H0415am 08

H0415am 08

British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)

Fourth Session, 38th Parliament OFFICIAL REPORT OF DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY (HANSARD) Tuesday, April 15, 2008 Morning Sitting Volume 30, Number 8 THE HONOURABLE BILL BARISOFF, SPEAKER ISSN 0709-1281

PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Entered Confederation July 20, 1871) LIEUTENANT-GOVERNOR His Honour the Honourable Steven L. Point, OBC FOURTH SESSION, 38TH PARLIAMENT SPEAKER OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Honourable Bill Barisoff EXECUTIVE COUNCIL Premier and President of the Executive Council ............................................................................................................Hon. Gordon Campbell Deputy Premier and Minister of Education and Minister Responsible for Early Learning and Literacy...................... Hon.

Shirley Bond Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation ........................................................................................................ Hon. Michael de Jong Minister of Advanced Education and Minister Responsible for Research and Technology ........................................... Hon. Murray Coell Minister of Agriculture and Lands.......................................................................................................................................................Hon.

Pat Bell Attorney General and Minister Responsible for Multiculturalism............................................................................... Hon. Wally Oppal, QC Minister of Children and Family Development ................................................................................................................Hon. Tom Christensen Minister of State for Childcare ........................................................................................................................................................Hon.

Linda Reid Minister of Community Services and Minister Responsible for Seniors’ and Women’s Issues........................................... Hon. Ida Chong Minister of Economic Development and Minister Responsible for the Asia-Pacific Initiative and the Olympics.................Hon. Colin Hansen Minister of Employment and Income Assistance ...........................................................................................................Hon.

Claude Richmond Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources .......................................................................................................Hon. Richard Neufeld Minister of State for Mining......................................................................................................................................................Hon. Kevin Krueger Minister of Environment and Minister Responsible for Water Stewardship and Sustainable Communities ...............Hon.

Barry Penner Minister of Finance.......................................................................................................................................................................Hon. Carole Taylor Minister of Forests and Range and Minister Responsible for Housing ............................................................................. Hon. Rich Coleman Minister of Health ......................................................................................................................................................................Hon.

George Abbott Minister of Labour and Citizens’ Services ......................................................................................................................................Hon. Olga Ilich Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General and Minister of State for Intergovernmental Relations............... Hon. John van Dongen Minister of Small Business and Revenue and Minister Responsible for Regulatory Reform............................................ Hon.

Rick Thorpe Minister of Tourism, Sport and the Arts ......................................................................................................................................Hon. Stan Hagen Minister of State for ActNow B.C. ............................................................................................................................................ Hon. Gordon Hogg Minister of Transportation...........................................................................................................................................................Hon.

Kevin Falcon LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Leader of the Official Opposition .........................................................................................................................................................Carole James Deputy Speaker ....................................................................................................................................................................................Sindi Hawkins Deputy Speaker ...........................................................................................................................................................................

Katherine Whittred Assistant Deputy Speaker.....................................................................................................................................................................Sue Hammell Deputy Chair, Committee of the Whole................................................................................................................................................. Harry Bloy Clerk of the Legislative Assembly .........................................................................................................................E.

George MacMinn, OBC, QC Clerk Assistant.........................................................................................................................................................................................Robert Vaive Clerk Assistant and Law Clerk .......................................................................................................................................................Ian D. Izard, QC Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees ....................................................................................................................................... Craig H.

James Clerk Assistant and Committee Clerk ..........................................................................................................................................Kate Ryan-Lloyd Sergeant-at-Arms............................................................................................................................................................................. A.A.

Humphreys Director, Hansard Services ...................................................................................................................................................................Jo-Anne Kern Legislative Librarian ..................................................................................................................................................................................Jane Taylor Legislative Comptroller...............................................................................................................................................................................Dan Arbic

Party Standings: Liberal 46; New Democratic 33 ALPHABETICAL LIST OF MEMBERS Abbott, Hon. George (L) .................................................................... Shuswap Austin, Robin (NDP)............................................................................. Skeena Bains, Harry (NDP).................................................................. Surrey-Newton Barisoff, Hon. Bill (L)..........................................Penticton–Okanagan Valley Bell, Hon.

Pat (L) .............................................................Prince George North Bennett, Bill (L) ........................................................................ East Kootenay Black, Iain (L) ............................................................ Port Moody–Westwood Bloy, Harry (L)................................................................................Burquitlam Bond, Hon. Shirley (L).....................................Prince George–Mount Robson Brar, Jagrup (NDP).....................................................Surrey–Panorama Ridge Campbell, Hon.

Gordon (L) .........................................Vancouver–Point Grey Cantelon, Ron (L)..............................................................Nanaimo-Parksville Chong, Hon. Ida (L) .................................................... Oak Bay–Gordon Head Chouhan, Raj (NDP) ...........................................................Burnaby-Edmonds Christensen, Hon. Tom (L) ................................................. Okanagan-Vernon Chudnovsky, David (NDP) ......................................... Vancouver-Kensington Coell, Hon.

Murray (L) .....................................Saanich North and the Islands Coleman, Hon. Rich (L)...........................................Fort Langley–Aldergrove Conroy, Katrine (NDP) .......................................... West Kootenay–Boundary Coons, Gary (NDP) ....................................................................... North Coast Cubberley, David (NDP)............................................................Saanich South de Jong, Hon.

Michael (L) ...................................Abbotsford–Mount Lehman Dix, Adrian (NDP) .........................................................Vancouver-Kingsway Evans, Corky (NDP).................................................................Nelson-Creston Falcon, Hon. Kevin (L) .......................................................

Surrey-Cloverdale Farnworth, Mike (NDP) ...............................Port Coquitlam–Burke Mountain Fleming, Rob (NDP) ..............................................................Victoria-Hillside Fraser, Scott (NDP) ..............................................................Alberni-Qualicum Gentner, Guy (NDP).......................................................................Delta North Hagen, Hon. Stan (L) ................................................................ Comox Valley Hammell, Sue (NDP) ................................................... Surrey–Green Timbers Hansen, Hon.

Colin (L) ..................................................Vancouver-Quilchena Hawes, Randy (L).......................................................... Maple Ridge–Mission Hawkins, Sindi (L) ............................................................... Kelowna-Mission Hayer, Dave S. (L) ................................................................ Surrey-Tynehead Hogg, Hon.

Gordon (L).....................................................Surrey–White Rock Horgan, John (NDP)......................................................Malahat–Juan de Fuca Horning, Al (L)........................................................... Kelowna–Lake Country Ilich, Hon. Olga (L)...............................................................Richmond Centre James, Carole (NDP).......................................................Victoria–Beacon Hill Jarvis, Daniel (L)..................................................

North Vancouver–Seymour Karagianis, Maurine (NDP) ........................................... Esquimalt-Metchosin Krog, Leonard (NDP)......................................................................... Nanaimo Krueger, Hon. Kevin (L) .....................................Kamloops–North Thompson Kwan, Jenny Wai Ching (NDP)........................... Vancouver–Mount Pleasant Lali, Harry (NDP)........................................................................

Yale-Lillooet Lee, Richard T. (L)....................................................................Burnaby North Lekstrom, Blair (L).............................................................. Peace River South Les, John (L)........................................................................ Chilliwack-Sumas Macdonald, Norm (NDP).................................... Columbia River–Revelstoke MacKay, Dennis (L)....................................................

Bulkley Valley–Stikine Mayencourt, Lorne (L).......................................................Vancouver-Burrard McIntyre, Joan (L).................................................West Vancouver–Garibaldi Neufeld, Hon. Richard (L) .................................................. Peace River North Nuraney, John (L).............................................................Burnaby-Willingdon Oppal, Hon. Wally, QC (L).......................................... Vancouver-Fraserview Penner, Hon. Barry (L)...........................................................

Chilliwack-Kent Polak, Mary (L) ....................................................................................Langley Puchmayr, Chuck (NDP)...................................................... New Westminster Ralston, Bruce (NDP) ............................................................. Surrey-Whalley Reid, Hon. Linda (L) ................................................................ Richmond East Richmond, Hon. Claude (L).............................................................

Kamloops Robertson, Gregor (NDP) ................................................Vancouver-Fairview Roddick, Valerie (L).......................................................................Delta South Routley, Doug (NDP)..................................................... Cowichan-Ladysmith Rustad, John (L) ........................................................

Prince George–Omineca Sather, Michael (NDP).........................................Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows Simons, Nicholas (NDP) ...................................Powell River–Sunshine Coast Simpson, Bob (NDP)..................................................................Cariboo North Simpson, Shane (NDP) ....................................................Vancouver-Hastings Sultan, Ralph (L) ....................................................West Vancouver–Capilano Taylor, Hon.

Carole (L).....................................................Vancouver-Langara Thorne, Diane (NDP) .................................................Coquitlam-Maillardville Thorpe, Hon. Rick (L).......................................................Okanagan-Westside Trevena, Claire (NDP) ..................................................................North Island van Dongen, Hon. John (L)............................................ Abbotsford-Clayburn Whittred, Katherine (L)........................................

North Vancouver–Lonsdale Wyse, Charlie (NDP) .................................................................Cariboo South Yap, John (L)...................................................................Richmond-Steveston LIST OF MEMBERS BY RIDING Abbotsford-Clayburn....................................................Hon. John van Dongen Abbotsford–Mount Lehman .......................................... Hon. Michael de Jong Alberni-Qualicum..........................................................................

Scott Fraser Bulkley Valley–Stikine ...........................................................Dennis MacKay Burnaby North ...........................................................................Richard T. Lee Burnaby-Edmonds........................................................................Raj Chouhan Burnaby-Willingdon................................................................... John Nuraney Burquitlam.......................................................................................Harry Bloy Cariboo North..............................................................................

Bob Simpson Cariboo South..............................................................................Charlie Wyse Chilliwack-Kent ..................................................................Hon. Barry Penner Chilliwack-Sumas............................................................................... John Les Columbia River–Revelstoke................................................. Norm Macdonald Comox Valley........................................................................ Hon.

Stan Hagen Coquitlam-Maillardville..............................................................Diane Thorne Cowichan-Ladysmith ................................................................. Doug Routley Delta North ...................................................................................Guy Gentner Delta South ............................................................................. Valerie Roddick East Kootenay................................................................................

Bill Bennett Esquimalt-Metchosin.........................................................Maurine Karagianis Fort Langley–Aldergrove ..................................................Hon. Rich Coleman Kamloops.....................................................................Hon. Claude Richmond Kamloops–North Thompson ............................................Hon. Kevin Krueger Kelowna–Lake Country.................................................................. Al Horning Kelowna-Mission ......................................................................

