2008 Legislative Session: Fourth Session, 38th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, APRIL 17, 2008

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 31, Number 3

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Page

Introductions by Members

Tributes

Gwen Dowding

Sather

Introductions by Members

Tributes

B.C. wheelchair curling team

Hon. O.

Ilich

Introductions by Members

Introduction and First

Reading of Bills

Greenhouse Gas Reduction

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

Hon. B.

Penner

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment

Act, 2008 (Bill 33)

Hon. W.

Oppal

Translink Openness Act, 2008

(Bill M203)

Karagianis

Statements (Standing Order

25 B )

Prevention of violence against

women and children

M. Polak

Esquimalt Neighbourhood House

Karagianis

Earth Day events and BARK

environmental home design

Rustad

Arthritis

Fraser

Sea to Sky land and

resource management plan

McIntyre

Sustainable development on

Vancouver Island

Routley

Oral Questions

Government action on domestic

violence

Farnworth

Hon. J.

van Dongen

Thorne

Hon. W.

Oppal

L. Krog

Sather

Report recommendations for child

protection services

Simons

Hon. T.

Christensen

Child death investigations by

Representative for Children and Youth

Karagianis

Hon. T.

Christensen

Deaths of homeless people

Chudnovsky

Hon. J.

van Dongen

Taser use by transit police

Ralston

Hon. J.

van Dongen

Access to information on Olympic

secretariat and VANOC meetings

H. Bains

Hon. C.

Hansen

Petitions

C. Wyse

Reports from Committees

Special Committee to Review the

Personal Information Protection Act

Cantelon

Committee of the Whole House

Greenhouse Gas Reduction

(Renewable and Low Carbon Fuel Requirements) Act (Bill 16)

(continued)

Horgan

Hon. R.

Neufeld

Robertson

Reporting of Bills

Greenhouse Gas Reduction

(Renewable and Low Carbon Fuel Requirements) Act (Bill 16)

Third Reading of Bills

Greenhouse Gas Reduction

(Renewable and Low Carbon Fuel Requirements) Act (Bill 16)

Second Reading of Bills

Transportation Investment (Port

Mann Twinning) Amendment Act, 2008 (Bill 14) (continued)

Hon. R.

Thorpe

Karagianis

Ralston

D. Hayer

Gentner

Mayencourt

H. Bains

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Education

and Minister Responsible for Early Learning and Literacy

(continued)

Hon. S.

Bond

Cubberley

J. Kwan

C. Wyse

Austin

Gentner

Sather

Horgan

Chudnovsky

Thorne

Fleming

[ Page 11521 ]

THURSDAY, APRIL 17, 2008

The House met at 1:33 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Introductions by Members

D. Routley: Mr. Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to introduce and embarrass a guest of mine. I promised him that I wouldn't introduce him, because I think he's a little shy. But I'm going to. He's a very good friend of mine. Corey Melchior is his name, and I'd like the House to help me welcome him.

He's one of those constituents that we all have who really keeps his eye on things. I think it's the ultimate accountability for government that people are engaged and realize what is happening.

So thanks to Corey for being aware of what is going on.

Hon. S. Hagen: We have four very special guests in the gallery today from the beautiful Comox Valley. We have Tom Grant, Shawn Wilson, Ted Brooks and the mayor of Courtenay — who is a star — Starr Winchester. Would the House please join me in making them welcome.

Tributes

GWEN DOWDING

M. Sather: I would like to inform the House of the passing of Gwen Dowding on March 16. Gwen was the wife of Gordon Dowding, who was Speaker of this House in the early 1970s and introduced question period and full Hansard transcripts of proceedings.

Gwen moved to Vancouver from Manitoba in 1943 after her first husband was killed in the war. She became an accomplished photographer and was the official photographer for Theatre Under the Stars.

Gwen married Gordon Dowding in 1945. They had three children: Mark, Colin and Lisa. Gwen was a member of the Unitarian Church of Vancouver for more than 50 years, as well as a member of the Icelandic Höfn Society and the Icelandic Canadian Club of B.C.

She was elected to Burnaby council in 1972. Eventually Gwen and Gordon moved to Maple Ridge, where they lived for many years. Gwen moved to Parksville-Qualicum after Gordon's death in 2003 to be near her daughter.

Gwen was brave, intelligent, humorous, witty, loving and peaceful. She will be missed.

[1335]

Introductions by Members

D. Hayer: It is my honour to introduce some very special guests today. They are our good friend Bob Hans, who is a community leader and a businessman; Mr. Bakhtawar Singh Sandhu, who is a businessman from Surrey; and his brother Tarsem Singh Sandhu who is a member of the Shiromani Akal Dal party of Punjab and ex-chairman of Punjab tourism. Would the House please make them very welcome.

Tributes

B.C. WHEELCHAIR CURLING TEAM

Hon. O. Ilich: It gives me great pleasure to rise in the House today to announce that B.C. has once again struck gold at the 2008 Canadian National Wheelchair Curling Championships in Winnipeg. Team B.C. beat Ontario 8-6 to repeat as national champions.

On the team were longtime Richmond residents Vince Miele, Cindy Tucker, Melissa Soligo, Jacqueline Roy, Whitney Warren, Frank LaBounty and Jim Armstrong. I ask that the House please join me in congratulating Vince and the rest of Team B.C.

Introductions by Members

Hon. L. Reid: I wanted to welcome to the Legislature today Mr. Ross Lumb. He and I were teaching colleagues in Richmond. He's currently at Maple Lane Elementary School. It's delightful to have the opportunity to just say thanks to a teacher, particularly from Richmond, who continues to do an outstanding job on a daily basis.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

GREENHOUSE GAS REDUCTION

(EMISSIONS STANDARDS)

STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 2008

Hon. B. Penner presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Greenhouse Gas Reduction (Emissions Standards) Statutes Amendment Act, 2008.

Hon. B. Penner: I move that Bill 31 be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. B. Penner: I'm pleased to present the Greenhouse Gas Reduction (Emissions Standards) Statutes Amendment Act, 2008. The bill contains amendments to the Environmental Management Act, the Forest Act and the Forest and Range Practices Act. It is my privilege to introduce the amendments to the Forest Act and the Forest and Range Practices Act on behalf of my colleague the Minister of Forests.

This legislation has been prepared by our two ministries as part of this government's wide-ranging initiatives to address greenhouse gas emissions and climate change. The amendments to the Environmental Management Act will add new provisions to that act, dealing expressly with requirements for reductions in greenhouse gas emissions from certain sectors. One of these sectors is waste management, which includes

[ Page 11522 ]

landfill operations. In addition, requirements are being added with respect to greenhouse gas emissions from electricity generation facilities in accordance with commitments made in this government's 2007 energy plan.

This bill also contains amendments to the Forest Act. This year's Speech from the Throne noted that the government is committed to making British Columbia an alternative energy powerhouse in the Pacific century. The B.C. bioenergy strategy is being established to create new opportunities for using wood and other renewable fuels. The amendments to the Forest Act will encourage the development of a wood bioenergy sector.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 31, Greenhouse Gas Reduction (Emissions Standards) 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.

MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT, 2008

Hon. W. Oppal presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2008.

Hon. W. Oppal: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. W. Oppal: I am pleased to introduce Bill 33, the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2008. The bill amends the following statutes: the Adult Guardianship and Planning Statutes Amendment Act, 2007; Degree Authorization Act; Financial Institutions Act; Forest Act; Forest and Range Practices Act; Local Government Bylaw Notice Enforcement Act; Motor Vehicle Act; Passenger Transportation Act; Pension Benefits Standards Act; Public Sector Employers Act; Teaching Profession Act.

In addition, the bill makes technical amendments to a number of other acts and repeals the Business Paper Reduction Act and the Scholarship Act.

Hon. Speaker, I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

[1340]

Bill 33, Miscellaneous 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.

TRANSLINK OPENNESS ACT, 2008

M. Karagianis presented a bill intituled Translink Openness Act, 2008.

M. Karagianis: I move introduction of the Translink Openness Act, 2008, for first reading.

Motion approved.

M. Karagianis: It gives me great pleasure today to introduce the Translink Openness Act, 2008. This bill will make TransLink board meetings open to the public. It will increase TransLink's accountability, transparency and openness.

Transit fares in the Lower Mainland are the highest in the country, and TransLink is raising property taxes. These are vivid examples of important decisions that the TransLink board makes. This bill will allow members of the public to participate in these and other important public transportation decisions that affect their everyday lives.

I move that this bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill M203, Translink Openness Act, 2008, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Statements

(Standing Order 25

B) PREVENTION OF VIOLENCE AGAINST

WOMEN AND CHILDREN

M. Polak: To live a life free of violence and abuse is something that most of us take for granted. Sadly, as recent tragic events have shown us, violence in the lives of women and their children is closer than we'd care to admit. In families, in the workplace, at school and in the broader community, violence against women and their children continues to confront and challenge our society and us as individuals.

As government, we continue to invest resources in areas where we believe we can make a real difference — $1.2 million for partners in prevention grants to engage men and boys in the prevention of violence against women; $1.5 million to expand funding for culturally appropriate information and services to women experiencing abuse; $2 million for transitional housing developments in Victoria, Terrace and Vancouver's downtown east side; immediate 24-hour crisis line support through VictimLINK in 130 different languages and dialects.

In total, government provides almost $50 million a year in prevention and intervention supports for women fleeing abuse — supports like transition homes, counselling and outreach. These programs and initiatives are certainly making a difference, but government cannot do this alone. That's why it is so important to build public awareness.

Violence against women and children can continue only when we as individuals and communities turn and look the other way. As a woman and the mother of

[ Page 11523 ]

a young woman, I look forward to a day when violence and abuse affecting women and children is a thing of the past. Prevention of Violence Against Women Week is an opportunity to remind ourselves and our communities that it is still here and that we must all work to end it.

ESQUIMALT NEIGHBOURHOOD HOUSE

M. Karagianis: Esquimalt Neighbourhood House Society is a multi-service social service agency dedicated to providing supportive services in my community. It has been serving the residents of Esquimalt, Vic West and View Royal for over 30 years. The society is committed to promoting health, education and social change within the community and has an amazing record of service propelled by an outstanding team of staff and volunteers.

It's with great pride that I note it was my predecessor, former Esquimalt-Metchosin MLA Moe Sihota, who assisted them in their search for a real home. With funding from the provincial government, the society was able to secure property on Constance Avenue. Dozens of citizens came forward to generously volunteer their time to help rejuvenate the vintage house into Esquimalt Neighbourhood House.

They are all deserving of enormous praise, but for now I will only single out Mr. Bryan Mee for his spectacular efforts on the project. Today Esquimalt Neighbourhood House is a pillar in my community providing exceptionally important programs and services to families with young children and mothers-to-be.

The Best Babies program helps pregnant women and their families until their babies are six months old, providing them with information on nutrition and health. Best Families takes over from there and provides ongoing services. Far too often, that even includes providing food.

Esquimalt Neighbourhood House prides itself on being able to offer volunteer work to people who may have had physical or mental disabilities and/or mental illness. The demand for services continues to grow every year, and Esquimalt Neighbourhood House always finds a way to do more with fewer dollars and provide for the needs and demands of the community.

[1345]

Most recently the occasional homeless person has been found asleep in the yard, a sad sign of our times but an indication that Esquimalt Neighbourhood House is viewed as a haven of hope.

