibility — give carte blanche to this cabinet, to this Premier,

to make decisions on cap-and-trade. I simply wouldn't do it.

With that, I thank you for the opportunity to speak.

Deputy Speaker: Minister to conclude debate.

Hon. B. Penner: I was just wondering if there were going to

be some more speakers on the other side attempting to draw out this debate even

longer. They've been on this particular stage of the bill, second reading, since

last week.

I made note of this earlier, in response to their motion to delay

the matter even further. One of their members, the member for

Vancouver-Fairview, made a fairly impassioned comment that governments

everywhere should be moving quicker — not seeking to delay but rather to move

quicker. He complained about a "lack of rapid action" and further noted that

governments around the world, when it came to political will, were "notably

sluggish."

[1530]

He ended up by summing it up as follows:

"It behooves us in this House to continue to ramp

up the rate of change and force the pace of greenhouse gases reductions. The

consequences for not acting quickly enough are staggering. If there's one

issue that we need to move on in terms of big legislation — in terms of

empowering the citizens of British Columbia to making a difference,

individually, in terms of making change to our industries — it is around

climate change and ensuring that the impacts of climate change, either here in

B.C. or globally, are nowhere near as severe as predictions now put them."

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

So on the one hand, you had the NDP member for Vancouver-Fairview

arguing that the government should be moving quicker, while every other member

across the way was asking us to go slower. In fact, it was summed up by the

member for Surrey-Newton saying that the government needs to "take a slower

look."

A number of members said they had questions on this. That's why

they wanted to defer it off into a distant time. But, Mr. Speaker, you'll be

familiar with the fact that once we get to committee stage of the bill, that is

an opportunity for all members to ask questions on a bill clause by clause as we

go through the legislation. That's how the legislative process works here in

British Columbia.

I would have to conclude that the fact that the various members of

the opposition have different positions on whether or not we should be moving

quicker or slower when it comes to addressing climate change really does

underscore just how effectively leaderless the opposition is on the issue of

climate change. If you try and follow the thread, you find that the NDP position

is confusing, disjointed and uncoordinated.

The Leader of the Opposition herself spoke this afternoon, talking

about putting together plans and how diligently they have been working on this

issue. In fact, it was just over a year ago that she said to the media she

wouldn't have any plan for responding to climate change until the 2009 election

campaign was underway. That was the opinion of the Leader of the Opposition in

early 2007. She did a U-turn on that about seven days later after getting

appropriately barbecued by a number of pundits. Then they hastily put out a

couple of pieces of paper and said that was their climate change plan.

The Environment critic complained that all our government has put

forward so far are what he calls one-off policies on climate change. Well, if he

believes that, then he hasn't been following what's actually been taking place

in British Columbia. We've come out with a commitment to tailpipe emission

standards to reduce greenhouse gases that come from the tailpipes of

automobiles.

In fact, we've put forward $15 million in additional incentives

this year, through the budget the NDP voted against, to help individuals make

choices to purchase cleaner vehicles — whether it's through obtaining up to

$2,000 through the expanded Scrap-It program, by trading in your old clunker and

getting something that's cleaner and more efficient, including a hybrid vehicle

or another vehicle that meets fuel efficiency standards; or $2,000 if you

purchase a hybrid vehicle or other fuel-efficient vehicle through an additional

incentive unrelated to the Scrap-It program. Plus, of course, there is the

federal eco rebate program, which will be in effect at least until the end of

this year.

Taking those three incentive programs together, it's possible for

individual British Columbians to get up to $6,000 off the purchase of a

brand-new fuel-efficient vehicle. Those are policies that we put in place but

the NDP opposition voted against.

We've talked about putting in place additional policies for the

mandatory capture of greenhouse gases or methane from landfills. Apparently, the

NDP is opposed to that. We have come up with a $25 million innovative clean

energy fund to help stimulate the development of new economic activity in

British Columbia while solving climate-related challenges and challenges related

to clean energy. That's something that I think shows leadership.

We've come forward with a policy requiring LEED gold standard for

new government buildings in various parts of British Columbia. That's a policy

that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions that come from the building sector in

our province.

We have done a whole number of additional things. We are funding

rapid transit in British Columbia. We're funding the $1.9 billion

Richmond-Airport-Vancouver transit line, which will be in operation relatively

soon.