Sindi Hawkins Langley ...........................................................................................Mary Polak Malahat–Juan de Fuca .................................................................. John Horgan Maple Ridge–Mission ................................................................ Randy Hawes Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows ..................................................... Michael Sather Nanaimo......................................................................................

Leonard Krog Nanaimo-Parksville .....................................................................Ron Cantelon Nelson-Creston .............................................................................Corky Evans New Westminster .................................................................. Chuck Puchmayr North Coast....................................................................................

Gary Coons North Island ...............................................................................Claire Trevena North Vancouver–Lonsdale................................................Katherine Whittred North Vancouver–Seymour..........................................................Daniel Jarvis Oak Bay–Gordon Head ........................................................... Hon. Ida Chong Okanagan-Vernon......................................................... Hon. Tom Christensen Okanagan-Westside..............................................................Hon.

Rick Thorpe Peace River North.......................................................... Hon. Richard Neufeld Peace River South..................................................................... Blair Lekstrom Penticton–Okanagan Valley .................................................Hon. Bill Barisoff Port Coquitlam–Burke Mountain ............................................Mike Farnworth Port Moody–Westwood.................................................................... Iain Black Powell River–Sunshine Coast ...............................................

Nicholas Simons Prince George North.................................................................... Hon. Pat Bell Prince George–Mount Robson ............................................Hon. Shirley Bond Prince George–Omineca................................................................ John Rustad Richmond Centre......................................................................Hon. Olga Ilich Richmond East........................................................................Hon.

Linda Reid Richmond-Steveston...........................................................................John Yap Saanich North and the Islands ............................................ Hon. Murray Coell Saanich South ........................................................................ David Cubberley Shuswap............................................................................Hon. George Abbott Skeena.......................................................................................... Robin Austin Surrey-Cloverdale............................................................... Hon.

Kevin Falcon Surrey–Green Timbers ................................................................Sue Hammell Surrey-Newton............................................................................... Harry Bains Surrey–Panorama Ridge.................................................................Jagrup Brar Surrey-Tynehead ....................................................................... Dave S. Hayer Surrey-Whalley...........................................................................Bruce Ralston Surrey–White Rock ............................................................Hon.

Gordon Hogg Vancouver-Burrard..............................................................Lorne Mayencourt Vancouver-Fairview.............................................................Gregor Robertson Vancouver-Fraserview .................................................Hon.

Wally Oppal, QC Vancouver-Hastings .................................................................Shane Simpson Vancouver-Kensington.......................................................David Chudnovsky Vancouver-Kingsway ......................................................................Adrian Dix Vancouver-Langara ........................................................... Hon. Carole Taylor Vancouver–Mount Pleasant........................................ Jenny Wai Ching Kwan Vancouver–Point Grey ................................................Hon.

Gordon Campbell Vancouver-Quilchena.........................................................Hon. Colin Hansen Victoria–Beacon Hill...................................................................

Carole James Victoria-Hillside ...........................................................................Rob Fleming West Kootenay–Boundary........................................................Katrine Conroy West Vancouver–Capilano...........................................................Ralph Sultan West Vancouver–Garibaldi ........................................................Joan McIntyre Yale-Lillooet..................................................................................... Harry Lali

CONTENTS Tuesday, April 15, 2008 Morning Sitting Routine Proceedings Page Introduction and First Reading of Bills........................................................................................ ....................................... 11341 Local Government (Green Communities) Statutes Amendment Act, 2008 (Bill 27) Hon. I. Chong Second Reading of Bills........................................................................................................ ................................................. 11341 Greenhouse Gas Reduction (Cap and Trade) Act (Bill 18) (continued) On the amendment (continued) A.

Dix R. Austin G. Coons B. Ralston Hon. B. Penner On the main motion M. Karagianis Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room Committee of Supply............................................................................................................ ................................................. 11356 Estimates: Ministry of Education and Minister Responsible for Early Learning and Literacy Hon. S. Bond D. Cubberley

11341 TUESDAY, APRIL 15, 2008 The House met at 10:02 a.m. [Mr. Speaker in the chair.] Prayers. Introduction and First Reading of Bills LOCAL GOVERNMENT (GREEN COMMUNITIES) STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 2008 Hon. I. Chong presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled Local Government (Green Communities) Statutes Amendment Act, 2008. Hon. I. Chong: Mr. Speaker, I move the bill be intro- duced and read a first time now. Motion approved. Hon. I. Chong: I'm pleased to present the Local Government (Green Communities) Statutes Amendment Act, 2008.

The legislation I'm introducing today en- courages local governments to take leadership in their communities to achieve sustainability. This legislation supports local governments to think, to plan and to build green, and it supports the development of compact communities with affordable housing and lower greenhouse gas emissions. Bill 27 will provide local governments with the flexibility to reduce emissions, to conserve energy and to make communities more socially and more environmentally sustainable in ways that make the most sense for their own communities.

Local governments, too, wi ll need to establish how they will reduce greenhouse gases as part of their planning efforts. The 2007 and 2008 Speeches from the Throne and the Premier's speech at the 2007 Union of B.C. Municipalities annual convention proposed a range of initiatives related to climate change and envi- ronmental management. This legislation connects with those important changes proposed by our government.

This legislation means that local governments can make long-lasting decision s for the benefit of their communities and their citizens, and this act is about supporting communities across the province to become more vibrant places to live and work. I move that the bill, Bill 27, be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today. Bill 27, Local Government (Green Communities) Statutes Amendment Act, 2008, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today. Orders of the Day Hon. R.

Thorpe: Mr. Speaker, in this chamber I call continued second reading debate on Bill 18, Greenhouse Gas Reduction (Cap and Trade) Act, and in Committee A, I call estimates of the Ministry of Education. Second Reading of Bills GREENHOUSE GAS REDUCTION (CAP AND TRADE) ACT (continued) On the amendment (continued). A. Dix: As members will know, we're speaking on the amendment put forward by the member for Vancouver- Hastings, who has argued that this legislation…. Let's remind ourselves of what the legislation is. It's an empty shell. It's an empty shell that isn't ready to be implemented.

So there is time, legitimately, to have a public debate about this. [1005] I think it's a very impo rtant amendment, a very helpful amendment to government by the member for Vancouver-Hastings. What the amendment says is that the subject matter — cap-and-trade — o f t h i s b i l l should be referred to a legislative committee and that we should not give the bill second reading now. I think the case for the amendment is compelling. [K. Whittred in the chair.] I think that most people, in looking at this…. We've cited the views of the freedom-of-information commis- sioner, who has expressed strong concerns with

section 36 of the bill. I think that a co mmittee looking at this issue might legitimately ask the freedom-of-information commissioner to come and speak to the committee and talk about that to see how we can make this system more transparent so that this isn't a system of private deals between the government and important players in the B.C. economy and impo rtant players in terms of the climate change debate — but rather than that, in fact, that it be a more public process and that the public have confidence in that process. We're asking everybody to take

part in this process, but apparently the public isn't going to be given the right to know. That's not according to me; that's according to the freedom-of-information and privacy commissioner. That's the first thing. Also along those lines, what it would do is give an opportunity to people like Darrell Evans from the B.C. Freedom of Information and Privacy Association. I'll remind you of what he said about this bill. He said: "…yet another attempt by the Liberals to place corporate information behind an iron curtain." So why not, given that the bill isn't ready…? You know how I know it isn't ready?

Because distinguished and well-known British Columbians, not opponents of the government but rather — I don't think the right

11342 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T UESDAY, APRIL 15, 2008 term is "employees of the government" — the people working with the government and getting remuneration for that from the government…. For example, Dr. Mark Jaccard has said…. And he didn't say this…. Interjection. A. Dix: The member for Surrey-Whalley is asking when he said this. Well, Dr. Jaccard said this on April 9, 2008, which was approximately one week ago. It was less than a week ago, in fact, that he said this. What did he say?

He said that B.C. is "still a long way from implementation of a cap-and-trade system." It's so much so that he says that B.C. might decide to take only "an observer position in the western climate initiative while it sees what the next U.S. federal government will do." What Dr. Jaccard is saying quite eloquently there, I think, in an e-mail is that we have time to involve the public in this process. I think it's the reason we should do that.

I think that what the member for Vancouver- Hastings has done here is given the government an opportunity to build support and interest and public involvement in the climate ch ange debate. That's what he's done with this impo rtant amendment at second reading. He's saying that it's time for the public to have its say so that this won't be an issue — if I might quote Darrell Evans — "behind an iron curtain." It's not a debate that will take place between the government and its financial backers behind an iron curtain — but that the debate take place in the public.

What will flow from that inevitably, I think, is more public engagement, more public support and more public involvement, of course, on the issue of climate change — in other words, a good thing. As my time to speak on this bill winds down…. I think that what the member for Vancouver-Hastings has done is throw a lifeline to the government. He's said to them: "Let's have the public debate. Let's have the public discussion.

Let's come back in the fall and debate a real bill, not a bill that's a regulatory shell, a bill that's an enabling power for the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council — the cabinet — but a bill that really deals with the issues of climate change and lays out what cap-and-trade will look like in British Columbia." I ask all members of the House to support this important motion by the member for Vancouver- Hastings. I thank you very much for your consideration. [1010] R. Austin: I rise today to speak in favour of this amendment to refer Bill 18 to an all-party committee.

I think it's an important debate for us to have here because, as has been noted by previous speakers, we are entering a new territory and a very complicated subject. I want to begin my remarks by stating very clearly on the public record that I am in favour of a cap-and- trade system. I think it is very important, as we try to tackle climate change and do our

part in British Columbia, that we recognize that trying to change the behaviour of the major polluters in our province is at the very heart of trying to solve this problem. What we have seen with previous bills that have come into the House thus far are some details, particularly in the gas tax, as to how to hit ordinary consumers in their pocketbook. But we haven't really seen the details of how we would tackle climate change for the large polluters in our province.

I think the reason why we haven't seen a lot of detail in Bill 18 is because it's complicated, and we don't really know where the government stands and what they're going to do with this cap-and-trade bill. It should be pointed out, as has been pointed out, that we have a bill here that has very, very few details. It's just enabling legislation.

All we are here to discuss is: are we going to give the cabinet the right to go and decide on our behalf, on the people's behalf — basically behind closed doors, in secret, with people we don't even know who are part of the discussion — how this is going to affect all of us? I think that's the wrong approach to take. It would be better for us to have a public debate, to engage as m a n y p e o p l e a s p o s s i b l e t o a n s w e r s o m e o f t h e v e r y difficult questions. And what are those questions? Well, first of all, what's the cap going to be? How many permits are going to be issued?