EARTH DAY EVENTS AND

BARK ENVIRONMENTAL HOME DESIGN

J. Rustad: Climate change is affecting us all. In my riding you only need to look at the dying pine trees or the two months of flooding last year to know that something has changed. As more people become concerned about the potential impacts of climate change, many are wondering what they can do.

One way to help raise the level of awareness is to participate in Earth Day on April 22. Earth Day has been celebrated for 38 years, and last year more than a billion people around the world participated in a number of events. This year international groups are calling for utilization of renewable energy, carbon-neutral buildings, protecting the poor and middle class in the new green economy and for a moratorium on new coal-burning plants.

In B.C. we can celebrate all of these achievements as each and every one of these goals is part of the direction our government is taking. But if we're really going to bring about change, we all need to get involved.

To that end, the Canadian Home Builders Association Northern B.C. is taking up the call. The theme of this year's Northern B.C. Home, Garden and Recreation Show on April 25 to 27 in Prince George is "Think Green." It will feature a very unique piece of Canadian technology called BARK.

BARK is a self-contained, all-terrain cabin that's designed to be completely off the grid. Everything in this unit is environmentally friendly and showcases Canadian design and ingenuity. This B.C.-built concept is truly a leader in the world and promises to be a real crowd-pleaser.

We can make a difference. We can find ways to reduce our impact on the environment, and I salute the Canadian Home Builders Association Northern B.C. for doing their part. I hope everyone will take time to participate in Earth Day on April 22, and I invite everybody to come and visit BARK at the home show April 25 to 27 in Prince George.

ARTHRITIS

S. Fraser: One in six Canadians lives with some form of arthritis. There are more than 100 types of arthritis, and they are broken into two main groups, osteoarthritis and inflammatory arthritis. Arthritis affects people of all ages and has a serious impact on quality of life. Inexpensive, disease-arresting medications are available, but early diagnosis and treatment for rheumatoid arthritis are key to minimizing long-term disability and premature death.

Here are some of the challenges that we face. Fewer than 270 rheumatologists are actively practising in Canada today. Many people who live with inflammatory arthritis are treated by general practitioners and internists. Some of these have been able to stay current with arthritis techniques, but the fact is that GPs receive only 17 hours of training on musculoskeletal diseases during the entirety of their medical training.

British Columbians living in rural communities often fare worse in terms of accessing timely diagnosis and appropriate treatment. Aboriginal peoples are five times more likely to contract rheumatoid arthritis than non-aboriginal Canadians, and it is often more debilitating and more life-threatening. Arthritis is the leading cause of disability for people over the age of 15.

All these statistics are stark and highlight the seriousness of the condition and the costs to individuals and certainly to society in British Columbia and in Canada.

[ Page 11524 ]

Here is what we need to do. British Columbians must be made aware of arthritis. We need education. All relevant health professionals must be able to perform standardized, age-appropriate screening assessment. They need education. Every British Columbian must have timely and equal access to appropriate treatments and medication. We as legislators definitely have a role to play in ensuring that all of this happens.

SEA TO SKY LAND AND

RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

J. McIntyre: As we approach Earth Day, I'm proud to speak on a recent landmark achievement in the Sea to Sky corridor. On April 11, I was honoured to be a witness to a historic land use agreement signing with the Lil'wat Nation. With this, we have completed the Sea to Sky land and resource management planning process, paving the way for implementation.

In 2002 the planning for the Sea to Sky LRMP was initiated. In 2005 discussions began with local first nations to layer on their vision for land use in their respective territories to ensure harmonization with the 2004 LRMP recommendations developed by the community.

[1350]

It's a vast area that's home to four first nations groups — the Lil'wat, In-SHUCK-ch, Tsleil-Waututh and Squamish Nations. It's rich with cultural values and is known for its natural environment. Crown land use conflicts have been a sensitive topic for aboriginal and non-aboriginals in the Sea to Sky corridor as a result of the economic growth that's rapidly transforming the region.

Since 2005 our government has expressed its commitment to reconcile past differences with our first nations in the spirit of the new relationship, forging new partnerships based on respect and understanding that fosters expanded economic opportunities. Our government and communities of interests alike now share a vision with our first nations. With leadership and collaboration, we've successfully harmonized the interests of all parties.

I would like to recognize the four first nations representatives from the provincial government, including the integrated land management bureau staff, municipal governments, Squamish regional district and all the recreation industry and environmental groups who worked together to complete this.

Collectively, we've agreed on responsible development in the area to protect and sustain ecological values in our region for now and future generations. This historical agreement provides management direction for the creation of new conservancies, cultural places and cultural management areas, wild land zones and directions for front-country areas and wildlife habitat as well as riparian and floodplain ecosystems. We'll benefit from this framework.

SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

ON VANCOUVER ISLAND

D. Routley: I rise today to speak to the House about the concept of sustainable development on Vancouver Island. On Vancouver Island and throughout B.C. we're experiencing a great demographic pressure, a lot of it brought by the retirement of boomers from all across Canada coming to the warm climate here. In Victoria we have one of the lowest vacancy rates in the entire country and the highest vacant bedroom rate in the country, so we can see that our growth perhaps isn't being as well thought out as it might be.

Land use decisions can barely keep up to this rate of change in the cycle of election, the cycle of official community plan review. These things are not keeping up to the demands that are being placed on our infrastructure, our water, our hospitals, our roads and our transit.

Our core industries are in either crisis or downturn — forestry, tourism and fisheries. The industrial underpinning, the economy that would underpin this growth, is not being developed at the rate it needs to be. Water is under great pressure. The Chemainus River is being pressured with wells that might be installed to support development, despite lack of consultation with the first nations, the Halalt people.

Echo Heights, Paldi, Holland Creek — these are names in my constituency that conjure up a concern about the rate of development. Forest land conversions — we're seeing the privatization of those lands. There are many people struggling to keep up with this: the Vancouver Island farmers' alliance, mid-Island sustainable stewardship initiative, Youbou Timberless Society, Somenos Marsh Society, Cowichan Valley Naturalists, our first nations working on fisheries projects — all of these people. It's dangerous to name them, because there are so many working in this field, trying to bring some control to the shape and rate of growth.

Let's be smart about growth. Let's listen to the people affected. We decide, and if we don't decide well, we will pay very steeply with the loss of natural habitat.

Oral Questions

GOVERNMENT ACTION ON

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE

M. Farnworth: Yesterday the community of Merritt — in fact, all British Columbians — were relieved to hear that Allan Schoenborn had been apprehended. But the community is still asking very important questions about how the whole case has been handled. Schoenborn was arrested three times the week before the murders. He was released by a justice of the peace in a tele-bail process that needs to be reviewed. A full day after the murders, police had not told the public that a potentially dangerous suspect was on the loose in their community.

My question is to the Solicitor General. Can he explain why that critical information was kept from the public for so long?

[1355]

Hon. J. van Dongen: I do confirm that as the member for Yale-Lillooet said this morning, the community

[ Page 11525 ]

and the police worked together on this investigation. The community is very supportive of their police, and I think it's important for the members of this House to realize that there is still a critical investigation going on. There is an individual that has been apprehended and taken into custody, but there is still an investigation going on which is very critical. It's important that I as Solicitor General do not make comments that might compromise that investigation.

I encourage all members to follow the lead of the MLA for Yale-Lillooet, support the work of the police and let the due process unfold. There are processes in place that will get the answers that the member is asking.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

M. Farnworth: We all support the work of the police, but what the public wants is to have answers to questions. What we've seen this week — it doesn't matter whether it is the case in Merritt, whether it is the report from the children and youth commissioner or whether it's the Keeping Women Safe report — is that there appears to be a disconnect between the sharing of information. There is information that is not being shared between either agencies or the people making the decisions.

My question to the minister is: does he recognize that there is a problem in information-sharing, and if so, what is he going to do about it?

Hon. J. van Dongen: It's important, again, to acknowledge the seriousness of the issues involved in the crimes committed in Merritt. That is why the coroner's office…. The chief coroner very quickly announced that he would be holding an inquest subsequent to his investigation. That is one of the processes that will provide answers, in a fact-based way, to allow members of the public to learn, to allow the family and the community to learn how this tragedy unfolded.

There are other processes in place with respect to the conduct of the police, which people are free to use to examine the police conduct. Police are at arm's length from the Solicitor General, and it would be inappropriate for me to interfere in their operations or comment on them.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a further supplemental.

M. Farnworth: Issues around decisions — for example, on telephone bail, not directly related to this case — require that all the information is there. Issues that have been raised in the children and youth commissioner's report have outlined disconnects, a lack of sharing of information.

Does the Solicitor General not at least recognize — and let's put aside Merritt for a minute — that maybe now is the time to look at how government agencies and ministries and the justice system deal with issues of domestic violence, that now is the time to have a review of how we deal with that and how we share information between agencies and those making the decisions that can impact women and children across this province?

Hon. J. van Dongen: I can assure this House that I'm not going to do what the member appears to have done and draw conclusions about the facts of these cases. It is important that we support, first of all, the people in the justice system who are working every day in good faith, doing their best to ensure that all of the appropriate processes are followed and that information is shared.

That is one of the goals of people within the system: to share information. But we have to be careful not to jump to conclusions before the proper processes have their opportunity to unfold.

[1400]

D. Thorne: Yesterday's report called Keeping Women Safe called for critical changes to the way our justice system responds to domestic violence. Several of the key recommendations deal with the inability of government agencies to communicate and share information.

The similarities of yesterday's report from the children's representative to this report are startling. Underlying the urgency of this is the fact that both reports are pressing the government to immediately create an interministerial coordinating body with an ongoing budget — key words: ongoing budget — to coordinate government response to domestic violence.

I ask the Attorney General again today: will he commit to protecting women in this province by striking this interministerial coordinating body absolutely immediately — today, if possible, start that up?

Hon. W. Oppal: We recognize that violence against women is a very, very serious issue. We recognize that all of us — all members of the community and members of this House — ought to be concerned about this, and we must work together to resolve this issue which has been with us for many, many generations.

The point raised by the member is a valid one, and that is about the sharing of information. I can tell you that the criminal justice branch in my ministry is doing that now. We have established a creative, innovative approach. It's called the domestic violence response team wherein the police, prosecutors, social workers and community outreach workers will work together and share information. That should go a long way to resolving many of these issues.

We are all dedicated, and we're all committed to doing this. I can assure the member of that.

Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental.

D. Thorne: With all due respect to the Attorney General — that his ministry is getting this problem under control — I think not. I think the community, the province at large, is very concerned. The Attorney General says that we should all be concerned. Well, I can assure the Attorney General on behalf of the people of British Columbia — certainly the people in my riding — that they are already very concerned.

[ Page 11526 ]

The report is clear. No matter what the Attorney General thinks, B.C. is failing its women and children. The report states clearly: "Government must develop and maintain a comprehensive coordinated strategy to ensure that safety assessment and risk management are integrated." This is not happening, in spite of what the Attorney General says.

It's a simple question that I'm asking the Attorney General. He can make this committee happen. He can make it happen starting today if he chooses. Will he commit to this coordinated response, to a lead agency to coordinate so that women will stop falling through the cracks in British Columbia? Answer me now: a simple, simple yes.

Hon. W. Oppal: Well, we were the ones who commissioned the report. We were the ones who wanted some answers. We were the ones who wanted to know how best we can solve these problems. I can assure you that we're committed to that.