So while we're busy doing that, the opposition is busy voting

against the things that we're putting forward. They have spoken against the

carbon tax and are working to confuse British Columbians about what the carbon

tax is. They conveniently neglect to point out that it is revenue-neutral.

Only a few weeks ago they were demanding that it be

revenue-neutral. Then, much to their horror, the Finance Minister introduced the

budget, and it was

[ Page 11386 ]

revenue-neutral — more than revenue-neutral. Most British Columbians come out

ahead because of the tax breaks introduced at the same time. So they're against

that.

They're against low carbon fuels — Bill 16. They're against the

cap-and-trade legislation, it appears.

[1535]

They were against — and they argued vigorously against the

Utilities Commission — Bill 15 in this

section which, for the very first time,

puts in law the requirement that the Utilities Commission consider greenhouse

gas emissions when reviewing or approving new projects put forward by B.C. Hydro

or other utilities regulated by the Utilities Commission. The NDP was against

that — requiring greenhouse gas emissions to be taken into consideration — and

they all got up and voted against it, including the NDP leader.

They're opposed to green energy projects. We talked about that a

little bit here today in question period. It's not just that they're against

some; they haven't been able to see their way fit to support a single specific

wind power project in British Columbia. I've never heard them speak in favour of

capturing methane from landfills, as we're now doing in British Columbia under

our government — whether it's at the Delta landfill or just north of Victoria at

the Hartland Landfill.

They're opposed to that. And why would that be? It's simply

because of ideology. In the 1990s they supported independent power producers.

That's why the largest IPP still in operation today is one that was built when

the NDP was in office. That fossil fuel–generating plant — 240 megawatts,

burning natural gas and emitting significant greenhouse gas emissions — was

actually an American company.

Calpine Corp., an American IPP, signed a deal under the NDP, and

the NDP were so foolish in their business acumen that they allowed their

ratepayer to bear the risk of the price of natural gas. Not the independent

power producer — they get paid regardless of the price fluctuations of natural

gas. It's the ratepayer that has to soak it up.

That's what the NDP did. They had the ratepayer take the risk of

IPP projects rather than transferring that risk to the individual proponent. I

stress again it was an American corporation, Calpine Corp., that the NDP signed

that deal with, and it still remains today the single largest operating

independent power project in the entire province of British Columbia.

Under our government, the record has been considerably different.

We have had projects come on line that are clean, green, renewable,

run-of-the-river projects. Today the first wind power projects in B.C.'s history

are under construction in the northeast part of British Columbia.

We know there are people undertaking research into offshore and

tidal energy projects. There's exploration going on for geothermal.

The opposition hasn't spoken in favour of a single one of those

projects — not one. Can they name a single project that they'll part their

ideology for and say: "We'll support it, because it's the right thing to do for

jobs in B.C., tax revenue in B.C., for the environment in B.C., and for making

ourselves self-sufficient in B.C."? No. For them, the ideology they hold trumps

their concern for the environment. It's ideology first and everything else

second when it comes to the opposition.

The member for Vancouver-Kingsway, in his remarks on second

reading, made reference to somebody that actually — when the member for

Vancouver-Kingsway was working for former NDP Premier of the day Glen Clark —

had been appointed to the B.C. Utilities Commission. That's Dr. Mark Jaccard.

Under the NDP, Dr. Jaccard was appointed to become chair of the

B.C. Utilities Commission. He later resigned. I think he was upset with how the

NDP was interfering with the Utilities Commission, but here's what Dr. Jaccard

said.

I know that the member for Vancouver-Kingsway quoted him from an

article in The Vancouver Sun . I'll also refer to an

article that was in

The Vancouver Sun on April 10, 2008, page A17. He said that, and looking

at other….

Interjection.

Hon. B. Penner: Well, you're the people that quoted him

first. The member for Vancouver-Kingsway quoted Dr. Jaccard favourably, saying

he's a noted expert, and indeed he is. So here's what he has to say about the

opposition's position on a number of these things: "Opposition politicians may

mislead the public for their own political ends."

Here he refers to the Leader of the Official Opposition, the NDP,

in British Columbia, noting that: "She wrote in The Sun last week that

the carbon tax is unfair and that she would exempt from the tax any person or

industry complaining loudly enough, replacing the tax with ineffective

subsidies. This saddens me. An honest politician would be telling British

Columbians that a carbon tax is essential."