What sectors are going to be covered by all these regulations? We don't know that. In my neck of the woods we have a large polluter that has been making aluminum for the last 50 years. They are currently thinking about modernizing that plant and moving to a much greener plant in the sense of its pollution output. In fact, I understand that the new plant, if it is ever actually constructed, will have 90 percent less pollution or greenhouse gas emissions going into the atmosphere, which is a wonderful thing.

But is this company now going to be allowed to trade that savings in pollution and sell it so that they can offset it against some of their more polluting plants in Quebec? Who knows? We don't know that. How are these permits going to be allocated? Are they just going to be handed out willy-nilly? What's the price going to be? What are the caps going to be? Is there going to be an auction for this cap-and-trade system, or is it going to be decided and allocated? These are all very, very important decision s which we need to have debated publicly.

I think a good place to do it is in the public realm and then have an open discussion here in the House once we have details of a cap-and-trade system. W e n e e d t o k n o w w h a t t h e p e n a l t i e s w i l l b e f o r those companies that break those caps or are non- compliant. Obviously, if those penalties are not high enough, then we're not going to see the kind of change we need to see in terms of companies deciding that it's worthwhile for them to actually pollute less rather than just carry on their behaviou r as before and maybe buy an offset.

We need to know what kinds of restrictions will be placed on the alternative compliance units, or the offsets. How many offsets are there going to be? How easy is it to go and buy an offset? Are we going to allow companies, say, to go and buy a parcel of land that is going to be reforested when that land may already have been reforested under the forest licence? That wouldn't be fair. So these are the kinds of things that we need to do.

TUESDAY, APRIL 15, 2008 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 11343 We also need to have a detailed recognition of what kind of government oversight is going to be there. You know, statistics are bandied around a great deal in debates like this, but we n eed to know where these statistics come from. What is the data? What's the actual detail of where we are when we start, and how are we going to get to the actual totals that we want to get to? [1015] This bill is really unaccountable to the public. It authorizes cabinet to introduce any kind of cap-and- trade regime. We don't know what it's going to be like.

For example, in Europe when they started this system a few years ago, they made mistakes — huge mistakes — and it enabled companies to profit greatly by selling each other credits without actually changing any behaviour. Well, we don't want that to happen here in British Columbia. We want to make sure that when we set up a cap-and-trade system, it will reach the public policy goals that we want. We also want to make sure that the big emitters in this province are actually hit hard and forced to change their behaviour.

That's a critical thing with in this debate, because so far they've been let off the hook, in large part. What I fear, and what many of us fear on this side of the House, is that they will get a bit of a free ride or that they'll be able to negotiate deals behind closed doors that will help them have a longer period of time in which to try and offset and change their behaviours. So we need to figure out all of this before we decide how we're going to vote. The member for Vancouver- Hastings has given us an opportunity here to create a longer public debate, because this is not an easy matter to decide.

I think that most of the public, when they hear the term "cap-and-trade ," don't really understand what it's about. They recognize that we have a global warming crisis in the world, and they probably recognize that we as an industrialized society need to do our bit to solve this problem. We need to be leaders, in fact — seeing as we have the wealth, the expertise and the know-how to be able to change a lot of our industrial policies.

Just because the general pu blic views climate change as a huge matter of concern doesn't mean to say that they understand all of the details of how we will come across those solutions. When they hear the term "cap- and-trade," I think most people are completely unaware of what exactly is involved. If we are able to put this motion forward and pass it here, we can then engage the public in a much broader debate that will have more and more people sitting down and understanding what exactly a cap-and- trade system is. Let's face it.

The more people who get engaged — the more brains, the more ideas we have — the better the system will be that we eventually come up with. There is no debate on that , in terms of both sides of the House agreeing that we need to bring in a cap-and- trade system. The question is : what kind of system is it? Can we get the best one? Can we learn from some of the mistakes that have been made in other countries? I want to speak for a minute about the

section that deals with auction or allocation. As I have alluded to, I think it's very important that we have an auction here in this province and not have it just allocated by the cabinet. That's what this bi ll currently allows them to do or may not allow them to do. We don't know exactly. It's really an enabling piece of legislation, and we don't know exactly what kind of cap-and-trade system they would bring in. But if it was allocated, then a company, for example, that produced 20 percent of the aluminum in this province would automatically be allowed to have 20 percent of the emissions.

Then they would be able to offset that or to trade it, if they wanted to increase their production and presumably increase their pollution. That wouldn't exactly help to make any of the kinds of changes that we want to do. I think it would be better if we had a free auction. That way, the price would be set by the market as opposed to it being set by cabinet. This is one of the mistakes that was made in the early days in Europe where the price wasn't set correctly, and companies just carried on for several years without making any of the changes in their industrial practices because they didn't need to.

It just wasn't worthwhile. There wasn't enough of a penalty. There wasn't enough of a cost to the pollution, so it was easier to just carry on polluting rather than make those changes early on. What we are discussing here is really about openness, democracy and accountability. We have a government that came to power and said that they wanted to be the most open and accountable government.

Here is a bill b e f o r e u s t h a t ' s a s k i n g u s t o v o t e o n s o m e t h i n g w h e n we don't really know what it is that we're voting on; at least, we don't know the details. [1020] If it was as open and accountable as they wanted to be in their first term — at least, when they came to power in 2001 — we wouldn't be having this debate because what would be happening is that they would have a fulsome discussion in an open cabinet. All the details would be there for people to see.

Then we would be able to sit and have a debate here in the House and discuss those policy details to decide what the best kind of cap-and-trade system is for us to come up with. I hope very much that as people make these speeches in this House, the other side will listen long and hard and recognize that it's complicated. How do we know it's complicated? Well, with all the resources the government has behind it…. They've put millions of dollars into this special initiative and this climate change action team. With al l those resources, we have yet to see any of the details come out, and that tells you something.

That tells you it's so complicated that they don't even want to make this an open process because they don't know where they're at either. I think that is further proof that what we need to do is set a time, put together an all-party committee…. You know what? I would agree with the Premier on this. This is not a partisan issue. All British Columbians want to try and effect change with regards to climate change. Here you have both sides of the House agreeing in principle that a cap-and-trade system is an important

11344 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T UESDAY, APRIL 15, 2008 piece of public policy that ne eds to be brought into this province. That being said, if both sides can agree with that, then surely not just both si des of this House but all of the general public should have the ability to see what is being done and have some input into this. I think that's very important for the government as well.

When you're asking people to make huge changes — whether it be industry or whether it be individuals — if they can feel that they have had input into the process, they are more likely to make the sacrifices necessary to make those changes. These are very fun- damental and important changes in our society. I f w e d o n ' t g o a h e a d w i t h t h a t , i f w e j u s t h a v e a system where we pass Bill 18, and the cabinet down the road comes forward and says: "You know what? We've discussed this with our panel of experts.

We've discussed this with the big emitters, most of whom actually give us huge donations, and here's the plan we've come up with…." Then you're going to have a plan that's brought forward without the support of the general public, which would be a very sad thing because as I've said, most people want this problem to be solved or at least have some solutions that lead to bettering this problem or to lowering the emissions of this province. I think it's actually in the government's interest to go on side with this and recognize that we need to have a more fulsome public debate.

This is a problem that is of world magnitude, and we here in British Columbia are only a small part of the solution. However, if we can make changes in this province that learn from some of the mistakes of the cap-and-trade systems that have been brought about in other parts of the world, then surely we are furthering the cause for all the industrial countries that are trying to move in this direction.

It's something that we certainly have a moral obligation to do when you consider that we have large countries that are still developing — such as India and China — and are looking to us, the industrial world, to come up with solutions. You know, hon. Speaker, we've got it very good over here. We have a very high standard of living, and that standard of living has largely been made on the back of the general environment.

We have used more than our fair share of resources around the world to create a very high standard of living, and now those poorer countries that want to develop just as we have done and want to have higher levels of education and health care are also following the same path of industri- alization that we have taken over the last hundred years. Who can blame them? Who can blame them for following the path that we have taken? But what we are now realizing, which perhaps we didn't realize or have been very late to realize, is that that is not sustainable.

It was never sustainable for us in the rich countries that allowed ourselves to pollute around the planet and not have a price on pollution. Now that we see huge popu- lations in China and India wanting to take the same route, all of a sudden we're kind of saying: "Oh my goodness, we can't do this; we have to fix this problem." What's necessary is for us in the industrialized world to take the lead and to first of all show those countries that are still deve loping that there's a better way to industrialize than th e one that was used by the traditional countries in western Europe and in North America.

We have to be able to say to them: "You know what? There is a price for pollution." [1025] Everybody is realizing this. I was reading yesterday in the papers about what they're going to have to do in China to try and hide the levels of pollution during the upcoming Olympics. They are planning on closing every factory in Beijing in order to make the air even semi-breathable. My understanding is that you'll still be able to see the air before you breathe it. This is a huge problem around the world.

What these countries are looking for is for the leading countries who have been the great polluters — in western Europe, the United States, Canada, Australia, Japan…. They're looking for some leadership here. They need us to point the way and say: "Look, here's a way that you will be able to industrialize that will not create the problems that we have created for the whole world." S o i t ' s v e r y i m p o r t a n t , a s w e h a v e t h i s d e b a t e , t o recognize that cap-and-trade — while it sounds very simple — is very, very complicated.

I think it's incumbent upon all of us to take the time to go into the details, to go into the nitty-gritty and understand how we can create a system that actually effects change — c h a n g e a t t h e corporate level and change at the individual level. I'm not sure which is easier to do. At the individual level, people have to adjust their lifestyles.

They have to ad just their budgets, spend money on different things than they would have done otherwise and recognize that there's a price on every- body's pollution level — that we all have an individual carbon footprint that we have to start to take responsi- bility for. That's an individu al choice, and people need to be moved by government in the direction of making the right choices. In terms of the corporate sector, it's much more complicated because the corporate sector doesn't really have to worry about individual moral choices. What they have to worry about are the interests of their shareholders.

So when you're talking about pollution at the corporate level — and that's where the cap-and-trade system will really have an effect — you're talking about trying to effect change in a sector where people's interests lie in making the most profit for their shareholders. We have to have a system that mitigates the actual forces and tendencies of any corporation. I mean, I recognize that it's a natural and good thing for corpora- tions to be able to look after their bottom line to ensure that their shareholders can ma ke a good rate of return on their money. Otherwise, we'd all be in trouble. They'd all fold.