I don't know what kind of committee the member has in mind. I don't know if establishing a committee is a response to anything. We have, with the people who are working on the ground floor — the prosecutors — established a policy wherein they're working together with all the workers who are working together with all the victims. They're doing that.

I'm not so sure what the member has in mind, but I can assure her that the spousal violence assault policy introduced by the criminal justice branch is a policy that takes into consideration many, many of the recommendations made by the report that we received this week.

[1405]

L. Krog: Well, the Attorney General says: "We're the ones who commissioned the report." I have news for the Attorney General. They were the government that also made deep cuts. They're the government that's never apologized for making those cuts, and they're the government that's never admitted they should make changes.

What British Columbians deserve to hear from this government and need to hear from this government is some accountability at long last. The place to start, with respect to domestic violence, is with this report. In all, there were 65 recommendations to help protect women from domestic violence. Will the Attorney General commit today to implement all 65 recommendations?

Hon. W. Oppal: Obviously, we're examining the report. We have to look at all of the recommendations. I think the report is a good report. It fairly sets out the circumstances of what has taken place in the past 20, 25 or 30 years in this province, and it makes some very sound recommendations. Obviously, we'll take the recommendations into consideration.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

L. Krog: With the greatest respect to the Attorney General, the time for consideration is long past. That's the point of having the report.

Two significant reports this week have exposed serious weaknesses in the government's ability to protect women and children, and the tragic murders like the ones in Oak Bay and Merritt are telling us we need to do better. But we haven't had any commitment today from this government that they're really going to make the changes necessary.

My question is to the Minister of Community Services, who has some special responsibilities — who isn't here. Sorry.

Mr. Speaker: Member.

L. Krog: My apologies, hon. Speaker.

My question, then, is to the Attorney General.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

L. Krog: My question, then, is to the Attorney General. He knows what the issues are. He has two reports. We've got two serious incidents. Will he make that commitment today? Sixty-five recommendations — they're reasonable. Let him commit here today.

Hon. W. Oppal: Let me say this. Everybody in this House is concerned with this issue. I take seriously what the member opposite has said. I'm completely satisfied that his motives are entirely honourable and that he's genuinely concerned about violence against women. Tragically and unfortunately, this cancer has been with us for many, many generations, and we have to resolve it together.

We will examine that report. We will look at the report, and we will move forward from the report. It's a good report. I said that before, and I'll say it again. We will look at it, and we'll examine carefully all of the recommendations that are made. We'll consult with the community partners who would be involved in implementing the recommendations in order to resolve this very difficult issue.

M. Sather: My question is for the Solicitor General.

Before being elected to this office, for several years I led treatment programs for assaultive men who were mandated by the courts. Unfortunately, what I saw was that the use of police reports to confront the men about their behaviour was being discouraged.

Assaultive men are very adept at not taking responsibility for their actions and for blaming their victim. The use of the police report is very important. It's uncomfortable, but it's very important in getting the man to take responsibility. Yet I saw this government change direction to make that more difficult.

My question to the minister is: will he ensure that the open use of police reports in assaultive men's treatment programs is not restricted in order to ensure that the safety of women and children comes first?

Hon. J. van Dongen: I can't comment on the specifics of the member's question, but I will assure him

[ Page 11527 ]

that all of the relevant information that came out of the recent report on domestic violence will be considered in my early discussions with police-based and community-based victim services people.

[1410]

There is a lot of good work going on in terms of risk assessment, and I can also confirm for this Legislature that this government has invested significant additional dollars in transition houses to provide safety for victims of domestic violence.

Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental.

M. Sather: While I encourage the minister to consult the files, I did apprise the minister of this issue back in 2004. The report Keeping Women Safe made some important recommendations for assaultive men's treatment programs. They identified problems with lack of adequate availability of treatment as opposed to educational approaches to assaultive men's counselling and emphasized the central role of accountability strategies.

This is exactly what I'm talking about. Men are being let off the hook in these treatment programs. What is the minister going to do to ensure that accountability is put back in assaultive men's treatment programs? When will he act to protect the women and children of this province?

Hon. J. van Dongen: As I said in my previous answer, we will examine the latest report and all of the other advice from people both in the system and within our ministry to take the appropriate actions to ensure that we continue to build a better approach and better systems to dealing with the protection of victims and dealing with offenders when it comes to domestic violence.

REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS

FOR CHILD PROTECTION SERVICES

N. Simons: Yesterday B.C.'s Representative for Children and Youth released a scathing report into the government's lack of progress on protecting children and helping families. The minister said that he welcomed the report, but British Columbians want to know what he'll actually do in terms of more than just saying that he welcomes it. They're skeptical because of this government's failure to act in the last seven years.

Will the minister do more than simply welcome the report and commit to implementing all of its recommendations?

Hon. T. Christensen: I will confirm that the government certainly does welcome the report. As I said yesterday, I think it's important that we have critical analysis of the work being done by the ministry to protect children and families.

We believe that the report provides a solid learning opportunity. We believe that the recommendations were put forward in a spirit of ensuring that the system gets better. That's the spirit with which we accept those recommendations, and we will be working closely with the representative. We will be working closely with the select standing committee to report on how we can use these recommendations to improve outcomes for children and families across the province.

There are elements of the recommendations that we want to have further discussion with the representative about, but certainly the general direction of the recommendations is very consistent with the work that the ministry is doing and will continue to do.

Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental.

N. Simons: We've heard assurances in the past that the government was working on things, but we've seen quite clearly that they've had seven years, and they've failed to address the issues that they have been repeatedly told need to happen.

Considering this government's track record on openness and accountability…. They tried to hide the report. They tried to delay it, and now they're saying they welcome it.

The people of British Columbia want to know specifically: will he state clearly that the government has learned its lesson and that they will implement the representative's recommendations?

Hon. T. Christensen: The member may want to rewrite history, but I think we should actually learn from history. We have gone from a situation where only 59 percent of the positions in the north actually had employees in them that do the work with children and families to 98 percent today. That's a dramatic improvement.

I'm not going to suggest for a moment that there's not more work to be done. I certainly believe that the report of the representative will help us in continuing to improve services to children and families.

[1415]

I also believe it's worth acknowledging that the front-line workers across this province, day in and day out, work in very challenging situations. We are working hard to support them, to put the resources there that they can rely on. We've added supervisor positions to ensure that front-line workers have the supervisory support that they require. We believe very much that these recommendations will assist us in doing more to strengthen practice on the front lines.

CHILD DEATH INVESTIGATIONS BY

REPRESENTATIVE FOR

CHILDREN AND YOUTH

M. Karagianis: Well, there is certainly a bit of a theme emerging here today. Report after report of failure by this government, and this government continues to refuse to commit to acting on the recommendations in any of these reports. In both the Oak Bay and the Merritt tragedies, the murdered children were linked with the Ministry of Children and Families.

[ Page 11528 ]

My question is to the minister. Will he confirm that the Children and Youth Representative will investigate those deaths and the role of the ministry, and will make recommendations flowing from the tragic deaths of those children?

Hon. T. Christensen: The member knows well what the mandate of the Representative for Children and Youth is. It may come as a surprise to the members opposite, but the ministry actually doesn't dictate what the representative investigates. Her legislation does, and I have every confidence that the Representative for Children and Youth will fulfil her mandate.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

M. Karagianis: Well, the children's representative isn't allowed to let the community know she's investigating children's deaths. She's asked for the power to do that, and the government has said they will bring in a change at some point. Who knows?

When will the minister bring in the legislation to empower the representative to let families and communities know that a child's death is being investigated?

Hon. T. Christensen: The member should know that in both of the tragic circumstances that the member refers to, there are ongoing coroners' investigations. Those will proceed. Those will inform all of us in terms of what has happened and what improvements might be made. I think we should allow those processes to continue. As I indicated, if the Representative for Children and Youth is mandated to investigate these particular circumstances, I have every confidence that she will be doing that.

DEATHS OF HOMELESS PEOPLE

D. Chudnovsky: The office of the chief coroner has released statistics which show that at least 56 homeless people died in B.C. over the last two years. This is a rate 19 percent higher than the rest of the population. Experts on homelessness who have looked at the report conclude that the figure of 56 deaths is a dramatic undercount — 56 deaths, a dramatic undercount.

The fact that the death rate for homeless people is so much higher than the rest of us means that many of these deaths were preventable, if only those people had somewhere to live. If you're homeless, you are more likely to die. Will the Solicitor General explain to the House what specific measures he's taking to reduce the outrageous and unacceptable mortality rate of homeless people in B.C.?

Hon. J. van Dongen: I regret that I don't know the details that the member is referring to, so I will take the question on notice.

TASER USE BY TRANSIT POLICE

B. Ralston: My question is for the Solicitor General. In the last year transit police used Taser stun guns on passengers who refused to pay fares and ran away. Will the minister confirm that he intends to do absolutely nothing to stop this practice?

[1420]

Hon. J. van Dongen: Every day police in the province of British Columbia put themselves at risk to protect the public. We give them the tools to do this job, both to protect the public and to protect themselves in risky situations. A Taser is one of those tools.

There are certainly legitimate concerns raised about the Taser. That is why this government appointed an independent public inquiry under former judge Thomas Braidwood. Commissioner Braidwood has confirmed that he will review recent examples of the use of the Taser by the GVTA police. He will review all of the previous studies and comments, which will allow him to provide a report to the public near the end of June.

So it is a serious issue. That's why the commission is in place, and it will report out phase 1 at the end of June.

ACCESS TO INFORMATION ON OLYMPIC

SECRETARIAT AND VANOC MEETINGS

H. Bains: It has been reported in the media that the Olympic secretariat office has stopped keeping written records of its meetings. My question is simple to the minister responsible. When was he first made aware of this practice, and does he agree with that practice?

Hon. C. Hansen: The Olympic secretariat is an important part of my ministry and is overseeing the provincial government's participation in the games, and I am not aware of any change in practice.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

H. Bains: It's about time this minister got on with the file of this Olympics. It has been neglected for the last three years. This is how bad it is. The freedom-of-information manager for the ministry told the Georgia Straight that she had been…

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

H. Bains: …told by the secretariat that it had decided to stop recording minutes of its meetings without explanation. Not only had the secretariat stopped keeping minutes of its meetings, but VANOC had also stopped sending its minutes to the secretariat.

Where is the transparency and where is the accountability that this Premier ran his campaign on? Will this minister start to show some leadership and ask VANOC himself — and the secretariat — to keep the public and the taxpayers…? With all of the information that is going on behind those closed doors, will he ask them to keep those minutes public?

[ Page 11529 ]

Hon. C. Hansen: Let's talk about leadership. Let's talk about the leadership from VANOC.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Minister, just take your seat.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. C. Hansen: We know that the NDP have been in a quandary about the Olympics because their leader was opposed to it, then wasn't sure about it and now maybe supports it. We've got some members who say they support it, and then they demonstrate that they don't.

The leadership that we have shown around the 2010 Olympics means that for the first time in the history of the Olympic movement, we're going to have every single sports venue completed 14 months ahead of the actual date.

We have seen for the first time in the history of the Olympic movement the most transparent organizing committee that is sharing information with the public on the website. All of the agreements are on the website for the public to witness.

We know that the athletes are excited about 2010. We know that British Columbians from corner to corner to corner of this province are excited about 2010. It's about time the NDP got excited about the Olympics.

[1425]

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

[End of question period.]