That's what Dr. Jaccard has to say, a noted consultant across

Canada on electricity issues, the author of Sustainable Fossil Fuels and

the person who the NDP saw fit to appoint to chair the Utilities Commission in

the 1990s. He's dismayed, frankly, that the NDP can't be more honest with

British Columbians when it comes to the importance of a carbon tax — the fact

that it's revenue-neutral here in British Columbia or the fact that we need to

put aside partisan politics and get on with confronting the challenge of climate

change, irrespective of ideology.

[1540]

It's interesting how the members opposite complain that they now

think that IPPs are wrong, although they lowered water rental rates for

run-of-the-river projects when they were in office. In fact, Joan Sawicki, the

former Environment Minister, said in 2000 that the reason they were doing that

was because they're "good for the environment."

They actually lowered the rates that independent power projects

had to pay to use water in British Columbia. Under our government, the rates

have actually gone up.

Today this NDP party is actually more ideological and more opposed

to the private sector than they were

[ Page 11387 ]

even under Glen Clark in the 1990s. We saw what happened to B.C.'s economy as

a result. People left the province. We went from first place in Canada in terms

of economic growth per capita to last place. That's not acceptable.

The current NDP also fails to notice what's happening in Manitoba.

Manitoba Hydro is contracting with the independent power producer sector to

develop wind power projects. The NDP in British Columbia thinks it should only

be the government, that somehow the government should have to have a monopoly on

innovative technologies.

Well, I think the reason why Manitoba Hydro and the NDP in

Manitoba aren't pursuing the left-wing ideology we see here in this Legislature

from the NDP is because they know that Manitoba doesn't have the traditional

expertise around wind power. The NDP in Manitoba is looking to the private

sector to contract with Manitoba Hydro to help them meet their electricity

needs.

In Quebec the largest hydroelectric system in North America,

Hydro-Quebec, is also contracting with wind power producers from the private

sector to help them meet their needs. It's only here in British Columbia, where

the hard-core left wing remains as a rump for the NDP, that they support any

private sector involvement in solving climate change.

Here is a fact. We're not going to easily remedy the challenge of

increasing greenhouse gas emissions, much less reducing them significantly,

without help from the private sector. The NDP would prefer to ignore the private

sector. We think we need them. We're challenging them to help us. It's a

deliberate part of our policy to attract new investment in British Columbia to

plant the capital and equipment, because we know that new equipment is cleaner

and more efficient than the old technology in days gone by.

There are many other things I could say in response to this. I

will just make….

Interjections.

Hon. B. Penner: Pardon me. You want to hear some more?

Well, I can provide more if the members are so inclined.

The members opposite take a very dark and dismal view of the

challenge on addressing climate change. We see that in part with their hostility

towards private sector investment. I think the member for

Coquitlam-Maillardville really summed up the NDP's negative vision towards the

future when she said: "No one has been down the road before. The road is dark."

That was her talking about a cap-and-trade system and how we can

reduce greenhouse gas emissions. She repeated several times that this road is

dark. That really sums up the NDP's perspective on life. They're negative.

They're destructive, and they're pessimistic.

Our government sees economic opportunity in cleaner technology, in

solving the challenges here in British Columbia but also marketing them around

the world, while the NDP sees it as a road that is dark. We see it as a road

that has opportunity. It's a road to the future. It's a road to find economic

prosperity here in British Columbia by changing the way we do things, to reduce

our greenhouse gas emissions by 33 percent by 2020, and doing it in a way that

can transform our economy from a carbon-intense economy in the past to looking

for ways to reduce our carbon intensity in the future.

The NDP can't seem to shake themselves from those socialist

shackles of the past. They cling to the status quo like their life depends on

it. I suppose in terms of their electoral success, they seem to think that it

does.

We see opportunity. We see hope. We know that British Columbians

are confident in their own ability to rise to the challenge of climate change.

They're not fearful of the future. They're going to work hard to succeed, and

just like us, they believe in the power of British Columbia.

With that, it's an honour for me at this point to move second

reading.