But at the same time we have to recognize, those of us who are legislators, that we have a responsibility to bring into place a system that will mitigate the interests of the corporate sector — one that recognizes they have to make a good rate of return for their shareholders

TUESDAY, APRIL 15, 2008 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 11345 while at the same time recognizing the role they have to play in the broader society as a whole. We need to make sure our cap-and-trade system is a good one, that it effects change, that it forces compa- nies to not take the easy route and carry on producing at a level that's producing higher levels of pollution, to find new ways of creating their products — not only to make them safer for consumers and not only to take care of the interests of their workers but also to take care of the general environment. That is a huge sea change in thought.

Prior to this debate, corporations didn't really have to think about that broad extent. There was no price on pollution. They could just pollute away and not really have to worry. But this is all changing, and that's what this debate is all about. In closing, I hope very much that the government will listen, will take the advice of the opposition here, will take advantage of the fact that the member for Vancouver-Hastings actually brought forward this amendment — a very wise amendment — that says: "Look, the government side doesn't know the answers to this." They don't. If they did, th ey'd share it with us.

They don't know the answers. With all of the brain power, the people behind them, with all of the university professors, they haven't come up with a solution. So let's take some time here. Let's get it right. Let's engage the public. Let's enga ge this House in an open debate. We shouldn't have to be looking at a piece of legislation without any details, which just says to the cabinet: "Well, we trust you. You go ahead and fix this problem, and we'll just vote for it now. We'll enable you to go and do whatever you want." That's not right. That's not democracy. [1030] Let's do the right thing.

Let's pass this amendment. Let's recognize that the government needs time and the public needs time, and let's have a debate later on in the House when we all know exactly what kind of cap- and-trade system the government is proposing to bring into effect in this province. G. Coons: I take the opportunity to stand to support the move to referral of this bill to an all-party committee, which was introduced here by the member for Vancouver- Hastings. I believe it is an appropriate and prudent motion to take a second look at what has been proposed here in Bill 18.

Bill 18 is the Greenhouse Gas Reduction (Cap and Trade) Act. I think it's quite appropriate that we need to examine the whole subject of cap-and-trade and how we as a province, as British Columbians, intend to use cap-and-trade not only in British Columbia but how we work with other provinces and other states. If we are to achieve the goals that have been set forth in law by legislation to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 33 percent in the year 2020, we don't need a good bill; we need a great bill.

It must be ambitious, and it must be a bill that's supported on both sides of the House and by the vast majority of British Columbians. We have a great opportunity to push a lot of legis- lation and a whole host of issues through a committee s t r u c t u r e , a n d w e s h o u l d u s e t h a t t o o l t h a t w e h a v e offered to us in the Legislature. We very seldom do that. We must ensure that people are informed and that every- thing is on the table.

I believe that all of us agree that cap-and-trade is one of the ways we can move forward to deal with green- house gas emissions, but before we fully analyze where we want and need to go with cap-and-trade, we must know, all of us in British Columbia, what exactly cap- and-trade is and what it involves. The concept for some out there is fairly simple as long as we are given the opportunity to discuss how we formulate the end result. We have emissions that are capped at a certain level, and the government of the day determines what is appropriate and what is under- standable by all.

Hopefully, there is no behind-the-scenes manipulation or lobbying to affect the government of the day's decision. We then have the emitters assigned or given pollu- tion permits, and if a certain emitter uses less than what is allowed or permitted, they can benefit, usually by trading or receiving cash or other benefits. If they require more than their assi gned permit, there is an opportunity that they can access more permits by trading or paying cash for the additional allowance to have their emissions, let's say, neutralized.

We all believe that cap-and-trade is the way to go, and the motion to refer this is, as I mentioned, a wise and prudent one. The notion of cap-and-trade is to use market drivers to encourage polluters to be innovative and change their behaviour. We need to have a much broader debate and offer initiatives that effect change. As I mentioned, it is widely supported by many, and by most in this House, as an initiative that can work. But we must be careful that we have the right legis- lation, that we all understand it and that it does work. We must have detailed language about how such a model would operate.

Bill 18 is enabling legislation for a future cap-and-trade system in British Columbia and, I have to note, a system that we, all of us, have openly supported. The reason I support referra l is that Bill 18, as it currently stands, leaves all aspects of a cap-and-trade system up to a regulation and to the discretion of a ministerially appointed director. Many throughout the province and in this House are questioning the account- ability, the transparency and the secrecy which seems to go hand in hand with this particular government. There are major concerns raised by the Information and Privacy Commissioner.

He had significant problems with the bill and urged both the Minister of Environment and the Minister of Energy and Mines to withdraw

section 36. The secrecy continues with this government. Referral to an all-party committee is a method to hold us all to account. As pointed out by David Loukidelis in his letter to both ministers,

section 36 of the bill makes sweeping confidentiality concessions that will deny freedom-of-information access to previously accessible corporate data and relates to a market that will be potentially worth hundreds of millions of dollars. [1035]

11346 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T UESDAY, APRIL 15, 2008 Bill 18 deems information as being supplied in confidence, even if it orig inates from government, and this applies to commercial, financial, labour relations, scientific or technical information. Mr. Loukidelis states in his communication with the Minister of Environment and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources…. He basically says, and this is from his letter, "This letter comments on the access to information implications of Bill 18.

In a separate letter…to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, I have expressed concerns about Bill 16" — the other bill, the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Act, similar to the ones he has concerns about in Bill 18. He has concerns with

section 36 of Bill 18 as it "would override the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and would deem certain information to have been supplied in confidence to the government for the purposes of" freedom of information. He believes that key goals of freedom of information are "to make public bodies more open and accountable to the public." We on this side of the House and many in British Columbia believe in the office of the freedom-of-information officer. He goes on to say: "Only a relatively small number of these overrides have been enacted in the 17 years since FIPPA came into force.

Bill 18 would unnecessarily add to that number, and this is a matter of significant concern, considering the importance of environmental protection measures relating to climate change and the need for openness and accountability in the monitoring and enforcement of such measures." Referring Bill 18 would ensure openness and accountability. We need to ensure that freedom of information is not denied for information relating to Bill 16 and Bill 18.

One last comment from the commissioner's letter: "Given the fundamental im portance of the FIPPA's accountability and openness goals, statutory provisions overriding or deeming matters otherwise addressed under FOI ought to be avoided." This isn't the first time that the commissioner had concerns. Back in my ferry files, there was another concern, and again, this relates to the referral motion. We need openness, we need transparency, and we need account- ability. We don't need secret meetings. We don't need behind-closed-doors chumming around. We need input. We need public debate.

Back in April of 2003, comments on another Bill 18. The Bill 18 back in 2003 was the Coastal Ferry Act. It's a very similar letter to the minister of the day, Judith Reid.

In that, he says: "Thank you for your April 10 letter." David Loukidelis ba ck in 2003, and I'm quoting from the letter: "My March 13 letter recommended that the operating agreement should require the ferry operator to 'make available to the public on a regular and timely basis reports and records relative to the safety activities and experience of the operating company.' Your letter said because 'the regulation of coastal ferry service is the responsibility of the federal government, it is not appropriate to include provisions in provincial contract.'" David Loukidelis goes on to say: "My recommendation is that the operator should be required contractually to make available to the public on a regular and timely basis su ch safety reports as have been created in the ordinary course of its operations.

I believe the public should have access to the records of the kind described and suggest the operator should make such reports and other information available to the public." Once again, when we start looking at the letters…. David Loukidelis recently, in response to Bill 18, indi- cated that only a relatively small number of overrides have been enacted. Again, we have denial of public information and public access by this government. Because of that, there have been major, major concerns with the operational safety of B.C. Ferries.

We've had the safety audit that this side of the House pushed for. [1040] Finally, B.C. Ferries and the government decided to have the Morfitt report. In that, there was a litany of concerns with operational safe ty. Again, this ties right into the referral motion, wh ere we need public input, public debate and public information. If we look at the Morfitt report, one of the recom- mendations says that: "B.C.

Ferries should ensure that each of the corporate strategic and business plans includes a strategic goal that pertains directly to the safety and security of customers…and reinforce that operational safety is the company's number one priority and that at no time should any other objective take a higher level of priority." If we had access to safety records of B.C. Ferries, then we could ensure that the public has a safe, affordable and reliable ferry service. That's why we need to refer. This is a continuing and fairly scary Liberal trend.

"Hide the truth, the real facts, so we can get away with crushing the public and any opposition with the illusion that we care, that we are a kinder and gentler Premier and government. We didn't really mean to stomp the HEU workers to the ground like shadflies on hot concrete. We didn't really mean to hold a racist and divisive referendum against first nations rights and entitlement.

We really are green, as long as our friends and insiders have the fast track and access to the information, and nobody really needs to know anything about it." We need to refer this bill so that the public and those in this House know exactly how it's being put together. If done poorly, there are huge consequences and massive implications. It is a complicated process to determine cap-and-trade. It is a complicated bill to move forward with, and we do need a much broader debate that affects change. There are many questions out there. Do we have a free allocation or an auctioned allocation or a combination of both?

These are questions that need answers. Bill 18 needs to have an all-party committee review it, share it, discuss it with all British Columbians. What do we see with Bill 18? We see unaccountability. We see Bill 18 authorizing cabinet to introduce any kind of cap-and-trade regime and to change it at any time without legislative oversight. It leaves even the core principles of the cap-and-trade regime up to regulation. Greenhouse gas allocation must be done in a public and accountable way. The reason we need to refer this and involve the public is because we need to know and the public needs to know.

If you leave these decisions

TUESDAY, APRIL 15, 2008 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 11347 to regulation, what you're doing is leaving it to the inner circle of the cabinet. Who knows who will have the ear of the Premier and the inner cabinet? I believe that won't be in the best interest of British Columbians. As I mentioned before, we are all aware that cap- and-trade is something that can work, something that w e h a v e t o h a v e w o r k t o d e a l w i t h g r e e n h o u s e g a s emissions.

Referring this to an all-party committee would allow members of this House to sit down, work together, relate as legislators in a meaningful manner to come up with something that works for the province and to work with our partners in Manitoba and down in the western states. Being on a committee that did work together, the sustainable aquaculture committee…. That taught all members of the committee on sitting together, listening to key issues, hearing from expert witnesses, coming up with recommendations that are workable and achievable, with no secrecy and with a lot of account- ability.

It took hundreds of presentations and a year and a half of public meetings throughout the province, but the democracy of that process was worth it — the same as referring this bill would offer us. It must be noted that sections of the bill leave many, many unanswered questions. For example, when we look at

section 26(1), it states that corporations can commit an offence under the act — but "corporation" is not defined. Who do we want to have that defined by? I would prefer, and most British Columbians would prefer, an all-party committee to look at that and make those recommendations. We know who that side of the House wants to have their decisions made for them, and we have a real concern with that. That isn't looking after the public interest. Now, the public has been completely…. [1045] Deputy Speaker: Minister of Health. Hon. G.