C. Wyse: I seek leave to present a petition.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

Petitions

C. Wyse: I present a petition of 104 asking for the implementation of the medical, health and safety report entitled Population and Oil and Gas in the Northeast , including the memorandum of understanding between the Northern Health Authority and the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources.

Reports from Committees

R. Cantelon: I have the honour to present the report of the Special Committee to Review the Personal Information Protection Act for the fourth session of the 38th parliament.

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

Motion approved.

R. Cantelon: I ask leave of the House to suspend the rules to permit the moving of a motion to adopt the report.

Leave granted.

R. Cantelon: I move that the report be adopted, and in doing so, I would like to make some brief comments.

Mr. Speaker: Continue.

R. Cantelon: The report of the Special Committee to Review the Personal Information Protection Act contains the committee's findings and recommendations on the first statutory review of the law.

Keeping personal information private is vitally important. In our report, the committee wanted to enhance the privacy safeguards, but at the same time we balanced that goal against imposing unnecessary regulations on businesses, especially small businesses.

Our key recommendations relate to enhancing accountability for cross-border data flows; mandatory notification of privacy breaches in certain circumstances, particularly with respect to credit and health information; banning the use of blanket consent forms by provincially regulated financial institutions; revising consent exemptions to better address business practices in the insurance industry; retaining the minimal fee for access to personal information; permitting the disclosure of personal contact information for health research — an issue which was followed and paralleled with the Ministry of Health; streamlining the complaints process in the province's privacy laws; especially, strengthening the Information and Privacy Commissioner's oversight powers.

In closing, I'd particularly like to thank the committee members for their efforts and also acknowledge the studious and excellent work of Josie Schofield, our committee researcher. I would also like to express our appreciation to the witnesses who appeared before us and all those who provided written submissions.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, the question is adoption of the report.

Motion approved.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: I call continued committee stage debate on Bill 16 in this chamber and in

Section A, Committee of Supply, for the information of members, continued debates on the estimates for the Ministry of Education.

[1430]

[ Page 11530 ]

Committee of the Whole House

GREENHOUSE GAS REDUCTION

(RENEWABLE AND LOW CARBON

FUEL REQUIREMENTS) ACT

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 16; S. Hammell in the chair.

The committee met at 2:31 p.m.

section 6 (continued) .

J. Horgan: I wonder if the minister could assist me in understanding

section 6(2), and I'll read it for those who don't have the bill in front of them. "Subsection (1) does not apply in relation to

Part 3 fuel that the

Part 3 fuel supplier expects, on reasonable grounds, will be used for a purpose other than (

a) transport, or (

b) if applicable, another prescribed purpose."

The reason I raise this question is that as we go through the remainder of Bill 16, there are a number of locations and a number of clauses that make reference to prescribed purposes, which of course we have no knowledge of at this time because the regulations are not accompanying the act.

If the minister could just enlighten me on what potential other prescribed purposes might be in that category.

Hon. R. Neufeld: I will introduce again the staff with me today. On my right is Paul Wieringa, executive director of alternative energy, electricity and alternative energy division. On my left is Michael Rensing, air quality program analyst, bioenergy renewables branch, electricity and alternative energy division. Right behind me is Janice Larson, who is a director in the bioenergy and renewables

section of the ministry.

I'll give you two quick examples. One could be off road, and one might be marine.

J. Horgan: If one might be marine, would then B.C. Ferries be required…? B.C. Ferries is not part of this act, but it is an issue that has been raised in discussions inside this place. Would B.C. Ferries be covered under that?

Hon. R. Neufeld: Yes, B.C. Ferries would be covered because they use light diesel and not a bunker.

J. Horgan: Moving along to 6(3): "a

Part 3 fuel supplier must determine, in accordance with the regulations" — again, which are forthcoming — "the carbon intensity of each of the

Part 3 fuels that it supplies in the compliance period by either (

a) applying the default carbon intensity deemed by the regulations to be the carbon intensity of the

Part 3 fuel, or (

b) determining the carbon intensity of each component of the greenhouse gas emissions attributable to the

Part 3 fuel."

[1435]

As I read that, I'm coming to a conclusion that the provider of the product — the

part 3 fuel provider — is to determine the carbon intensity of the product. Is that correct?

Hon. R. Neufeld: No, it's not their decision. The ministry will set default value. I'm told that if you go down further to (b)(iii), they have the opportunity to actually argue a point with the legislation, the regulations that will be in place. It is definitely a decision by regulation, by government.

J. Horgan: I know it's difficult to jump around on a bill, but while we're still on

section 6, I've skipped ahead to

part 4, "Administrative Penalties," at which place we will find a formula that says if one therefore equals, and so on…. It's in

section 9, just for staff to quickly gander at.

As I'm looking at

section 6 about what the requirements will be in regulation, the administrative penalties that will flow from those regulations are in a

section to come. Is that the way these intensities are going to be calculated — by regulation, by the ministry, published for

part 3 suppliers to meet?

Hon. R. Neufeld: Yes.

G. Robertson: In terms of measuring the carbon intensity for these

part 3 fuel suppliers, what staffing and resources is the ministry allocating to establish the carbon intensity of each of these potential fuels and/or to audit the fuel suppliers and their findings?

Hon. R. Neufeld: This doesn't come into force until 2010, and when that comes into force, we will have the required people to actually do that kind of thing. For the compliance we will work with other ministries, because you can do cross-ministry compliance, especially in the tax division. That's one ministry that I can actually think of.

G. Robertson: That sounds like a fairly vague commitment to ensuring that the carbon intensity is accurate. Of course, it makes a huge difference if it is or it isn't.

I'm concerned about the measurement of carbon intensity, specifically with biofuels originating from the tropics from forest land that has been deforested to produce palm oil, for example. Will the calculation of carbon intensity by this government factor in the deforestation that takes place to cultivate crops for biofuels that are then sold to British Columbia?

[1440]

Hon. R. Neufeld: Yes, we discussed 25(

b) just a little while ago. I believe that I read in their life cycle, and I read in wherever it originates from, whether it's inside of British Columbia's borders or outside.

G. Robertson: Let me just make this a little clearer. Life cycle is not in the

definitions, and life cycle is certainly a term that has flexibility to it.

[ Page 11531 ]

Some of the calculations on carbon intensity globally have not factored in the deforestation that precedes the production of biofuels from tropical rain forest, the land that was forested prior to the biofuel crops being developed.

I want the minister to be very explicit that the carbon intensity of fuels that are exported from the tropics where rain forest has been removed to produce biofuels — the actual deforestation — will be factored into the carbon intensity for purposes of biofuels imported to B.C.

Hon. R. Neufeld: Again, I'll say that when we talk life cycle, which we talked about earlier, we will have them report to us where they actually get their feedstock from, how they get their feedstock. There's international convention around those kinds of things that will take place. I think we're going to do absolutely the best job we possibly can, and this bill actually states that.

J. Horgan: I know we will be able to plow through fairly quickly in some of the subsequent sections, but it's this issue of carbon intensity. I know that when we get to

section 25, we can perhaps ask again about the life cycle and the definition for that and who is going to be determining that. But I think the member from Fairview hits on a question that's really bedevilling us on this side of the House.

The minister has acknowledged that certainly there's significant public sympathy for finding alternatives to reduce our carbon footprint. This has been considered one of the options in the past, but as more and more work is done on this file and as more and more displaced agriculture and more and more deforestation happens, the public starts to ask different questions.

If the minister is confident there are international conventions that are going to determine what the carbon intensity might be of a palm derivative that's shipped from Indonesia to British Columbia and then maybe tanked or piped to some processing plant in another jurisdiction and then brought back here….

If the minister is confident we're going to be able to determine that in such a way as to say that the carbon intensity is neutral, that's fine. But in my mind, when I contemplate all of the greenhouse gases that would have to be emitted to have that product arrive at our shores, I'm confused.

If the minister could tell me where these conventions rest, who created them and who will be updating them, maybe I could do some more research.

[1445]

Hon. R. Neufeld: Certainly, there's lots of debate around the issue. I've said that from the start. I'm not saying there isn't going to be lots of debate. There will be debate on both sides of the issue.

We want, as I said earlier, to use the best available science that we possibly can to move this issue forward so that we can reduce our carbon footprint. We on this side of the House, the government, believe that we need to actually reduce our carbon footprint. We have to do it in a rational way and do it through science and those kinds of things, instead of you and I — I'll speak for myself — who maybe can't go and figure out all the science. But there are people that can actually do that for us.

So there's lots of debate. There's debate in California and Michigan and the universities there around these issues, and we will certainly be part of it. I would say it's great that we're at the leading edge, because we will be able to have some influence on some of those things as we move this forward. I think that's an important place to be. I would rather be at the leading edge, with our people actually having to get some of our information in there about how we do this, than be waiting for some other jurisdiction to decide what it is, and then we just have to live up to that.

You know, Member, you should take some comfort…. I know the card you're playing. I hear it from you; I understand. You're trying to say that we're trying to take food off the table.

We had that discussion already. We went at length about that discussion. I think what we should get on with is actually starting to figure out how we reduce our carbon footprint here in the province of British Columbia.

J. Horgan: Again, it's not as simple as just fuel for food. It's the transport of the product from other jurisdictions. If we're not producing the biofuels here in British Columbia, and that's a significant possibility…. This sector is growing in other parts of the world. That's what has led to the debates internationally about the efficacy of this product to reduce greenhouse gases.

My example that I put forward was the case of Indonesia, where palm oils are being used to produce alternative fuels. They're then tanked to British Columbia, emitting greenhouse gases along the way. They are then potentially tanked or piped to a refinery, where they're added to fuels and then brought back to the marketplace sometimes by tanker, sometimes by pipe — again, all the while emitting greenhouse gases.

When we look at the carbon intensity issue and why we've spent so much time on this, it is that…. Absent the regulations and absent some international standard whereby the product, where it is produced, is monitored to the pump and to the customer, I think it's difficult for us to measure whether or not there's a net benefit to this process. That's where the debate, I think, is now raging not just in this Legislature but right across the country and, in fact, around the world.

With that, I'll just say again that the carbon intensity issue is one that I'm not satisfied has been answered in this debate. The minister will say and has said that the regulations will follow, and we'll have a better understanding of that. When we get to 2010, we'll have a better understanding of how providers of the product will be meeting these targets. But today we're basically — as we have with other bills in this vein with respect to greenhouse gases — writing a blank cheque for the government of the day.

If that's acceptable to the government, if they want to say to the public, "Just trust us," I guess, as an oppo-

[ Page 11532 ]

sition party, we're compelled to do that — just trust you.

Hon. R. Neufeld: I know the member tries to expand this. "Oh yes, it's all going to come from Indonesia. It's going to come to British Columbia and then someplace else and then come back." I appreciate that what you want to do is build the worst case possible. I appreciate that, but I also want you to listen to some of the….

The Chair: Minister, through the Chair.

Hon. R. Neufeld: Through the Chair. I also want you to listen to some of the things that the universities are telling us, those people working with these issues. There is a benefit to using corn ethanol or cane ethanol or biodiesel or cellulose ethanol. There is a benefit to it at the end of the day.

[1450]

You know what? I'll go back to what I said this morning. If you don't want to reduce your carbon footprint, stay with the NDP agenda. Do nothing. Keep on doing what we're doing today. Or if you want to move forward the way the world is moving forward in reducing its carbon footprint, in reducing its carbon footprint and reducing its greenhouse gases, then join with us. If you want to stay on the old track and keep down the old track, you can keep down the old track for as long as you want, but we on this side of the House are saying that we want to actually have a mix of 5 percent each by 2010.