[1545]

Second reading of Bill 18 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 40

Falcon

Reid

Coell

Ilich

Chong

Christensen

Les

Richmond

Bell

Krueger

van Dongen

Roddick

Hayer

Lee

Jarvis

Whittred

Cantelon

Thorpe

Hagen

Oppal

de Jong

Campbell

Taylor

Bond

Hansen

Abbott

Penner

Neufeld

Coleman

Hogg

Sultan

Bennett

Lekstrom

Mayencourt

Polak

Hawes

Yap

Bloy

MacKay

Rustad

NAYS — 33

Brar

S. Simpson

Fleming

Farnworth

James

Kwan

Ralston

B. Simpson

Cubberley

Hammell

Coons

Thorne

Simons

Puchmayr

Gentner

Routley

Fraser

Horgan

Lali

Dix

Trevena

Bains

Robertson

Karagianis

Evans

Krog

Austin

Chudnovsky

Chouhan

Wyse

Sather

Macdonald

Conroy

[1550]

[ Page 11388 ]

Hon. B. Penner: I move that the bill be referred to a

Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting of the House

after today.

Bill 18, Greenhouse Gas Reduction (Cap and Trade) Act, read a

second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at

the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. M. de Jong: I call second reading debate of Bill 20.

OIL AND GAS ACTIVITIES ACT

Hon. R. Neufeld: I move that the Oil and Gas Activities Act

be introduced and read a second time now.

I am pleased to present the Oil and Gas Activities Act. When we

announced the B.C. energy plan last February, we voiced our intention to pursue

regulatory and fiscal competitiveness in support of being among the most

competitive oil and gas jurisdictions in North America. We will become more

competitive by bringing into effect a regulatory framework that shows leadership

environmentally and socially, responsible oil and gas development, promotes

unconventional resources in underdeveloped areas, and fosters new technologies

and growth.

The new Oil and Gas Activities Act will support key commitments of

the B.C. energy plan by consolidating oil and gas regulatory requirements and

transferring the regulatory responsibility in the Geothermal Resources Act to

the Oil and Gas Commission; improving permitting processes; improving

environmental regulations; encouraging innovation; enhancing compliance and

enforcement powers, including applying them to all oil and gas activities

approved by the Oil and Gas Commission and enabling the Oil and Gas Commission

to consider an operator's past compliance history when making any new decisions;

enhancing the Oil and Gas Commission's powers to respond to stakeholders'

concerns; and creating a new appeals process applicable to decisions by the Oil

and Gas Commission.

In addition, this bill targets the Oil and Gas Commission's

regulatory responsibilities. The Oil and Gas Commission provides single-window

permitting and regulation of oil and gas activities. The legislation will

strengthen the Oil and Gas Commission's responsiveness to the public,

stakeholders and industry.

[S. Hammell in the chair.]

British Columbia's oil and gas industry employs thousands of

British Columbians and makes an important contribution to our bottom line. The

oil and gas industry is the largest resource contributor to B.C.'s provincial

revenues. In this recent fiscal year we set a record-breaking $1.2 billion in

oil and gas rights sales, which contributed to an estimated $2.5 billion in

total oil and gas revenues.

[1555]

This illustrates the confidence that the industry has in investing

in British Columbia and in British Columbia's energy plan released in February

of 2007. From 2001 to 2006 industry capital investment grew to $6.1 billion,

nearly double the 2001 amount in just five years.

Looking forward another five years and thinking about the exciting

new gas plays emerging in B.C., such as shale gas, this legislation is timely

and very important. The new act will be a catalyst for new investment, and the

legislation will ensure these new plays are properly developed in a manner that

safeguards environmental and social values and reflects good stewardship of the

oil and gas resource.

This streamlined, innovation-ready legislation will enhance our

thriving oil and gas sectors so that all British Columbians can share in the

benefits of responsible oil and gas development. I am pleased now to move second

reading.

Deputy Speaker: The member for Malahat–Juan de Fuca.

[Applause.]

J. Horgan: My goodness, a cacophony.

I thank the minister for his brief introductory remarks, and I

want to assure the House that although I am the designated speaker — and quite

often members are anxious to hear me go on and on and on — I will make my

remarks relatively….

Interjections.

J. Horgan: I will make my remarks relatively short in this

instance.

Interjection.

J. Horgan: A national league designated speaker — yes,

that's correct.