Abbott: I thank the member for giving me this opportunity to ask for an opportunity to make an introduction. Deputy Speaker: Proceed, Member. Introductions by Members Hon. G. Abbott: In the gallery today are two residents of Salmon Arm. I'm delighted to have constituents here visiting the Legislature. I'd like the House to make Alfred and Gertrude Schalm welcome, please. Debate Continued G. Coons: I will continue on the referral motion of Bill 18, which is the Greenhouse Gas Reduction (Cap and Trade) Act. The public has been completely shut out of the process.

Every initiative, every plan, every committee, every hearing that this government has had on climate change has been under an umbrella of secrecy. All appointments to the clim ate action secretariat and the Climate Action Team have been done behind closed doors and not inclusive to those who are key stakeholders.

If we look specifically at key exclusions, they have been on the climate action secretariat; the 177 presentations given to the government; the Climate Action Team and their work; the climate change plan, which is soon to be released; cap-and-trade negotiations; and all the imple- mentation of the carbon tax — all fall under the veil of secrecy. Last April, in 2007, the government excluded the Cabinet's Committee for Climate Action from the Freedom of Information Act. What are we afraid to disclose? What are we afraid to share with British Columbians?

In May 2007 the Premier joined the North American Climate Registry but refused to make the information from this registry public. They've refused to disclose any documents through FOI to the opposition, or reports or briefings related to the 33 percent target. I believe — and I believe most British Columbians understand — that we can take on this bill in a committee f o r m a t t o c o m e u p w i t h s o l u t i o n s . W e c a n l o o k a t t h e gaps. We can work together to work on a bill that meets the needs of British Columbians. W e n e e d m u c h b r o a d e r d e b a t e o n t h i s .

W e n e e d debate that effects change. We need full confidence of the public, all stakeholders and especially the rest of the world, who are closely watching the developments in this province. We have a choice. We can take a path that will move the important issue of greenhouse gas forward with full confidence, with full input and debate or take the path of secrecy and being unaccountable, which could create misery and embarrassment for all legislators. As it stands, this bill does nothing.

It will supposedly enable the regulations that will come once the western climate initiative has determined recommendations for a cap-and-trade system. However, that will not be for quite a while. Some out there may not know what the western climate initiative is. Basically, just to fill some people in, it's a collaboration which was launched in February of 2007 by the governors of Arizona, California, New Mexico, Oregon and Washington to help regional strategies to address climat e change.

WCI, the western climate initiative, is identifying, evaluating and imple- menting collective and cooperative ways to reduce greenhouse gases in the region. In the spring of 2007 the Governor of Utah, our Premier and the Premier of Manitoba joined the initiative, and it was applauded. I applaud that initiative. Montana joined in January 2008, and other U.S. and Mexican states and Canadian provinces have joined as observers. Through WCI, the partners set an overall regional goal in August of 2007 for reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

By this August, they will also complete the design of a marketing-based mechanism to help achieve the reduction goal. They developed a workplan to guide their work and are seeking public input through the process. If we look at the initiatives of the western climate plan, there's lots of public involv ement. On their website we

11348 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T UESDAY, APRIL 15, 2008 see that stakeholders are in volved. There is public in- put. There is accountabili ty. There is transparency. There is scrutiny in the legislatures of the other states that are involved and sharing in this initiative. [1050] In a letter from the WCI chair and co-chair from Washington and Arizona…. There's a letter dated last January to all stakeholders in viting them to attend in person and participate during the webinar. They had 300 people and 200 people by webcast. There's a website for public review and comment.

A quote from the letter to the stakeholders: "The WCI partners will take the comments received on the final drafts and work on a final recommendation." They value public input,

whereas we in British Columbia, contrary to the way it's being handled with our partners, with the western climate initiative, deny freedom-of-information access. We have secret meetings. We have meetings behind closed doors — no public debate, no accountability, no transparency, no scrutiny and a lack of open, public debate on initiatives that are very important to British Columbia and British Columbians. I believe that this bill seems to merely serve the purpose of misleading the public that some action has been taken to penalize the big greenhouse gas emitters.

While the government was quick to levy a tax on ordinary British Columbians with their gas tax — and we're hearing the concern in the north and rural areas, the unfairness of it — there has been no immediate action to curb greenhouse gas emissi ons from large industrial polluters. Even the government's climate change consultant is asking questions about what is happening with the cap-and-trade system that w ill be set up in the near future.

Mark Jaccard, in response to media on the carbon tax, says: "Still a long way from the implementation of a cap-and-trade system." Moreover, he said, B.C. may decide to remove itself to the sidelines while U.S. states work out their own emission caps. If that's the plan, fine. But let's be honest. Let's put it on the table. Let's have public debate about it. Let's refer Bill 18 to an all-party committee to look at what we may have to do.

Mark Jaccard continues: "B.C. might decide to take an observer position in the western climate initiative while it sees what the next U.S. federal government will do." This was in an e-mail in The Vancouver Sun on April 9. We must be reminded that our large emitters represent nearly 40 percent of our total provincial greenhouse gas emissions, and it's important that the cap-and-trade model currently being negotiated effectively deals with these large industrial emitters.

As I start to move through my support for referral of this, again, there are many questions that need to be answered — questions about how many permits will be issued, what sectors will be covered by regulations, how permits will be allocated, how big the penalties will be for a non-compliance. So I believe that this referral motion is something that can work for us in this Legis- lature to get answers and fo r the public to get answers and get a grasp of what Bill 18 is actually about. Darrell Evans from the B. C. Freedom of Information and Privacy Association has other concerns about Bill 18.

He says: "Yet another attempt by the Liberals to place corporate information behi nd an iron curtain. It's vital that our democratic values not be abandoned by the creation of a rapidly growing quasi-governmental grey zone where the government and private sector mix." He continues: "Transparency and accountability should prevail wherever public work is done and taxpayer funds are spent." In The Vancouver Sun that was said by Darrell Evans. Again, I relate it back to the quasi-privatized model — denying FOI access — with Bill 18, the Coastal Ferry Act.

Exactly the same proces s is happening, and I have concerns about that. Stephen Hume, writing in The Vancouver Sun, reiter- ates what worries Loukidelis and should concern the rest of us. Stephen Hume, on April 9 in The Sun, says: "What worries Loukidelis and should concern the rest of us are the sweeping confidentiality concessions offered private corporations that might benefit hugely from selling carbon credits acquired by meeting emissions targets." [1055] On the same day that Stephen Hume had his

article in The Sun, there's another concern. This is a quote from The Sun on April 9: "Hide from public scrutiny the details of who is reaching what targets and how emissions are monitored, and the process seems ripe for abuse by the unscrupulous." British Columbians do not want the process to be ripe for abuse by the unscrupulous, and we need to refer this bill to a committee for full debate to fill in the gaps and inform the public. As I mentioned before, the key unanswered questions t h a t m u s t b e i n t h e p u b l i c r e a l m , t h a t m u s t b e o n t h e table….

We need to know about the issuance of permits. Will there be a limit on these? How are the largest industrial sectors connected in the bill? What sectors should be covered by the cap-and-trade program? Within each covered sector, wh at point of regulation is most appropriate? Should all sectors be covered by the program on the same launch date, or should there be some added over time? If so, we need the reasons why. What about the allocation an d distribution of permits? Who will set the penalties? How high will they be for non-compliance?

What restrict i o n s w i l l b e p l a c e d o n the alternative compliance units — for example, any offsets? What sort of government oversight will there be in the cap-and-trade regime? What types of permits are we using — auction or free allocation or a combination of these? There are many, many questions that need answering. There's much debate on wh at works and what method we should be using. These are the questions that referring this to an all-party committee could take into account. This actual bill is an enabling bill, which allows to set regulations but doesn't set it by legislation.

It's not only very concerning to many on this side of the House but very concerning to many British Columbians who would like to know what a true cap-and-trade is. Is it merely a cap-and-trade that everyone looks at, at first glance and says: "Hey, we need it, so let's do it"?

TUESDAY, APRIL 15, 2008 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 11349 We need to know exactly what it does. What are the triggers? What are the penalties? Who's making key decisions? Is the public involved? Are decisions made behind closed doors? We need to know and hear the answers to these and many more questions. In conclusion, we need to break away from this veil of secrecy. I believe British Columbians want and expect three things from this government: scrutiny, transparency and accountability in this Legislature.

I would ask all members of the House to support this move to referral to ensure that these three key issues are put to the test with Bill 18. B. Ralston: I rise to speak to the amendment to Bill 18 proposed by the member for Vancouver-Hastings that Bill 18 not be read a second time now but that the subject matter be forwarded to the Select Standing Committee on Legislative Initiatives. I rise to speak in support of that amendment to the bill.

This debate arises out of the budget put forward by the government wherein 40 percent of the greenhouse gas emissions that are currently going up into the atmosphere in British Columbia were not covered by the gas tax introduced by the Finance Minister in the budget this spring.

At that time, in the budget document on page 13, the minister referred somewhat obliquely to other emissions, including those resulting from industrial processes such as the production of oil, gas, aluminum and cement, and emissions from landfill and other sources, which will not be subject to the tax initially — that is, the gas tax or, as the minister prefers to call it, a carbon tax. [1100] Initially in the budget, the major polluters faced no consequences whatsoever while ordinary citizens and those in rural and suburban British Columbia in certain industries and sectors incr easingly see the apparent unfairness of the application of the tax that the Finance Minister has proposed.

The major polluters, the major emitters, were given a free pass in the budget. This legislation is introduced to begin, at least, the appearance of imposing some form of greenhouse gas restraint upon major emitters in the province. Why this referral motion is particularly important is because it's very apparent not only from the comments of Dr. Jaccard…. He is recommending to the government that they wait at least until next year, until the new federal government in the United States is in place, before taking any steps.

To merely attend the western climate initiative of the American states and some Canadian provinces not as a participant but as an observer suggests that the time horizon for the imposition of this kind of a system and the resulting tax on major emitters is far in the future. This bill that's before us , therefore, gives us some leisure to consider the important step that this kind of scheme would involve and would bring to British Columbia to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. [S.

Hammell in the chair.] Because this covers 40 percent of provincial green- house gas emissions, it's important that this proposed system be the right one. If this 40 percent is not captured, it won't help reduce pollution. It would have negative consequences for reducing pollution — for the public confidence in any scheme to reduce greenhouse gases — and would damage British Columbia's reputation down the road. So it's very important that this system be set up properly, that we get it right and that there be some public input into that process.