I think we're on the right track. In fact, I know we're on the right track to reduce our carbon footprint and our greenhouse gases in the province of British Columbia.

The Chair: I'd like to just remind members that you speak through the Chair.

G. Robertson: Well, the minister's wrong-headed rant there cannot go unopposed.

We on this side of the House are absolutely committed to reducing our carbon footprint, our greenhouse gas emissions. We have demonstrated that in our support for government bills, though they didn't present much backup to them and research.

We're repeatedly asking questions of the minister here. Where's the backup? Where's the research? Where's the data to demonstrate that this is going to reduce our carbon footprint in B.C.?

The minister has failed to demonstrate that today. He has not put a single substantiated number on the table in this House to demonstrate that a 5 percent biofuel requirement is going to reduce B.C.'s carbon footprint. That's what we're asking about here.

We want to make sure this has substance to it because around the world, people are raising the concerns — whether it's in Indonesia or British Columbia — that biofuel is not as good as we thought it was, that biofuel could in fact represent a significant increase in carbon footprint and greenhouse gas emissions if it's not done right.

We have raised it repeatedly in second reading and now third reading of this bill. These are huge concerns around the world right now, whether they're for carbon footprint or world food supply. We're raising these concerns because we care and because we want to be sure that legislation that comes through this House has had the scrutiny it is required to have for us to appropriately represent the people of British Columbia today and into the future.

People in the future — if they're saddled with this requirement for biofuels when, in fact, it is increasing our greenhouse gas emissions — are going to look back at this day in this House and in the second reading when this minister failed to substantiate his case for the legislation and was unable to present a factual case for why a 5 percent requirement that is enabled by this legislation will in fact reduce carbon footprint.

Just for the record, from this side of the House, I want to emphatically state that we are committed to reducing the carbon footprint. We are aghast that this minister cannot present the case. We don't besmirch the good work that takes place in the ministry. We're sure that the public servants who have worked hard on this have done all they could do. But given the changing frame with biofuels right now and given this government's radical shift to actually look at embracing a strategy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, the adequate time has not been invested in presenting the facts.

What we're seeing here is a piece of legislation that needs a lot more work on it and needs a lot more substance. We've forwarded amendments that ensure the sources of this biofuel are sustainable. The government has rejected that — rejected sustainable source biofuels.

Do we need to rest our case with that? We're doing everything we can, on behalf of the people of B.C. and the future generations that rely upon our wise decisions, to make sure that this bill is not pushed forward with unintended consequences of increasing greenhouse gas emissions and creating more food crisis than we already have.

One final last chance for the minister. In terms of life cycle and his pledge that the life cycle, as envisioned here in

section 6, will in fact be rigidly measured and will be sustainable…. Can he present some factual evidence that the work has been done and that there is no chance whatsoever of the carbon footprint increasing as a result of the use of biofuels mandated by this legislation?

[1455]

Hon. R. Neufeld: What's not adequate here is that the member hasn't read the bill. That's what's not adequate here. He would have known that when they presented their amendment, it was already in the bill. If they would have just read the whole bill, they would have found that what they were amending was already in the bill. It's already there. That's what's inadequate.

It's interesting for the member for Vancouver-Fairview to stand up — the next wannabe mayor of Vancouver…. The city of Vancouver is actually smart enough to already start using biofuel in their equip-

[ Page 11533 ]

ment without it being a requirement. I can only assume this member, if in fact he runs for mayor and wins, would actually take that out right away. I think that's probably what he would do.

There's been lots of data and lots of things done here. For him to stand up and say this isn't done in other places in the world is absolutely ridiculous. That's how ridiculous the argument is.

This isn't outside of what is already transpiring around the world. When we look at carbon intensity, when we look at reducing greenhouse gases…. For the member to stand there and say to the staff that they haven't done their homework and haven't done their work, and that the people who work in the ministry and the people in universities haven't done their work is unacceptable. It's unacceptable to me and should be unacceptable to British Columbians.

The Chair: Minister, point of order.

D. Chudnovsky: The minister just said that the member indicated that staff hadn't done their homework. The member specifically, immediately previously to the minister speaking, lauded the staff for the hard work that they do.

So it's completely and totally inappropriate for the minister to suggest that the member said something different from that.

Hon. R. Neufeld: Yeah, well…. Look, I know you're all jumping to defend one another. I don't blame you, because you're so mixed up on this issue that you're not really sure whether you're coming or going.

We've got one member of your caucus who says they'd use 100 percent biodiesel if in fact it was available. I mean, she spoke about it, and she spoke glowingly about it. She said she wanted to do that. She's actually lobbied government to have it in ferry systems and government systems all across the province of British Columbia. The critic himself burns it in his tank to heat his home.

Then we have the member for Vancouver-Fairview jumping up and saying the world is going to end, in fact, if we continue that. I guess there's only a few that the member for Vancouver-Fairview thinks should be able to use it. I guess that's the old socialist way of thinking.

We actually want to reduce greenhouse gases in the province of British Columbia. We've told you how we're going to do that. This bill allows us to do it. We want to have renewable fuels in the province of British Columbia — 5 percent of each in gasoline and diesel fuel, something that's coming in gasoline whether we like it or not. We ought to be on the train and make sure that we do it right.

Diesel fuel. We're going to be just a little bit tougher. If you don't want to reduce your carbon footprint…. If you want to continue to import your goods and services from Indonesia and not account for them, you go ahead and do that. But on this side of the House, we want to reduce greenhouse gases. We've got a target to reduce greenhouse gases.

This bill deals with carbon intensity and renewable fuels. That's what is on the docket today to talk about, and we're going to do that for the province of British Columbia for the benefit of those yet to come.

You can say no, which you did in second reading. You voted against it. That's fine. We're actually moving it forward.

Interjections.

The Chair: Order, Members.

On the point of order, the member raises an issue of dispute of facts and in debate has ample opportunity to clarify.

Sections 6 and 7 approved.

section 8.

J. Horgan: Just while I'm on my feet, before I start into

section 8, I do want to say — and the minister knows this — that I was heaping praise on his staff not 24 hours ago. There's no question whatsoever that we on this side of the House believe that the staff of the ministry are doing everything they possibly can.

[1500]

What we are saying is that there's a dispute in the science. The ministry can only take what they're directed to from above. The staff are doing the work they're just directed to do. So let's leave it at that and move on.

With respect to

section 8, we have here transfers between

part 3 fuel suppliers, and as I read (1)(a)(i), it goes as follows: "an amount of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions equal to all or part of the amount that the first

Part 3 fuel supplier could have had attributable to the

Part 3 fuel that it supplied in a compliance period without exceeding the prescribed carbon intensity, or…." And on it goes.

Is this a trading of carbon intensities? Is this an opportunity for

part 3 fuel providers to exchange credits, similar to a cap-and-trade system?

Hon. R. Neufeld: Yes, they can trade amongst one another.

J. Horgan: That strikes me as something we were debating in another bill the other day, Bill 18. If this is a mini cap-and-trade model, I'm curious, again…. This is another one of those trust-me's. How is this going to be monitored? How many staff are going to be brought on to ensure that

part 3 providers, when they're trading credits on an intensity that we're not yet certain is defined…? How is that all going to come together?

Hon. R. Neufeld: I don't want you to get it mixed up with cap-and-trade because cap-and-trade is something that's larger than just British Columbia. This is fuel suppliers within the province of British Columbia, so they can trade back and forth. If in fact in the north in the winter, it's going to cause an effect…. If you're operating in 40- or 50- or 60-below weather or some-

[ Page 11534 ]

thing, the fuel may gel. Then you can actually trade if somebody is putting in B15 or B20 or something in the Lower Mainland that's available and can be burnt. They can actually trade those back and forth so we meet the average of 5 percent across the province.

J. Horgan: Well, that's very interesting. So then this is a two-tiered bill. We talked in an earlier

section about winter conditions. Mr. Stoner from the Petroleum Institute made reference to their concerns that in cold weather climates, the biofuels may not have the same efficiency as they would in warmer climates.

So if I understand what the minister just said, at certain times of the year — to meet the 5 percent standard — suppliers in the Lower Mainland will increase the percentage in fuels that they're providing to customers. Providers in other parts of the province — northern parts of the province, colder parts of the province — will have less. So is that a two-tier system — biofuels for the Lower Mainland and nothing at all for Peace River North or South?

Hon. R. Neufeld: As we speak, there's B10 and B20 already available in the southern part of British Columbia that's being used. I'm not sure whether it's on Vancouver Island, but I think it's in Vancouver.

But if there are areas where it gets too difficult to actually be able to use a mixture, what we're saying is that you can trade that back and forth. That's how you arrive at an average. I'm surprised that the member didn't understand averages, having studied this bill and all the things around it so much.

That's actually the way the federal program is also going to work — on averages, not that every speck of every jurisdiction has to actually meet that 5 percent by 2010. There's a way that they can average that out. That just makes absolute good sense.

It's nothing new. It's what we're going to be faced with. When you talked earlier about, "We should align ourselves with the federal government," well, I guess this does it in one way — the 5 percent ethanol by 2010. I mean, there's a way that you can trade those credits around so on average in the province….

[1505]

I think the member or one of the other members asked a question in regards to how we're going to actually monitor this. By 2010, as I said earlier, we'll have the ministry and the complement of staff to be able to do that and to actually inspect and make sure those types of things are happening in a way that respects the bill.

J. Horgan: Well, I think the minister and I have hit on the reason we have committee stage debate on legislation. I certainly understand averages, but it wasn't until the minister stood in his place and said that there will be times of the year in certain parts of the province where the 5 percent requirement will be exempt, in essence, because of this

section of the bill.

I certainly understand what the minister just said, but were it not for the exchange we just had, it would not have dawned on me that at some points in the year in some parts of the province, this requirement of 5 percent, in essence, won't apply.

I know that's what the minister just said, so could I just have him confirm that — that during the winter months in those locations in the province that suffer severe and brutal cold, compared to my lily existence here on southern Vancouver Island….

Again, I understood what the minister said, but I just want him to confirm that at some times of the year in some parts of the province, the 5 percent requirement will not be in effect.

Hon. R. Neufeld: On average, it will be in effect all the time — on average, 5 percent.

I appreciate what the member said. I've lived in the north most of my life. I lived in Fort Nelson for 19 years. Fort Nelson is the end of the rail. Actually, it's not the end of the rail; it's the beginning of the rail. It actually ends in Squamish. Fuel actually comes by rail to Fort Nelson and is distributed into the Yukon, the Northwest Territories and those kinds of things.

We need to be able to facilitate some of these things just in the plain distribution. We're trying to be reasonable in that. The 5 percent average applies year round, and they will be required to meet the 5 percent average exactly the same as the federal program is going to be when it comes in.

Section 8 approved.

section 9.

J. Horgan: My best friend used to live in Fort Nelson, and he said it was "colder than a witch's elbow." I don't know how cold that is, but my sense is it is pretty darn cold. He moved to Quesnel to get away from the cold. So I won't lecture the minister on what happens north of the Peace. That's his domain and that of the member for Peace River South.

Again, I say the value of these debates is that at some time in the year, it may well be that providers in the north, based on their distribution in the south, will sort of be exempt. I get what the minister said.

