2008 Legislative Session: Fourth Session, 38th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

MONDAY, APRIL 14, 2008

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 30, Number 7

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Page

Introductions by Members

Introduction and First

Reading of Bills

Health Statutes Amendment Act,

2008 (Bill 26)

Hon. G.

Abbott

British Columbia Rail Corridor

Safety Act, 2008 (Bill M202)

C. Wyse

Statements (Standing Order

25 B )

National Victims of Crime

Awareness Week

C. James

50th anniversary of Taylor

Lekstrom

Bicycle design company on

Quadra Island

Trevena

Discover Fishing B.C. campaign

Bennett

Riverside Funeral Home

Gentner

Coquitlam College and Pacific

Vocational College

H. Bloy

Oral Questions

Handling of domestic

violence cases in justice system

C. James

Hon. W.

Oppal

Deaths of children in Merritt

H. Lali

Hon. J.

van Dongen

Hon. W.

Oppal

Victim services

Simons

Hon. J.

van Dongen

Handling of domestic

violence cases in justice system

Farnworth

Hon. W.

Oppal

Government response to tree farm licence land removals

Horgan

Hon. I.

Chong

Simpson

Hon. M.

de Jong

Post-secondary education funding

Fleming

Hon. M.

Coell

Tabling Documents

Fort St. John Hospital and

residential care facility, major capital project plan

WorkSafe B.C., annual report,

WorkSafe B.C., service plan,

2008-2010

Second Reading of Bills

Greenhouse Gas Reduction (Cap and

Trade) Act (Bill 18) (continued)

On the amendment (continued)

Gentner

C. Wyse

Puchmayr

Thorne

Trevena

Fraser

H. Bains

L. Krog

A. Dix

Speaker's Statement

Rules for public bills in the

hands of private members

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Employment

and Income Assistance (continued)

Hon. C.

Richmond

J. Brar

Simpson

Simons

J. Kwan

Estimates: Ministry of

Transportation (continued)

G. Coons

Hon. K.

Falcon

Gentner

[ Page 11283 ]

MONDAY, APRIL 14, 2008

The House met at 1:32 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Introductions by Members

Hon. G. Abbott: It is my pleasure today to introduce in the gallery Judy Darcy, who is the secretary–business manager of the Hospital Employees Union. She's in the gallery along with about 12 other leaders in the Hospital Employees Union. They're joining us today for the introduction of legislation in just a few moments, which will finish the outstanding work to allow us to move forward in a more cooperative relationship, building upon the landmark 2006 labour agreements and subsequent agreements reached earlier this year.

I'd like to take this moment to recognize Judy, the Hospital Employees Union and indeed other union organizations — notably the B.C. Government Employees Union, B.C. Nurses Union, Health Sciences Association — who came together with government representatives earlier this year to resolve outstanding issues arising from last year's Supreme Court decision.

I'd like the House to please join us in welcoming Judy and all of the guests from the HEU.

C. Puchmayr: I'd like to make the introduction, as well, to all the health care workers that are here. It's certainly a great day for democracy in Canada — that they're going to see the outcome of the Supreme Court rulings. So we're all very pleased that they're here to join us today on this momentous occasion.

Also, I have another introduction I'd like to make. With us today is Ed Hill, former RCMP commander — officer. He's also the founder of Pulling Together, which is the first nations journey. I think he's here to see the Attorney General. Please make Ed Hill welcome for all the work he's done for Pulling Together and the first nations reconciliation.

S. Fraser: It gives me great pleasure to introduce Carol and Graham Bunch, visiting from just north of Qualicum Beach — friends and constituents. They're also here to see a piece of history — the court decision–forced amendments to Bill 29 about justice.

[1335]

Hon. W. Oppal: We have in the Legislature today two law students from Peking University in China. They were the winners of a debate that took place, which was sponsored by the University of Victoria law school and by the Canadian embassy in Peking. The final debate involved students from six of the top law faculties in China. Xinye Li and Sha Luo were the top students, and they were the winners of the debate across China.

The two visiting students are the best debaters, and they won a month-long scholarship — visitorship — at the University of Victoria law school. I'd like the House to make them welcome.

C. Wyse: It is indeed my pleasure today to introduce to the House two individuals who are here to meet with various government representatives: Dr. Bruce Archibald from Simon Fraser University, who is recognized worldwide as an expert on geological formation found here in British Columbia in my riding, as well as Mike Kennedy, who lives in the area and represents citizens who believe that this particular site should be preserved. I would ask the House to make both these gentlemen welcome.

R. Chouhan: I would like to introduce and welcome my friends and my family members from the Hospital Employees Union, for whom I worked for 18 years. They are our leaders and are members of the Hospital Employees Union. We also worked through the agony of Bill 29 together. Hopefully, we will correct part of that mistake today.

Welcome again. Thank you for coming.

N. Simons: I'd like to welcome Keith Thirkell, a councillor with the district of Sechelt, to the House to enjoy question period today. He enjoyed some of the debates this morning. Will the House please make him welcome.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

HEALTH STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 2008

Hon. G. Abbott presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled Health Statutes Amendment Act, 2008.

Hon. G. Abbott: I move that Bill 26, Health Statutes Amendment Act, 2008, be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. G. Abbott: I am pleased today to present Bill 26, the Health Statutes Amendment Act, 2008. British Columbians feel strongly about the value of transparency in our public health system. They made that point very clearly in the Conversation on Health, and earlier this session we introduced amendments to include this value within the Medicare Protection Act. Today we're taking action on that principle.

As members know, when the previous NDP government passed the Medicare Protection Act,

section 49 greatly restricted the ability of the Medical Services Commission and the minister from discussing complaints and investigations by the commission under the act. Today we're making amendments to

section 49 which improve transparency by giving the Medical Services Commission and the minister greater author-

[ Page 11284 ]

ity to disclose information about complaints and investigations, while still protecting privacy.