The bill that's been introduced — as has been pointed out by the member for Nanaimo, the member for Vancouver-Kingsway and other members on the opposition side — is really but a shell. It's a shell that really gives the government the opportunity in cabinet — or, as the formal term, as the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council — to really put the guts of the bill together. The legal term for this is delegated legislation. It's legislation that is law made not in parliament or the Legislature but by the executive under the powers delegated to it by parliament.

Many legal observers have, over recent years, become very concerned about that tendency to delegate to the executive, away from the Legislature, increasing powers to make regulations, including the power to tax and a number of other important areas of law that affect many citizens, companies and cooperatives in the economy and in society. In 1929 Lord Justice Hewart called this delegated legislation — law made not in parliament but by the executive — the new despotism. It has become increasingly a feature of many countries in the Commonwealth.

One of the basic principles is that, according to Westminster- style parliamentary theory, taxation requires the financial resolution of the House of Commons. So what we see here is the potential for very sweeping legislation which will affect major industrial sectors — not only the management and operation of those firms, but those who work in thos e firms; those who buy and use the products of those firm s, or the services of those firms; and those communities that are affected by the presence of a plant in their community. So this is very important economic legislation.

It's the sort of thing…. [1105] You can already hear in the press the various industrial sectors — the cement industry, the oil and gas industry — raising concerns, granted, and under- standably, from their perspective. There was a story recently in the Globe and Mail about the Chevron Refinery in Burnaby. The manager or spokesperson there wondered what impact a cap-and-trade system might have upon the operations of that refinery. These are important question s, but it's clear that the government in this bill — at least what is enunciated by this bill — does not wish to discuss those details.

Those details are the nitty-gritty of the bill, the essential matter of the bill. They do n't want to discuss those publicly. What they want to do and what this bill would enable them to do is take the legislation, head into the cabinet room under a veil of secrecy and begin to put together the regulations that would make this system work or not work. There are very basic questions that this bill should be answering. The principles of legislative drafting

11350 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T UESDAY, APRIL 15, 2008 suggest strongly…. I looked at A Guide to Legislation and Legislative Process in British Columbia , prepared by the office of the legislative counsel and a guide to pre- paring drafting instructions. What they recommend is that when the government is putting together a bill, from the perspective of the legislative drafter, they should know in advance what the regulations are going to be in order that the bill be properly designed if regulations are meant to be subordinate to the main legislation.

If the proposed regulations are not known, it makes for a potential problem, in that the proposed regulations may not be consistent with the legislation that's being put forward. Now, either the government knows what the proposed regulations are here and has discussed them and chooses not to reveal them, which in my view and the view of the opposition is a real problem, because this issue is very important and deserves a full public airing…. There's lots of help that could be given to the government.

Many people — certainly citizens, experts and affected communities — have views on how this legislation might work and should be given the oppor- tunity to offer their advice. If the government knows what those regulations are, in my view, it has an obligation to release them.

On the other hand, the government may not know what the regulations are, have given an incentive to the legislative drafters just to "put this legislation together as fast as you can because we are" — speaking as the government — "under…." Their view may be that they're under such pressure to introduce this legislation that most of the details aren't ready, have to be left out and an empty shell has to be put forward to the Legislature in order to simply have something on the record that may convince the public which, if they don't scrutinize this legislation, chooses to believe that something is being done on cap- and-trade to regulate and reduce the greenhouse gas emissions of the major emitters in the province.

Either the government knows the regulations and is choosing to hide them, or th ey don't know and they're choosing to hide that fact. Neither option is a particularly palatable one, in my view. The government, I think, could seize this opportunity put forward by the member for Vancouver-Hastings and help work its way out of the dilemma that it has put itself into by rushing into the Legislature with this shell of a bill.

There are some important aspects to what is being proposed here, but the veil of secrecy that surrounds this bill is not merely confined to the legislation itself, the presence or absence of regulations. In the body of the bill, this legislation proposes to take the secrecy even further. [1110] This is where the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner and Mr. Loukidelis came into play. He wrote a letter directly to the minister responsible for this piece of legislation. This is a very unusual step. This is the Information and Privacy Commissioner, an independent officer of the Legislature.

He is completely independent, appointed by an all-party committee. No one is entitled to, nor would attempt to, interfere with his work. He views the legislation independently and has chosen of his own accord to come forward and express some very, very serious concerns about this legislation. Not only does this legislation delegate to the government in its proposed regulations, which may be already written in draft or may not be — one doesn't know — but in the operation of the bill, which ordinarily the public has the right to find out….

Through the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, they have the right to make requests. Even if the government chooses not to release the regulations, even if the government chooses not to share with the public some of the considerations that have gone into the making of a piece of legislation, or the operation of a piece of legislation, that act gives the public the right to make requests under the act and to have some of that information provided and made public. What the freedom-of-information and protection- of-privacy commissioner, Mr.

Loukidelis, is concerned about is that unlike an ordinary bill — and the Freedom of Information Act, with all its restrictions and all the attempts that the government has put to slow down or block the release of information — this legislation would incorporate statutorily a number of provisions that would prevent any release of information at all about the operation of this act. These are very, very sweeping proposals. Mr. Loukidelis refers to

section 36 of Bill 18. I'm going to just read briefly from his letter. "It would deem information to have been 'supplied,' even where the information has been generated by gov- ernment officials through inspection…. It would deem information to have been supplied 'in confidence,' thus…eliminating the requirement, in the circumstances of a given case, to prove confidentiality under

section 21(1)(b). "Section 22(1)(

a) would protect 'information with respect to a trade secret,' not simply a 'trade secret,' thus broadening the scope of protection that may be available under

section 21(1) of FIPPA." Those are very, very sweeping restrictions. The government, even if it supplied the information itself…. That would be barred from public review. It would employ the infelicitous and ambiguous phrase "information with respect to a trade secret," which creates a very broad and unclear ambit of protection from public scrutiny of anything relating to a trade secret. All of those provisions have attracted the attention of the commissioner, and the minister is aware of this letter because it's addressed to him personally.

It's unusual to receive it thus far, either in his intro- duction of the bill…. Given that there's very little, if any, debate from members on the government side, there appears to be no acknowledgment of this problem that the commissioner has pointed out, no commitment to at least even examine those provisions, no prospective amendments — nothing. Complete silence on this issue, which suggests that the government is hoping that the public will not be terribl y concerned about this and

TUESDAY, APRIL 15, 2008 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 11351 will be able to blow by it and introduce it as part of the legislation that's before the House. That ought to concern all of us. Many commentators have put it in perhaps more simple language and more direct language, which really expresses a measure of alarm that one rarely sees attached to legislation that comes before this House. [1115] I'm looking at a piece by Paul Willcocks, who's a commentator on B.C. politics.

He says: "A cap-and-trade system is a good way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but if I were an MLA — pause here for a shared shudder of horror — I couldn't vote for the…government's bill setting up…the system. It's vague and so short of details that MLAs of both parties really can't know what they're voting for." He goes on to say: "Even supporters of this principle should be nervous about this legislation. MLAs are being asked to give the cabinet huge power to impose rules that could mean ruin or riches for companies and communities in B.C.

"The legislation doesn't say how the caps will be allocated, either by sector or by company. Who will set the critical quotas, and on what basis? Will they be auc- tioned or awarded by cabinet? The bill doesn't even say which sectors or industries will or won't be…. It all matters, and none of the answers can be found in the legislation. "It's naturally making bu sinesses nervous. What new costs might they face? Can they even measure their emis- sions accurately enough to make the system work?

Some worry that costs will put them at a disadvantage compared to out-of-province suppliers." Should it be important, for example, that Prince George MLAs have at least some information on the likely caps and costs for the forest industry before they decide if they're prepared to support the bill? So there's one commentator, admittedly — one whose views are regularly followed by many members of the public — who's expressing real and profound concerns about what's in this legislation and what's not in this legislation.

The government's record on the secrecy that surrounds all of the climate change initiatives is really quite extraor- dinary, when one compares it to the western climate initiative that the MLA for North Coast referred to just a moment ago in his speech, where the public is invited to attend the meetings, most of the proposals are up on their website, there's an important dialog ue, and people are brought along in the democratic process, as they should be. Granted, the proposals ar e evolving, but there's the opportunity to incorporate suggestions from the public.

There's an expectation that business will be interested, but their representations and their interest is a matter o f p u b l i c r e c o r d s o t h a t p e o p l e k n o w w h a t ' s t a k i n g place, what compromises might be being made and what deals might be being worked out, all with a view to passing final judgment on the ultimate result.

This process, which would take all of those important questions and give them to a committee of cabinet, presumably, is completely consistent with the veil of secrecy that has surrounded these initiatives right from the start, right from the moment the Premier had his epiphany on the beach in Maui in January 2007. The public has been completely shut out of the process — every initiative, plan, committee or hearing the government has had on the climate change. All appointments to the climate action secretariat and Climate Action Team have been done behind closed doors.

Labour is completely left off the Climate Action Team. The exclusion from the FOI application has been to the climate action secretariat — the 177 presentations made to government, the Climate Acti on Team and their work, the climate change plan, cap-and-trade negotiations and the implementation of the carbon tax. In April 2007 the government excluded the Cabinet's Committee for Climate Action from the Freedom of Information Act. In May 2007 the Premier and the government joined the North American climate registry but refused to make the information from this registry public.

The government has refused to disclose any documents through freedom of information to the opposition on reports and briefings related to the 33 percent target reduction. So there's a history of moving forward in stealth and secrecy. Just why is not clear. This is an important matter of public concern. A cap-and-trade system is one of the potential legis- lative solutions that's been examined and put in place in Europe. Initially, the cap-and-trade system there was perhaps not as successful as it could have been, due to the way in which permits were allocated.

More permits were given than emissions that were being put into the atmosphere, and the system collapsed.

But that was apparently a growth pain, an d the system is back on a more effective track now. [1120] Those are the kinds of pub lic concerns that need to be debated and discussed so that the public can be drawn into it, so that interested parties can be drawn into it, so that business can be drawn into it, so that environmental groups can be drawn into it, so that labour can be drawn into it, so that affected communities can be drawn into this process, rather than just, as this legislation would, take the empty shell of the bill in behind closed doors and, under the veil of secrecy, work out what system might come forward.

There are very real questions to be asked about any cap-and-trade system. The minister in his…. I took the opportunity to review his very brief introduction of this bill at second reading, and his remarks are terse and clipped, to say the least. There's very little informatio n in his introduction and very little to guide the debate here in the chamber. None of the questions that have been posed here by members of the opposition have been answered by any member on the government side, and there's ample opportunity to stand up and debate.