When we get to complicated formulas…. We're now at

section 9, the administrative penalties section. Were my son Evan the math genius here, he'd be able to walk me through this. Perhaps in his absence, the minister could help me with the formula of administrative penalty equals required RF — which I believe would be renewable fuel content — minus actual RF times penalty rate. What the heck is that all about?

Hon. R. Neufeld: Well, if you should have your son here, I guess maybe I should have my daughter here too.

Interjections.

Hon. R. Neufeld: I know they're not in Greece right now, so….

[1510]

[ Page 11535 ]

Anyhow, it's explained to me that it's the method for how you figure out what the penalty would be. The penalty will be prescribed by regulation, obviously, but in fact — and this is what's explained to me — when they do an inspection, if you're compliant with 80,000 litres but you…. I'm sorry. I'll back up.

Let's use 100,000 litres. If you're compliant with 80,000 of those litres, you're obviously not compliant with 20,000. There will be a prescribed penalty for that balance that you were not in sync with — the 5 percent.

J. Horgan: Was there consultation with industry on this

section with respect to penalties?

Hon. R. Neufeld: No.

J. Horgan: Does the minister contemplate consultation based on Mr. Stoner's correspondence? I understand from the briefing I received from staff that there are 11 major suppliers that service the province, of a total of about 20 altogether. Is there any prospect of consultation before this law is enacted?

Hon. R. Neufeld: We'll be consulting on the regulations with those folks, yes.

Sections 9 to 12 inclusive approved.

section 13.

Hon. R. Neufeld: I move the amendment to

section 13 standing in my name on the orders of the day.

SECTION 13 (3), by deleting the text shown as struck out:

(3) A certificate under subsection (2) may be in the prescribed form, must be signed by the director and must contain

(

a) the name of the person who is liable for the penalty,

(

b) particulars of the administrative penalty notice in relation to which the penalty is imposed , and

(

c) the amount of the penalty under subsection (1).]

On the amendment.

Hon. R. Neufeld: With the automatic penalty provisions in the bill, there is no administrative penalty notice, and therefore the bill should not refer to a notice. Other penalties are imposed with a notice given to the person upon whom the penalty is imposed. The amendments eliminate the inconsistency between

section 13 by requiring the director to give particulars of the administrative penalty, whether it is imposed automatically or pursuant to a notice.

Amendment approved.

Section 13 as amended approved.

section 14.

J. Horgan: For those following at home, we're on

part 5,

section 14, "Appeals to Environmental Appeal Board." I'm wondering if the minister could just walk us through this section. What decisions would have to be made for appeals to come into effect?

Hon. R. Neufeld: There is an opportunity here to appeal to the Environmental Appeal Board, and it's listed out there. I'm not exactly sure what the member is really asking. I thought it was relatively straightforward. There are numerous things that can be appealed if, in fact, a supplier doesn't agree with what an inspector has done. That would be a normal course of events, I would think.

[1515]

J. Horgan: I'm just curious why it would be the Environmental Appeal Board for this act. That was basically the question. Of any other tribunals that might well have been contemplated to hear complaints from suppliers, this one wouldn't have been the one that I would have selected. It was basically a justification for why that's the board that's doing the appeals.

Hon. R. Neufeld: It's explained to me that the Environmental Appeal Board is well equipped to handle these kinds of appeals. They have the expertise to do it, and they have the in-house knowledge to do it. That's why the Environmental Appeal Board was chosen.

Section 14 approved.

section 15.

Hon. R. Neufeld: I move the amendment to

section 15 standing in my name on the orders of the day.

[SECTION 15, by deleting the text shown as struck out and adding the text shown as underlined:

(4) A person convicted of an offence under this

section subsection (l), (2) or (3) is liable to a fine of not more than $1 000 000 or imprisonment for a term of not more than 6 months, or both.

(5) A person who contravenes

section 22 (2) commits an offence.

(6) A person convicted of an offence under subsection (5) is liable to a fine of not more than $200 000 or imprisonment for a term of not more than 6 months, or both.]

On the amendment.

Hon. R. Neufeld: I'll maybe give a brief explanation. The amendment to

section 15 is a companion amendment to the amendment to

section 22 and serves to clarify that disclosing information in contravention of

section 22(2) is an offence and carries significant consequences.

J. Horgan: I was going to go straight through to

section 22, which is the consequential

section that the minister refers to with this amendment. Perhaps in the interests of expediting debate here, I'll pose a few questions on this amendment, and that may well get us through to the end.

[ Page 11536 ]

In his consultation with the Privacy Commissioner and the Privacy Commissioner's office, did the minister receive written confirmation of support of that independent officer for these amendments?

Hon. R. Neufeld: Yes.

J. Horgan: Is the minister prepared to provide the opposition with a copy of those documents?

Hon. R. Neufeld: Yes.

J. Horgan: The reason we're discussing this…. Again, I'm going to be talking and reading at the same time, and I know the young children in the gallery today will be amazed at that ability. Were I chewing gum, of course, I wouldn't be able to read and talk at the same time. I will try, as the letter comes over here, to review that.

I don't want this

section to pass without a confirmation from the commissioner. Those in the House will know — and perhaps those watching at home — that when Bill 16 was tabled for first reading, I received a letter from the Privacy Commissioner outlining his concern that

section 22, in particular, provided a blanket exemption to the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act.

Upon receiving that correspondence, we drafted an amendment for

section 22. I'm assuming that at

section 15, when we're dealing with penalties and offences, a consequential amendment would be required.

Again, as I look to the youngsters in the gallery, I'm speaking, I'm looking at you, and I'm also going to be reading a letter that the minister just provided me. I don't know if I've ever done that before, but I'll give it my best shot.

Interjection.

J. Horgan: I thank you very much. I can keep talking. I'm talking; I'm talking, talking, talking.

Interjection.

J. Horgan: Yes, well, that's a good idea. There you go. Thanks, member from Fairview.

"Thank you for your April 14 letter to me confirming our discussion in relation to application of the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act to information obtained under the above bills."

There are two bills. Bill 18 is also covered by this correspondence.

"I confirm that removal of the deemed provisions of

section 22 of Bill 16, an introduction of a confidentiality provision such as those I have reviewed, would address concerns identified in my April 4 letter.

"Thank you very much."

With that, I'll take

section 15 as amended.

[1520]

Amendment approved.

Section 15 as amended approved.

Sections 16 to 21 inclusive approved.

section 22.

Hon. R. Neufeld: Hon. Chair, I move the amendment to

section 22 standing in my name on the orders of the day.

SECTION 22, by deleting the

section and substituting the following :

Confidentiality

(1) In this section:

“protected information” means information

that would reveal

(

a) trade secrets of a third party, or

(

b) commercial, financial, labour relations, scientific or technical information of or about a third party;

“third party” has the same meaning as in the

Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act ;

“trade secret” has the same meaning as in the

Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act .

(2) Subject to this section, a person who has access to protected information that is in the custody or under the control of the government through

(

a) reports required to be provided by a fuel supplier under this Act,

(

b) the exercise of powers under

section 28 [regulations in relation to inspections] in relation to a fuel supplier, or

(

c) an information-sharing agreement under

section 22.1 that provides that the information is to be kept confidential

must not disclose the protected information to any other person.

(3) The prohibition in subsection (2) does not apply to disclosure of the following information:

(

a) information that is publicly available;

(

b) in relation to

Part 2,

(

i) percentages of gasoline class fuel or diesel class fuel supplied by a

Part 2 fuel supplier in a compliance period that are renewable fuel, and

(ii) any notional transfers under

section 5 [transfers between

Part 2 fuel suppliers] ;

(

c) in relation to

Part 3,

(

i) the determination of the weighted average carbon intensity of all

Part 3 fuels supplied by a

Part 3 fuel supplier in a compliance period, and

(ii) any notional transfers and applications under

section 8 [ transfers between

Part 3 fuel suppliers] or notional retentions and applications under

section 25 (p)

[Part 3 compliance banking in early years] ;

(

d) information that is required or authorized to be made public under this Act.

(4) The prohibition in subsection (2) does not apply to disclosure in the following circumstances:

(

a) if required under

Part 2 [Freedom of Information] of the

Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act ;

(

b) in the course of administering or enforcing this Act or a prescribed enactment;

(

c) for the purpose of court proceedings;

(

d) in accordance with an information-sharing agreement under

section 22.1;

(

e) with the consent of the person, group of persons or organization that is the third party in relation to the protected information.

[ Page 11537 ]

Information-sharing agreements

22.1

(1) For the purposes of this section, "information-sharing agreement" means a data-matching or other agreement to provide or exchange information related to

Part 2 fuels or

Part 3 fuels, or to reducing concentrations of greenhouse gas in the atmosphere or reducing greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere.

(2) With the prior approval of the Lieutenant Governor in Council, the minister may enter into an information-sharing agreement with Canada, another province or another jurisdiction in or outside Canada, or with an agent of any of them.]

On the amendment.

Hon. R. Neufeld: It complements what we just spoke about here — that we have actually come to an agreement with the Privacy Commissioner. This is also a companion amendment to amended

section 22 and describes what an information-sharing agreement is.

Amendment approved.

Section 22 as amended approved.

Hon. R. Neufeld: Through the Chair to the member: just a little complication in numbers, as I understand.

I move

section 22.1 standing in my name on the orders of the day, as the Clerk has requested.

Section 22.1 approved.

section 23.

Hon. R. Neufeld: Hon. Chair, I move the amendment to

section 23 standing in my name on the orders of the day. They're on the orders of the day for the critic to read.

Section 23(2)(

a) is a consequential amendment required due to the amendment to

section 22.

SECTION 23, by deleting subsection (2) (

a) and substituting the following:

(

a) prescribing information that must or may be made public under this Act, other than information referred to in paragraph (

a) of the definition of “protected information” in

section 22

[confidentiality] ;.]

Amendment approved.

section 23 as amended.

J. Horgan: We are here at the general regulation powers. Again, this is

section 23(1). The Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, which is the cabinet — the executive council, in essence, of the government of British Columbia — may "make regulations referred to in

section 41 of the

Interpretation Act ." Then it lists out a series of responsibilities in

section 23.

[1525]

We've had an amendment here to a consequential amendment, which was approved — or passed, I suppose, rather than approved. I'm wondering if the minister could give us an indication on what the time frame would be for bringing forward regulations.

Hon. R. Neufeld: For the renewables part, we will probably be bringing those regulations in, I would think, sometime later in this year.

For the low carbon fuel part of it, it will take a little bit longer.

J. Horgan: So "a little bit longer" would be into 2009. Or would it be beyond that?

Hon. R. Neufeld: Could be.

J. Horgan: I just want to put on the record that this would be the first bill I've debated as a critic that may well come into force long after I'm somewhere else. I just wanted that on the record.

Section 23 as amended approved.

Sections 24 to 29 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. R. Neufeld: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendments.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 3:28 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Reporting of Bills

GREENHOUSE GAS REDUCTION

(RENEWABLE AND LOW CARBON

FUEL REQUIREMENTS) ACT

Bill 16, Greenhouse Gas Reduction (Renewable and Low Carbon Fuel Requirements) Act, reported complete with amendments.

Mr. Speaker: When shall the bill be read a third time?

Hon. R. Neufeld: With leave of the House, now.

Leave granted.