We've had a series of bills come before the Legislature in the

past number of weeks, many professing to be implementing the climate change

agenda of the government. With Bill 20 we have, I guess you could say, the first

contradiction in the process inasmuch as Bill 20, the Oil and Gas Activities

Act, at its core hopes to streamline the regulatory process to advance oil and

gas exploration in the northeast as well as in areas like Bowser and Nechako

basin.

I know that my colleague from Cariboo North, in his community of

Nazko just outside of Quesnel — very much concerned, the landowners concerned

about oil and gas exploration in their communities and in fact on their land.

One of the positive aspects of this legislation is that the

government has moved a modest distance down the road to protect landowners'

rights, and I commend the government for that. However, as is always the case,

if it's your land, you have a different perspective when the company comes

knocking on the door saying that they have the subsurface rights and they're

going

[ Page 11389 ]

to ask you to get out of way while they do their business.

One of the challenges we have, and it's one that the government

rarely…. Again, I give the minister credit. He and his colleague from Peace

River South are quick to talk about the positive aspects of oil and gas to

British Columbia, as they well should. The employment figures in the northeast

are astounding. Even at a time of extraordinary prosperity in Canada, right

across the country, I believe unemployment in the Peace and in northern Alberta

is probably at all-time record lows.

That's a result of the value of the fossil fuels that we are

becoming increasingly dependent upon as a treasury. The Minister of Finance

certainly acknowledges that. In her three budgets the revenue from oil and gas

seems to go up and up and up.

We often remind the government that it was the policies of the New

Democratic Party in the 1990s that established the Oil and Gas Commission, for

which we are now amending legislation. It was the New Democratic government of

the 1990s that implemented a Fair Share program in the northeast to address

years of neglect from the Social Credit governments of infrastructure in the

community. So we're quick to remind the government of that.

In many instances, I have to say, the two members from Peace River

North and Peace River South are gracious, and they acknowledge that there has

been almost a bipartisan approach to developing this very vital resource to our

economy broadly and certainly to the people in the region.

[1600]

But one of the challenges we have in a climate change environment

— and I've raised this in other debates as we've been proceeding through the

government's greenhouse gas agenda — is that pipelines, oil and gas products,

and oil and gas activities in general are significant contributors to the

problem. We know that on this side of the House; they know that on that side of

the House. The broader community understands that.

When we're addressing this fundamental contradiction in what the

Minister of Environment was just talking about not minutes ago with respect to

Bill 18 and the cap-and-trade model that is being delivered to us as a pig in a

poke, we have to come to terms with the fact that the treasury is dependent, our

social programs are dependent on fossil fuels.

Now, it's not necessarily popular outside of energy circles to

talk about that. Of course, the minister and his colleague from Peace River

South recognize that. When you're in Kitsilano or you're in Vancouver–Point Grey

with the Premier, it's not really the topic of conversation. "Have you looked at

the oil and gas revenues this week? Have you looked at what the land sales have

been in the past six or 12 months?"

That's not the topic of conversation. It's: "How can we reduce

greenhouse gases across the board while at the same time drilling as many holes

in the ground as we possibly can in the northeast?" It's a contradiction and a

challenge for all of us in this place, both sides of the House, as we

realistically address the challenges of climate change and we try and focus our

energies on reducing emissions in every sector, whether it be transportation or

energy.

At the same time, we have to be mindful of the enormous revenues

provided by the sector, enormous revenues dwarfing forestry. I think it was in

2002 or 2003 when oil and gas revenues surpassed forest products in the revenue

section of the budget.

I'm sure that whoever the minister was at the time…. What was the

fellow's name again? I can't remember. He left quickly, after his office was

visited by the…. Mr. Farrell-Collins was the minister at the time. He left so

quickly that I'd almost forgotten.

An Hon. Member: I wonder why he left. There was a big black

cloud over his head.

J. Horgan: That may well have been.

That was when our oil and gas revenues surpassed forestry as the

dominant economic engine of the B.C. economy, and we've seen enormous benefits

to all British Columbians as a result of that. So I'm mindful…. And I know the

minister's mindful, as well as his colleague from down the road in Dawson Creek,

of the importance of this industry not just to their communities but to the

broader province.

Having said that and established that this is an issue that I as

the Energy critic am seized of, I recognize the efforts of the ministry. I had a

thorough briefing from staff. I said — and I think this might be illustrative

for those at home — that the minister has tremendous staff working very, very

hard, experts knowledgable in the field. Then there's me an