Government members have not availed themselves of the opportunity to debate this bill, with very few exceptions, and those who did didn't provide any answers to those key questions. Very important unanswered questions that this committee…. There is time, as has been made very clear. There's no rush on the part of the go vernment to implement this system. They've publicly signalled that very strongly. This system, if it is to be implemented, might not be

11352 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T UESDAY, APRIL 15, 2008 implemented by 2009 or even 2010. So there is time to consider these basic questions and for the government to give some sense to the public of what this system might look like, what their panel of experts have advised them. There are a number of ex perts who are retained and are being paid to provide some answers to these questions and who, I'm sure, would be quite willing to share what they've decided and the areas where there is some real need for broader public debate. For example, how many permits will be issued? It's a very basic question.

What will be the cap? How will the cap…? That's the limit on overall emissions from this sector, the 38 so far. It looks like it might apply to the 38 major emitters who emit more than 100,000 tonnes of greenhouse gases a year. That's because Environment Canada requires that there be a record kept of that. But is there a plan to lower that limit? That's a reasonable question. That's a legitimate question. That's part of the debate. Is there any answer? Will we hear anything from the Ministry of Environment before we're called upon to support, or not, this legislation?

What sectors will be covered by these regulations? The WCI, the western climate initiative, has what they call a scope subcommittee. As the name suggests, the very work of that committee is to decide the sectors that would fall under the program, the emission sources that would fall under the program, the green- house gases that would fall under the program and the points of regulation where the program would be enforced. Those are all pretty basic questions, pretty legitimate questions.

If you're a business operating and you're one of those 38 businesses, major emitters, those are questions that you'd want to know, that you'd want to have answered. You'd want to know the answers to those questions. This legislation doesn't provide that. The government hasn't offered any detail on that — completely silent. How can businesses plan effectively? How can they decide whether they want to support the legislation? How can the communities where these plants are make plans for their future?

Ho w can the workers and the businesses that depend on th e economic activity that's generated there know what the future holds for them? This is a major intervention into the economy. I support a cap-and-trade program in principle, but in order to effectively implement one, these kinds of questions have to be dealt with. This government is not prepared to do that at all. [1125] The issue of how the permits will be allocated. There is huge debate about the process by which permits would be allocated. Do you simply assign them?

Or what some prefer and some economists have suggested, and a view that I myself am inclined to, is that an auction o f p e r m i t s s h o u l d t a k e p l a c e . T h a t w a y , i t ' s a n o p e n market. There's a market prin ciple involved there. In addition, you generate money for the public treasury by that auction process. That enables businesses, th rough the auction mechanism, to put a price on carbon and send the market signal to the new market in permits that might be created through this western climate initiative and the cap-and-trade system.

The very essence or principle of a cap-and- trade system is to bring the market principles to bear on the price of carbon, to create a market for permits, to incent innovation and incent businesses to reduce their emissions, therefore creating the savings that result from that — and also to further incent them because they'll be able to sell the permits that they have got and receive some income from that as well. The system is designed to do that if an auction system is put in place, but we don't have an answer from the government on that.

We don't even have an inkling of what the government is thinking on that — complete silence from all the leaders in this debate. Madam Speaker, that's why the member for Vancouver- Hastings has so wisely put forward this amendment that would send this bill out to the Select Standing Committee on Legislative Initiatives. We could hear before that committee.

That committee could travel the province — I've been on the Finance Committee; it sometimes does that — and hear from the public on how to make this cap-and-trade system work in the way that we want and how to have it be an effective solution for what is the greatest environ- mental challenge of our generation and how to have this legislation work for the interests of all British Columbians, not just for thos e who have access to the confidentiality and privacy of the cabinet room where deals might be worked out to solve individual problems for companies, rather than all the problems of all British Columbians.

With that, I conclude my remarks on this. I urge the government to take this opportunity to support the very wise amendment from the member for Vancouver- Hastings. Hon. B. Penner: Just speaking to the motion that's been put forward by the members of the opposition, the government will not be supporting this motion. Effectively, it's a delaying motion. One of their members, I thin k, put it quite succinctly. The member for Surrey-Newton said that the government needs to take a slower look at the climate change initiatives of government. We're not going to be supporting this motion.

In fact, one of their other members said some- thing quite contradictory. The member from Vancouver- Fairview said that it's important that governments collectively around the world take quicker action on climate change, not take a slower look, as the member for Surrey-Newton suggested. So I don't think that the members of this side of the House will be supporting this motion. [1130-1135] [Mr. Speaker in the chair.] Mr. Speaker: Hon.

Members, the motion is on the amendment: "Be it resolved that Bill 18 not be read a second time now but that the subject matter be forwarded to the Select Standing Committee on Legislative Initiatives."

TUESDAY, APRIL 15, 2008 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 11353 Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Members. Amendment negatived on the following division: YEAS — 31 S.

Simpson Fleming Farnworth James Kwan Ralston 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 NAYS — 40 Falcon Reid Coell Ilich Chong Christensen Richmond Bell Krueger van Dongen Roddick Hayer Lee Jarvis Whittred Horning Cantelon Thorpe Hagen Oppal de Jong Campbell Taylor Bond Hansen Abbott Penner Neufeld Coleman Hogg Sultan Bennett Mayencourt Polak Hawes Yap Bloy MacKay Black Rustad On the main motion. M. Karagianis: I rise to speak to the main motion here.

I have to, first of all, voice my great disappointment that the government didn't seize upon the opportunity that was given to them here to actually support the amendment that was just defeated. That, combined with the government's total lack of response so far with regard to the debate on this bill an d the issues that have been raised throughout the amendment debate, give me a great deal of concern.

In fact, this is a monumental piece of legislation that will have long-reaching implications into the future, will have huge implications on the economy of this province, will have huge implications on the whole issue around climate change and our need in this province to engage and change our behaviour. So the lack of response on the government side to all of the very legitimate questions that are being raised here by the opposition gives me a great deal of concern. The issue around creating an effective carbon-trading system is something that governments are grappling with around the world.

We'v e seen that the initial en- deavours by the European countries have had some failures, have had some successes. From that, there is an enormous amount of thin gs that could be learned. At no point are we hearing from the government that, in fact, they have given long and hard consideration of the concerns that are being voiced about carbon-trading systems and the success or failure. In standing and speaking to the main motion here, again, I would draw to the government's attention the very legitimate concerns that not only the opposition members have for this.

In fact, the environmental community itself, the business community, certainly many of those who will be most affected by a cap-and-trade system have themselves voiced some concerns. [S. Hammell in the chair.] So I think it's fair for us to expect that government would give us some assurance that they understand the complexities of creating an effective carbon-trading system and that they are wil ling to engage in a public dialogue to disclose exactly how they are going to approach this.

Given the occurrences around the world that have failed with regard to how the carbon-trading system was set up, I think it's imperative for government to actually pay attention and to respond, and to respond in the debate process here, as well, to let us know exactly what kinds of things they are thinking. It is this complete absence of any kind of detail or information that has given us the most concern. [1140] A strong system, an effective carbon-trading and cap-and-trade system, has to be secure, with no loop- holes.

That is one of the biggest concerns that's occurred here around the issues with lack of detail on this bill. We d o n ' t k n o w w h a t k i n d o f c a p s a r e g o i n g t o b e s e t . W e don't know what kind of loopholes, if any, might occur. We don't know what kind of system the government is going to base this on. Ar e they going to look to the European model? Are they going to learn from the mistakes and errors that have occurred there and create a system built on that, or ar e they looking at something new?

Where, in fact, are the details, that we can see, on what kind of cap-and-trade system the government is expecting to implement? The issue around including the appropriate sectors, not only in the discussions but certainly in the caps and relative to exclusions, I think, is a huge concern. There have certainly been plenty of examples with some of the existing proposed legislation by the government that…. The exclusions around some industries, I think, are inappropriate. Certainly, if we leave out the aviation industry, if we leave out B.C.

Ferries, if we leave out the oil and gas industry, if we leave out some of the major polluters in

11354 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T UESDAY, APRIL 15, 2008 this process — not only in the process of compiling and setting up an adequate and appropriate carbon-trading system — and if we exclude them from their need to comply within this, then I think that there should be some very grave concerns here raised by the public, raised by business and, certai nly, being voiced here by the opposition. I think government has a duty to listen to those things and to respond to those things. We've just very recently seen the disclosure around corporate donations to the B.C. Liberal Party.

There's no doubt in my mind that there are some significant ties here to government's behaviour and their allegiance to those donors. I know that The Tyee has done an analysis here and said that those corporations that have given money to the Liberals in the past have benefited from policy shifts in the past. We've seen considerable changes within some of the regulations around some of those industries. The implicat ions are there that they certainly get value for their investment.

The mining sector's lobbying efforts after the 2001 election resulted in amendm ents to the Environmental Assessment Act, removing requirements for sustainable development. There we have right there…. If the government is willing to compromise the Environ- mental Assessment Act, take out sustainability as a key part of their expectations of that for the mining industry…. There's a pitfall ri ght there that, I think, is an example of the kind of co ncerns that the public and the opposition have a right to voice.

We look at some of both the major donors and major polluters, and there are certainly some ties and relation- ships to the B.C. Liberals and to this government. Canada Forest Products and West Fraser Timber Co. and Weld- wood of Canada, which no longer exists, gave huge contributions. In fact, we've seen such significant shifts in forest law that you have to actually draw a very close line and you have to draw that connection, and you have to be very concerned about that connection.

When we look at other corporate donors — Teck Cominco, Goldcorp, Elk Valley Coal, EnCana, Highland Valley copper — there would be absolutely no surprise whatsoever that these organizations will fall very much at the top of the list of emit ters and polluters that will be most directly affected by how the cap-and-trade system and the carbon-trading system are set up. I wouldn't be unduly suspicious to say that large donations there and the plac ement and priority that these companies will have in the list of those who will be the uppermost in consideration of the cap-and-trade and the capping system….

We see in the list here of top polluters in this country and this province that Alcan themselves have been ranked as one of the top air polluters here in the provin ce. The oil and gas sector: responsible for ¹⁄₅ of B.C.'s total greenhouse gas emissions. [1145] It would be of great concern, I think, to the opposition members, to the environmental community, to the citizens of British Columbia, if these very top identified polluters in any way were given exclusions under the cap-and- trade system that we're setting up here. But we have no response from government to our concerns.

We've got no details whatsoever on how the cap-and-trade system will be set up, and so we have no choice but to continue to be very concerned and to voice our concerns. The issue is around perm its and how they are going to be distributed. How many are going to be distributed? Previous speakers have ou tlined the experience in European countries around th is that, certainly, they were far too lavish in their original number of permits. That resulted in the collapse of the cap-and-trade system that was initially set up there. There were great hopes, I think, in that system and watching how that system developed.