[1530-1535]

Third Reading of Bills

GREENHOUSE GAS REDUCTION

(RENEWABLE AND LOW CARBON

FUEL REQUIREMENTS) ACT

Bill 16, Greenhouse Gas Reduction (Renewable and Low Carbon Fuel Requirements) Act, read a third time and passed on the following division:

[ Page 11538 ]

YEAS — 37

Falcon

Reid

Coell

Ilich

Christensen

Les

Richmond

Bell

van Dongen

Roddick

Hayer

Lee

Jarvis

Nuraney

Whittred

Cantelon

Thorpe

Hagen

Oppal

de Jong

Taylor

Bond

Hansen

Abbott

Penner

Neufeld

Hogg

Sultan

Lekstrom

Mayencourt

Polak

Hawes

Yap

Bloy

Black

McIntyre

Rustad

NAYS — 20

Farnworth

Kwan

Ralston

Cubberley

Hammell

Thorne

Simons

Gentner

Routley

Fraser

Horgan

Bains

Robertson

Karagianis

Krog

Austin

Chudnovsky

Wyse

Sather

Conroy

Second Reading of Bills

TRANSPORTATION INVESTMENT

(PORT MANN TWINNING)

AMENDMENT ACT, 2008

(continued)

Hon. R. Thorpe: I rise to speak in favour of this bill, Bill 14, Transportation Investment (Port Mann Twinning) Amendment Act, 2008.

I am sure there may be some members in this House, particularly members of the other side, that would be wondering why a member from the Interior of British Columbia, the Okanagan Valley — in fact, Okanagan-Westside — would be standing in the House to talk on this bill which, for the most part, most members on the other side of the House seem to think is a Lower Mainland issue.

[K. Whittred in the chair.]

Well, let me say that this is a bill that impacts all British Columbia. This is a bill that impacts the Interior, the rural and the northern parts of British Columbia. This twinning of the Port Mann Bridge is causing great congestion and a negative impact on British Columbia's economy, its communities and its families.

Congestion costs our economy up to $1.5 billion per year, up significantly from a decade ago. This is a key aspect of the Gateway program, which will address congestion, improve the movement of people and goods in and through the region and, in fact, for the entire province of British Columbia. It will improve safety and reliability of the current road system. There's absolutely no question that this is going to improve the economy and improve links to the Lower Mainland, airports, border crossings, etc.

This is a significant undertaking. This bill provides for tolls to vary on the basis of the vehicle size, the class of vehicle, the time of day. For example, certain categories will be exempt from tolls — taxis, TransLink buses, persons with disabilities as defined by legislation.

[1540]

This is good, but you know, it's also about our economy. It's also about our environment. I hope that all members in this House, especially members on that side of the House, who seem to be very divided within their own caucus on how they are going to vote on this….

This is about reducing greenhouse gases. Earlier today we had a debate on Bill 16 that talked about reducing greenhouse gases, the concerns and all of those other things. I heard some of the concerns of earlier debates from the member for Malahat–Juan de Fuca and also the member for Vancouver-Fairview, and we've heard the concerns of other members from the Surrey area.

I hope that all members of this House are actually going to finally recognize the greenhouse gas reductions that this will do, that they will stand and vote in favour of it and that they will take some of their earlier rhetoric, park it and realize that this is the thing to do as we move forward.

But I'm sure there will be some that will have trouble saying this is a good thing to do, because our government has the vision to do this. I'm going to be particularly interested to see how the members from Surrey…. One day they're for it; one day they're against it. One day their leader says they're for it, and one day: "We'll have to have a caucus."

You know, British Columbians want people to make decisions. When it comes to moving our economy forward, when it comes to reducing greenhouse gases, when it comes to moving goods down to the Lower Mainland and goods back up through, this is about all British Columbia.

As I mentioned earlier, I have the pleasure of representing Okanagan-Westside. When my colleague the Minister of Transportation first announced this project, who was one of the very first people to jump on board and support this project? It was the mayor of Kelowna, Walter Gray. Walter Gray said: "This is about the economy. This is about reducing greenhouse gases. This is about moving British Columbia forward." So I trust that all members in this House will vote for this, because it is the right thing to do.

This project looks at widening the highway, obviously the construction of the new Port Mann Bridge, upgrading interchanges, improving access and safety from McGill Street in Vancouver to 216 Street in Langley, a distance of 37 kilometres. Construction, in parts, has already started.

[ Page 11539 ]

On Saturday, April 12, I had the pleasure of travelling with my wife, my daughter and my grandson. We drove down from the Okanagan to see a play in Vancouver, Mamma Mia! I thought we'd have pretty clear sailing, but we got to Langley at around 11 o'clock or so on the Saturday morning, and now I know what people mean when they say "British Columbia's largest parking lot." It was unbelievable. This was Saturday morning. I have no idea what it's like Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday or Friday if this is happening on Saturday.

I thought about it as I sat there with my grandson, as we were actually playing the DVD of Mamma Mia! and getting ready to go to the play. I'm 62 years old, and my grandson behind me is five years old. If we don't do something, what's it going to be like not just for my grandson as he grows up but for my children and other people's children in British Columbia today with all these greenhouse gas emissions?

We hear the rhetoric from the other side of the House of how they're concerned about the environment. Let's do what's right. Let us do what's right. I hope that the members on the other side, especially those from Surrey who, when they're back in their ridings, say something completely different than when they're here in Victoria…. Let them stand up and be counted to say, yes, this is a good idea.

[1545]

This isn't about partisanship. This is about the environment. This is about the economy. It's about our children. It's about our grandchildren. Let us start thinking about them.

You know, it's always interesting when you travel down and see some of the work starting, and it looked to me like they were putting in some drainage systems. I believe that this language is okay. I noticed off to the side, thankfully, that there was a Johnny on the spot. It's a good thing there was, because I noticed that three or four cars ahead of us, people were stopping and pulling off to the side of the road with young children. They had to use that facility because they had been in the traffic jam for over an hour and a half, and there was no accident. So there's something fundamentally wrong.

As I said, I proudly stand on this side of the House and will be voting for this bill. You know, Highway 1 and RapidBus service combined with additional transit improvements…. We often hear from the other side of the House how transit is important. Well, I think and I hope that they mean what they say and they will vote in support of this. Easier transit opportunities for people to come from the valley into Vancouver, to come out from Vancouver back to the valley…. What is wrong with that? To me, that is good.

You know, these amendments are needed to this investment act so we can move forward. This corporation will be a distinct commercial self-sustaining entity that will enter into concession agreements with private sector partners for designing, construction, financing and operating the project, including the collection of tolls on the Port Mann Bridge.

The improvements will include adding one lane on Highway 1 in each direction on the west side of the Port Mann Bridge, the Vancouver side, and two lanes in each direction east of Port Mann on the Surrey side. I'm sure not just the members from Surrey on our side of the House think that's a great idea. I have to believe that the members from Surrey on the other side of the House think that's a good idea too.

I am hopeful that they will park their partisanship outside on this important bill and will vote so we can move forward, so we can turn British Columbia's biggest parking lot into a vital artery of people and goods flowing in an efficient, effective greenhouse gas–reducing manner. That's what we should be doing in this House. I urge all members in this House to support this bill and, in doing so, support long-overdue very critical improvements.

As I mentioned earlier, I live in the Interior. I live in the Okanagan, and I've only experienced it a few times. The latest time was April 12. But I cannot imagine what it must be like for people going to work every day, coming home to be with their families in the evening, having to go through that. I can't imagine what it must be like for a family travelling through when they have to go to certain things in Vancouver, or coming back out.

You know, there's only one way that we're going to be able to continue to have the funding for health care and education and children and families and social services that all members in this House work for, and that's by having a strong economy. Highway 1 and the Port Mann are key to our success.

It's time to move forward. I ask all members in this House, if they have an opinion on this bill, to stand and tell British Columbia their opinions, and for those who are against it, be proud that they live in a province where they can actually stand up and say that they are against something and explain it to their constituents. I ask the members from Surrey on the other side of this House to stand up in this House and go on the record so that their constituents can hear firsthand how they are going to vote in support of this bill because they know it's right.

[1550]

I'm going to close here very shortly, and I know that some members on the other side will be disappointed. This bill is good for the environment, and it's good for rural British Columbia. We hear so much rhetoric from the other side about rural British. It's good, so that it's great for goods and services to flow down; it's good so goods and services can flow out; it's good for Asia-Pacific. As we know, the future as Canada's only Pacific province is to the Asia-Pacific.

We have opportunities here for designated lanes. I know some members from the Victoria area are always concerned about cycling. There are cycling lanes here. There are opportunities for HOV lanes here. There are queue-jumping lanes for transit and truck vehicles. It's an opportunity to take a 37-kilometre parking lot and turn it into a modern, vibrant, economic, environmentally sound artery for the future of this province, for the future of today, for the future of our children and, most importantly, for the future of our grandchildren.

[ Page 11540 ]

I will proudly vote in favour of this bill, and I welcome all members to vote in favour of this bill.

M. Karagianis: I stand to speak to Bill 14, the Transportation Investment (Port Mann Twinning) Amendment Act, 2008. I must admit at first glance, when I heard the minister outline the bill and present it to us in the House here yesterday and then, of course, the previous speaker here….

After the minister's comments I had actually to go home and re-read the bill, because I wondered whether or not we were actually talking about the same bill that's before us here in the House.

I'll quote from a number of the minister's comments that this is about the Port Mann highway project, that "it will be tolled not only to pay for the project but also to reduce congestion and moderate traffic growth over time…. Now, to make all of this happen, amendments are needed to the Transportation Investment Act" under the creation of and "establishment of the Transportation Investment Corporation".

I certainly listened with great interest to the minister outlining this corporation and its duties. He goes on to say: "The corporation will be a distinct commercial self-sustaining entity that will enter into a concession agreement" — a concession agreement, singular — "with a private sector partner" — a private sector partner — "for designing, constructing and financing and operating" the highway. That was very interesting — a concession agreement and a private partner.

The minister goes on to say that now there are some critics who suggest that by creating a new Crown corporation, the government is abandoning their deregulation efforts and creating an unnecessary Crown corporation. It's good that the minister actually acknowledged that, because as the previous minister of deregulation, I'm sure he's already heard the criticism on this and hence his need to address it right up front and try and stave off that criticism in his opening remarks.

He goes on to say, "As was the case for those other entities" — when he talks of other highways being built and other projects — "the Transportation Investment Corporation will offer a transparent, arm's-length mechanism for highway construction and management." We'll talk about that a little bit here today, I'm sure.

The minister went on to say: "Amendments in the bill also provide for tolls to vary on the basis of vehicle, vehicle size, class of vehicle," etc. This is "very much consistent with the feedback we received," in extensive consultation process. I think we'll talk about that a little bit as well.

Then the minister goes on to say: "I welcome the comments from the members of the opposition and look forward to hearing" their position "on this important project." Again, a project — singular.

In looking at those remarks, as I said, I had to go back and actually re-read the bill again, because having familiarized myself with the bill and what the actual contents of the bill are, there were some contradictions. There were some sharp contradictions here.

[1555]

Let's just read the first

preamble of the explanatory note. I know that the previous speaker talked about this great project and how this was going to help the Interior and how this was some monumental move forward on the Gateway plan that the Premier and his government have laid out. But in fact, the first explanatory note about this bill says that this amends the

definitions of agent, concessionaire, concessionaire agreement, due date, excessive debt toll, debt toll, vehicle, and adds

definitions of "corporation" and "payment mechanism."

It's pretty evident in there that there's no reference whatsoever to a project. It talks a lot about concessionaires, agents, due dates. It's very apparent in the very opening of this bill that, in fact, it's not necessarily about a project. It is about some

definitions here around concessionaires, concessionaire agreements. Much of this is not about a project. It's about a new way of doing business under a Crown corporation.

I know there's much talk here about this somehow being a real challenge around the twinning of the Port Mann Bridge. In reality, the word "bridge" appears in this bill exactly once. Let's be clear. This bill goes on for 18 pages. The word "bridge" appears exactly once, and it appears in the context of buildings, bridges, walls, tunnels, culverts, wires, pipes. In fact, it doesn't even refer to any specific bridge. It just refers to bridges — plural.

The reason I read and focused in on a couple of the minister's comments in introducing this bill is because the very specific reference to a concessionaire, a project, is not borne out anywhere in the language within this bill. It's about — plural — bridges, buildings, walls, tunnels, concessionaires, tolls.

In the title, where it talks about the Port Mann twinning in brackets, as being part of the bill…. Frankly, that particular reference appears only in the title of this bill and only in the context of the bill where it refers to the title. There is no other direct relationship whatsoever to that project or any other specific project — hence, the interest I had in the minister's remarks when he was introducing this. Most certainly, it does create a new Crown corporation.

I'd like to make sure we get on the record, because I know that often the members of the government like to interpret our demands for more details, more saliency, more sustainability, more common sense and more detail in some of their bills as somehow not being supportive.

I want to be very clear on the record right now that we very much support Crown corporations that preserve and manage the resources for British Columbia taxpayers — absolutely. No question that all members on this side of the House in opposition support Crown corporations that preserve, manage and operate B.C. resources for B.C. taxpayers. I think we'll see that as time goes on, that's a sharp contrast between our view on what the Crown corporations can and should do versus what's happening here in this bill.

I would like to say that, in some ways, creating this whole new level of bureaucracy is the antithesis of what the previous minister of deregulation was doing in the way of business in the first couple of years of this

[ Page 11541 ]

government's term of office. This government came in saying: "We're going to strip government down. We're going to make it a lean machine. We're going to get rid of a lot of these unnecessary regulatory barriers." I know that even the previous speaker who spoke here, the Minister of Small Business, is very, very big on deregulating and removing barriers.

In some ways it's very fascinating to see how we've come, a couple of years later, to creating a brand-new level of bureaucracy that has some very express duties here — very express purposes within this legislative bill. Much of it adds all kinds of new layers of bureaucracy, all kinds of new barriers to us seeing exactly what kind of business this new corporation might be engaged in.

[1600]

The reality is that if this bridge was supposed to be about more green, as the previous speaker said. If it's supposed to be about finding better solutions for the Lower Mainland, then it needs to be a lot more about transit and a lot less about a corporation that's going to be only engaged and only taxed in here with business to do with concessionaires and privatization.

That is the sole duty of this new Crown corporation, as it's being formed. This is 18 pages that lay out very, very specifically and succinctly that this new Crown corporation is being formed to do a specific kind of business in a specific way with privatization of highways, bridges and future infrastructure in the province.

So we look at the sections here.

Section 2 amends this

section to provide for agreements relating to the Transportation Investment Corporation, and it does lay out very broadly that this is not about a project at all. There is no reference to a singular project, a specific project, but there's lots of reference to a whole number of projects. This will cover a whole number of projects in the future, and that's why we see references to plurals around the kind of projects in the future that will be covered here.

Part of the bill, as we go through into

section 3, begins to amend all of the actions of this corporation around what it's going to do around its mandatory provisions in setting up concessionaire agreements. For those who may be tuning in today and the general public who don't know what a concessionaire agreement is, it's privatization. It's when the government engages in privatization for a private corporation — takes over the building, the maintenance, the long-term, ongoing operation for 20, 30 years here in the province. They own it, they toll it, and they operate it and get all proceeds from that.

This particular piece of legislation, the Transportation Investment Amendment Act, 2008, is the setting up of a corporation that will specifically and exclusively privatize future projects under this government, and not even specific future projects — other than the misleading name in the title. Frankly, I'm not sure that there's an appetite in the province right now for more privatization and certainly more secrecy. So I'm curious as to how the minister has justified this as being some grandiose praise of the Gateway project, when what this really is, is a whole new layer of bureaucratic firewall behind which the government can take refuge.

Now let's just talk about what's happened here in the last few days around B.C. Ferries. The B.C. Ferries board has given themselves a big fat raise, and the Minister of Transportation responsible for B.C. Ferries throws his hands in the air and says: "I have no control over this. I have no jurisdiction over what B.C. Ferries does, because this is a Crown corporation that has its own autonomy and, therefore, they can make decisions without me, without my approval, without even any kind of interference or application from me".

In fact, as the minister admitted, it can even be in disagreement with what the minister thinks. He said he was annoyed by the kind of raise they gave themselves, but he was helpless to affect that.

This is one of the largest Crown corporations in British Columbia. It is our marine highway. It is a Crown corporation that is there ostensibly to preserve and manage B.C. resources for B.C. taxpayers. That is what they are there to do — operate and maintain the B.C. marine highway on behalf of B.C. taxpayers. And here the minister, even in this case, which is not nearly as extreme as the kinds of things being set up in this bill, the kind of firewall being created here…. The minister says: "I have no control. I have no jurisdiction. I see nothing; I know nothing. They're a power unto themselves."

[1605]

We've seen a very similar thing happen with TransLink. Very controversially, the government brought in a bill where they came in with new governance of TransLink, where they put a handpicked group of individuals in place that no longer had any kind of elected representation to the public. The minister put them in place.

Then the minister says: "I have no authority over them. I can't control the fact that they gave themselves a 500 percent raise. Hands off. Once they're in place, once this firewall is in place, they do business as they see fit, and I have no authority over them. I have no oversight." You have to say to yourself: how could it be that our Transportation Minister is putting in place bodies that he then washes his hands of all future responsibility for?

Here we are, doing it a third time. Here is a brand-new Crown corporation whose sole responsibility is to set up concessionaire contracts, private contracts, and to oversee tolling and to have responsibility for oversight of all kinds of private actions. The minister is then going to say: "Well, we're going to appoint a board of directors. It'll be very much like TransLink and B.C. Ferries. I know nothing, I hear nothing, and I see nothing around what kind of actions they're taking, because you know what? They're a Crown corporation. They can do all kinds of things without my political interference."

Apparently, it's okay to set up an organization like this and then wash your hands of any responsibility for their actions. That gives me grave concern, because it means that we will have no accountability. It means that we will have no oversight. We have a minister

[ Page 11542 ]

who says: "Once the Crown corporation is busy doing its thing, I can't interfere, I won't interfere, and whatever they're doing, they're responsible for."

We're going to purposely now go out and set up a new Crown corporation whose sole duty is to privatize roads, bridges, highways and future infrastructure projects. We are going to set it up with all kinds of powers around tolling and other things that are very controversial and need to be very open and transparent. But no, we're going to set up another layer of bureaucracy, another opportunity for government to shy away from its responsibility and wash its hands of any of the consequences of that.

Madam Speaker, I canvassed the minister at great length about my concerns around the ongoing privatization of infrastructure within this province, and I will say here on the record that, again, I have some very serious concerns around the fact that this legislation is strictly and succinctly about creating opportunities for more privatization. This is the body that will carry it out.

The minister and I had kind of an amusing little exchange around privatization and tolling and around the kinds of interest that generally come to the table here, and I'll talk about that in a few minutes. But first, I'd like to proceed a little bit closer through the bill here and talk about some of the other things that in fact are being done in the creation of this new Crown corporation.

Let's be clear again. The minister talks about it being a project. I saw no project. I did see a Crown corporation, and I saw lots of very interesting aspects of how this is being created and how, in some ways, this Crown corporation is even more of an anomaly than the quasi-privatized B.C. Ferries, which we still pay for but apparently don't have any oversight for and the minister has no responsibility for, or TransLink, which meets in secret, gives themselves lots of fat raises and raises transit fares but won't be accountable to the public.

This new Crown corporation is even going to have some more interesting loopholes behind which they can hide. The minister talks about in this bill…. Bill 14 says that

section 4 amends the

section regarding optional provisions of a concession agreement. Again, there's no reference to a project here — a concession agreement.

Section 5 amends the

section that adds rights, powers and obligations with respect to this new Transportation Investment Corporation. Let's examine that a bit more closely. It says: "If the minister delegates rights, powers or functions to the corporation under subsection (3), the corporation may, in a concession agreement, delegate to the concessionaire any or all of those rights…."

[1610]

Let's think about that. This is a law we're putting in place in British Columbia that says that the minister can delegate rights and powers to the corporation, who can then give those same rights — delegate those same rights — to a concessionaire, a private corporation much like many that are functioning around the world right now buying up projects like this across the world. We'll get to some of those in a moment.

Immediately, it looks as if government is trying to create an opportunity here, where they basically absolve themselves of any responsibility for these privatized concession contracts — right? It says here that "the concessionaire is entitled to exercise those rights, powers or functions" that are delegated from the minister to the corporation to the concessionaire. They're entitled to exercise those rights in relation to a concession highway during the currency of the concession agreement.

We are delegating authority out of the minister's hands to the corporation. So right away the minister has got a right to stand up, as he's been doing all week with B.C. Ferries, and say: "Not my problem. I don't know who's responsible, but it's not me." We're going to see the same thing here. Right here in subsection 5(3.1), the minister can delegate his rights to the corporation, and they give it to the concessionaire. Now the concessionaire is in charge, and they can exercise those rights.

It says here in subsection (4.1), the second one: "If the minister imposes obligations on the corporation under subsection (4), the corporation may, in a concession agreement, impose any or all of those obligations…on the concessionaire…." Here's the next point: "(

a) the corporation is relieved from those obligations in relation to the concession highway."

Again, if we make this very clear path of what this language means, the minister delegates all his responsibilities to the corporation. They then delegate all of theirs to the concessionaire, and it says right in here: "The corporation is relieved from those obligations in relation to the concession highway."

So we have the minister giving away all of the power and authority to the corporation, and he says: "I have no authority here. I don't know what's going on. It's up to them to make up the rules and regulations and enforce them in the policies." The corporation itself can give all of their powers and authorities to the concessionaire, and the corporation is then relieved of their obligations.

Madam Speaker, how can it be possible in the province of British Columbia that a minister of the Crown would give away and delegate power and rights and authorities through a corporation to a private concessionaire — give away all of the authority over that — and be able to stand in this House and say: "I don't know what they're doing, and I don't know have responsibility, and it's a mystery who's going to oversee this"? We've seen that with the B.C. Ferries corporation, we've seen it with TransLink, and this exaggerates it beyond any of the powers that were given to either of those corporations when they were created.

Let's talk about

section 6. Now we've actually seen the trail here of abrogation of responsibility, and then we see the next clincher,

section 6, where this bill "amends the

section to limit the liability of the Transportation Investment Corporation" — limit the liability.

It's very interesting that we first see government trying to absolve themselves of the responsibility for any decisions that the private sector concessionaire may make. Government seems to think that then they will have no responsibility beyond that, around long-

[ Page 11543 ]

term maintenance, rehabilitation, operation, ownership — any of these.

Then we say that we limit the liabi