Certainly, around the issu e of how distribution will be done, whether that is, again, going to be something that is going to be left to the whim of the executive council of cabinet and what direct relationship that will h a v e o n b o t h t h e p r e v i o u s c o m m e n t s I m a d e o n w h o were donors, who are the major polluters, who will be excluded, who will not and what those expectations will be….

The government has given us no indication what- soever whether they will take the recommendations that have come from all kinds of experts in the field — and certainly, with passion from the opposition side here — t h a t w e e x p e c t a n d d e m a n d t h a t t h e r e m u s t b e a n auctioned permit system put in place. Those permits must be auctioned so that absolute fairness takes precedence here. Limiting offsets and setti ng the penalties for non- compliance.

One of the failings of some of the cap-and- trade examples coming out of E u r o p e i s t h a t e m i t t e r s were able to buy their way out without any significant, real and physical responsible change to environmental compliance. So where are the details here on limits to offsets and penalties? Frankly, none of this, in any way, would contravene this enabling legislation — to have some of these things clearly outlined. How is the system going to be built? How are they going to set caps? Who's going to be in, and who's going to be out? Is it going to be absolutely unilateral and fair?

Are we going to identify the top emitters and polluters and make sure that they're not excluded? Are we going to auction permits? How many will be distributed? What kind of limits to the offsets and what kind of penalties for non-compliance will be levied? Those are all very real questions that need to be answered. I don't think that they are, in any way, ques- tions that are out of keepin g with the kind of details that are expected on any legi slative actions within this chamber.

I'm very disturbed, and I spoke to this during the debate on the amendment, that the western climate initiative and our government's proposal to take a really passive role in discussions there…. I think that those are very key initiatives that will be set. Time frames and caps will be determined by consensus by the mem- bers of the western climate initiative. Often consensus leads to the lowest possible thresholds set so that there's no discomfort level for all parties. For us to simply sit and take a passive role while declaring that, somehow,

TUESDAY, APRIL 15, 2008 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 11355 we're taking a leadership role here, federally, provincially and internationally, is a complete sham. If we want to be real leaders, we will not take a passive role in that discussion. We will not let the consensus be determined by a whole number of other players and then take what's left on the table and say: "Well, we've got the lowest common denominator.

Meanwhile, we've had a lot of pressure from our own donors, funders and friends, and therefore, we're going to come in with a watered-down carbon-trading system, much of which will be developed in private and in secret." The public will only get the vaguest kind of idea of whether or not the large emitters and polluters are com- plying. Forty percent of the pollution problems in this province come from these specific sort of corporate entities. [1150] So Madam Speaker, this issue around the secrecy….

We know that the freedom-of-information and privacy commissioner has flagged very, very specifically the issues around secrecy here on this act. Frankly, setting the caps and disclosing that publicly and being very transparent to the public, I think, is an imperative part of this bill. If the government wants support for this, if they want compliance with this, we've got to see all of that — the setting of the caps, the determining of who is or is not in and out and what the penalties and non- compliance provisions are going to be.

All of that is of keen interest to the public , and we would expect that the government should be forthcoming with that. Tracking and reporting out on the behaviours and compliance or non-compliance of major polluters needs to be another part of this. So far, the government has been silent on what kind of reporting program we will see here. Anytime any of these actions take place in private — in secret, behind closed doors — then I think we have grave concern, and we have a right to voice that. We have a right and an expectation that government will answer us on this.

In the case of this kind of enabling legislation, where government says, "Trust us. We'll do the right thing. We'll do it behind closed doors, but you need not worry," frankly, I and many of my constituents don't necessarily have a lot of confidence in the government's ability to follow through on any of their promises. We have seen, from 2001 until today — seven years of a B.C. Liberal government — broken promise after broken promise, some of them with devastating conse- quences at the end of the day.

So for the government to rely on the fact that this enabling legislation, which is a fundamental key to a paradigm shift here in our behaviour in the province of British Columbia…. It's a part of a key initiative that we, frankly, support. The climate change initiatives, cap-and-trade — a real effective system — and some of the other components here that allow us to move forward into a new future that is very conscious and responsible to climate change…. We support that. But for the government to simply say: "Well, trust us. We'll do a good job, and you need not worry yourself about that.

We don't have to come clean with the public. We don't have to be transparent with the public on any of the components of this carbon-trading system…." This is a government that has had to be forced each and every step of the way to do the right thing. We have seen so many broken promis es from this government, where it is only upon public pressure from the general public; from the opposition; from the courts, in the case of Bill 29; public outcry ov er the child death reviews; the ongoing pressure that seniors are feeling as the government has still not de livered on their promises around long-term care beds….

It's only after enormous pressure from the opposition and the public that we see the government forced, in some cases, to do the right thing. [Mr. Speaker in the chair.] Let's be very clear. In almost every one of those cases, the government takes the path of doing the least possible. I'm frankly not fond of the saying "It's the least we could do." I think we should never strive to do the least we can do.

In the cases where government has had to be forced back to the table to reassess things, like the institution of a new children's representative, like having to revisit Bill 29 only at the pressure of the Supreme Court, like the promise not to sell B.C. Rail — and now it's embedded in a huge and very costly, scandalous lawsuit…. All of these things should say to us that you can't just simply say, "We trust government. They'll do the right thing," and walk away from this.

I think it is fair and right that we demand some of these answers with regard to this kind of legislation, that we do not blindly trust that something as key as the climate change initiative and a bill that is going to have the biggest impact on the economy, on corporate behaviour, on corporate responsibility — that is, in fact, going to determine a key part of the business community's role in climate change, hand in hand with whatever is going to be imposed on consumers….

I think it's imperative that we get these answers, and it's not in any way unjust for us to demand those before we determine if it's good or bad legislation. How can you know that when you don't have any of the details? Until I hear from the government some reas- surance here and some response, then we're left thinking this is all a huge mystery, and we can only surmise that we may or may not be doing the right thing. [1155] M. Karagianis moved adjournment of debate. Motion approved. Committee of Supply (Section A), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again. Hon. R.

Thorpe moved adjournment of the House. Motion approved. Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 this afternoon. The House adjourned at 11:56 a.m.

11356 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T UESDAY, APRIL 15, 2008 PROCEEDINGS IN THE DOUGLAS FIR ROOM Committee of Supply ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND MINISTER RESPONSIBLE FOR EARLY LEARNING AND LITERACY The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); H. Bloy in the chair. The committee met at 10:08 a.m. On Vote 25: ministry operations, $5,675,357,000 . The Chair: Would you like to make an opening statement? Hon. S. Bond: Yes, please, very briefly. I want to begin by doing probably the most important thing we do: recognize the incredible staff that we have working with us.

I am pleased to have a number of staff with us today. I'll introduce the ones that are going t o s t a r t , a n d t h e n w e ' l l h a v e v a r i o u s o t h e r s w o r k i n g their way through this process over the next couple of days. First of all, to my right is my deputy minister, James Gorman. To my left is Rick Davis, who is one of our superintendents of achievemen t, and just behind me is Doug Stewart, who is our assistant deputy minister in our resource management division. There are a number of other staff joining us in the room today. I want to just pay a compliment to all of them.

It's a pleasure to work with them on a daily basis. Also, they are terrific at what they do. Delighted to have them here. I know they'll be helpful in providing information to the members opposite as they ask their questions. I want to just very briefly remind people today that in the recent Speech from the Throne, in fact, government laid out a clear vision not just for education in the province. But for the province of British Columbia, education continues to be one of the top priorities of this government.

I think, certainly, that both sides of the House would agree that that is an important priority for whoever makes up government. Today we want to talk about some of the initiatives and investments, and I'm sure there will be specific questions related to some of them. We've been clear. We recognize that British Columbia has an excellent education system, and our job is to ensure that it continues to improve and that we allow a ll of the children in British Columbia to have a top-notch educational opportunity. [1010] The facts are very straightforward.

This budget creates an increase in education funding of 3.3 percent in 2008- 2009. In fact, that's an increase of $181 million. This year's budget also includes further increases of $103 million in 2009-2010 and $44 million in 2010-2011. When you look at that cumulatively over the last number of years, in fact we see an increase in our budget from $5.494 billion in 2007-2008 to $5.822 billion by 2010-2011. That is a $1.2 billion additional increase in education funding since 2000-2001.

In 2008-2009 our per-pupil funding will actually increase in British Columbia to $8,037 a year, which is an increase of more than 29 percent since 2001. When you look at the statistics and how we put that in context, Budget 2008 also represents another year of record funding in the province. At the same time, we continue to lose students in British Columbia. We have actually seen a decline of more than 50,000 students since 2001. This is the tenth consecu- tive year of declines in the province. That trend continues — of increased funding and decreased enrollment.

We know that we want to be very strategic about our investments, and we will continue to focus on student achievement with boards of education across the province. One of the things very exciting to us, certainly in our work, is the commitment to expand StrongStart centres in British Columbia, a program which looks at early learning and early literacy resources both for children and their families. One of the unique factors in those programs is that they are placed in schools which have excess space. One can imagine that if you have 50,000 fewer children, you're likely to have some excess space.

So I was delighted that in the Finance Minister's budget we saw a $38 million investment in StrongStart centres in British Columbia, and we are extremely pleased. We think that will make a difference also in our completion rates — when you look at investing in those early years. We intend to continue to invest in aboriginal student achievement. Adult learners are also an important com- ponent, and we also want to work with boards of educa- tion to look at green school buildings, buses, programs to help our students understand the environment and the sustainability issues that they're so keenly interested in.

With that, I think we've been clear in our throne speech. We have reflected the principles that we presented in the throne, backing that up by the financial commitments in Budget 2008. I know that I look forward to continuing to work with boards of education and educators across the province — all of our partners — to ensure that British Columbia continues to have an excellent education system. With that, we'd be delighted to begin to respond to the questions that the members opposite might have. D. Cubberley: I'd like to add my voice of welcome to all who are participating in today's events and to the ministers.

I'd also like to join the minister in thanking staff for their contribution to my performance in the House, and they bear no blame for any lack of performance on my

part in the House. I'm capably seconded by Carson Fennell and Iain Reeve, and I would thank them for their contribution to the questions that I'll be asking. I would just make some preliminary remarks before jumping into questions, to respond a little bit and indicate the obvious agreement that we would have wit

Document details

Collection	British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	H0415am 08
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	H0415am 08
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	76b7f32233e293b0fbfabb1e0dd6893438e38106

Source file is stored in the law ingest library (pdf).