This legislation will also amend sections of the Health and Social Services Delivery Improvement Act and the Health Sector Partnerships Agreement Act to ensure consistency with the Supreme Court of Canada's 2007 ruling, all within the context of the negotiated resolution reached with the affected unions earlier this year.

Bill 26 also makes changes in a third area. Last fall our government made the decision to eliminate the 68,000 ambulance bills per year charged to MSP premium assistance clients. Amendments to the Emergency and Health Services Act will support last fall's initiative by streamlining the process and will eliminate the need for MSP premium assistance clients to apply for remittance of their ambulance fees.

I move that Bill 26 be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 26, Health 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.

[1340]

BRITISH COLUMBIA RAIL CORRIDOR

SAFETY ACT, 2008

C. Wyse presented a bill intituled British Columbia Rail Corridor Safety Act, 2008.

C. Wyse: I move introduction of the British Columbia Rail Corridor Safety Act, 2008, for first reading.

Motion approved.

C. Wyse: It gives me great pleasure today to be introducing a piece of legislation that protects the safety and economic security of livestock owners in British Columbia whose grazing lands run adjacent to publicly owned rail corridors by placing several obligations on any railway operating on those corridors.

First, a railway must ensure there is adequate fencing that will prevent livestock from entering rail corridors. Second, a railway has to construct adequate farm crossings for farm purposes. Third, a railway must contact landowners when their livestock has been hit by a train. Finally, the bill also mandates that rail operators manage the spread of invasive plants.

This bill re-establishes the practices of B.C. Rail before it was sold by the government to CN Rail.

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

Bill M202, British Columbia Rail Corridor Safety 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) NATIONAL VICTIMS OF CRIME

AWARENESS WEEK

C. James: This week, April 13 to 19, is National Victims of Crime Awareness Week. Here in British Columbia the issue has been underscored by the tragedy in Merritt. I know that all of us are thinking of the innocent children murdered and how the mother, the family and the community are struggling to cope with this loss.

This year's theme for the National Victims of Crime Awareness Week is "Finding the way together." We all have to work together to expose gaps in the justice system where people fall through the cracks. Once we find those gaps, we need to fix them, to try and prevent crime in the first place and help those who become victims.

Crime doesn't just impact victims. It affects their families and entire communities. Across the province there are many agencies working to help those people in communities that are touched by crime.

Here on the Island, Greater Victoria Police Victim Services is holding a candlelight vigil on April 17 to honour those impacted by crime and violence. The ceremony will also mark the 25th anniversary of the Greater Victoria Police Victim Services.

This organization provides support to victims of crime, including referrals, assistance through the court process and help with victim impact statements. It's an integrated police victim services agency that works in partnership with seven police agencies and serves 13 municipalities. Run by a volunteer board of directors made up of representatives from the agencies and civilians, this hard-working organization should be applauded for their efforts to help victims of crime.

As it's National Victims of Crime Awareness Week, I hope everyone in this House takes time to learn what they can do to help similar organizations in their communities.

50th ANNIVERSARY OF TAYLOR

B. Lekstrom: It's my pleasure today to rise in this House to speak about an anniversary of the village or district of Taylor, which will be celebrating its 50th anniversary this year in 2008 along with our great province celebrating its 150th anniversary.

We're very proud of what Taylor means not just to the Peace district but to the entire province. It was incorporated in 1958 and was named after a gentleman named Herbie Taylor. Herbie was a fur trader for the Hudson's Bay Company who located into the great area of Taylor in 1911.

Taylor is pretty unique. It is a community that in 1957 saw the development of the first natural gas processing plant in British Columbia by Westcoast Energy. That was the McMahon plant, and it still operates today and is a very large contributor to the economic well-being of the northeast and of British Columbia.

As well, I want to congratulate the mayor of Taylor, His Worship Mayor Fred Jarvis, who has served as the

[ Page 11285 ]

mayor of that community for the past 22 years. He served as a councillor — or alderman in those days — for eight years previous, so he has served better than half of the life of the incorporated district of Taylor on that council and has contributed an amazing amount to its well-being.

[1345]

Taylor is a community that is well served. It has an ice arena, a swimming pool and a curling club. It has a golf course. It has all of this not because of the council, but because of the people that call Taylor home. It's my pleasure again, in closing, to ask all of you to join me in wishing happy birthday to the district of Taylor today.

BICYCLE AND DESIGN COMPANY

ON QUADRA ISLAND

C. Trevena: I'd like to tell the House about a bicycle called Baba Ganoush. It's bright and shiny purple. It's a street bike, and it's won many accolades for a Quadra Island bicycle-maker.

It's no ordinary bike. It looks a bit like a bike from the late 19th century. It's got a leather saddle, leather toe straps, wooden handle grips and wooden rims but with contemporary flashes. It was built by hand, taking six weeks of daily work to make. The frame alone has more than 250 separate pieces.

Baba Ganoush, a delight to the eye, won three prestigious awards at the North American Handmade Bicycle Show in Portland, Oregon — the President Walker's Choice, People's Choice and Best in Show. It was sold for $12,000 to seven-time Tour de France winner Lance Armstrong.

Baba Ganoush is one of 60 to 70 bikes that Sam Whittingham crafts each year. Each bike is different. Each is made to order, and each is thought through piece by piece. Sam — who can claim the title as fastest man on earth for his cycling speed, going faster under his own power without the aid of gravity, wind or drafting than anyone in history — has had a love affair with bikes for years — racing, touring, recumbent and track.

After working for some time as a set designer, he turned his love of bikes into a thriving business, Naked Bicycles and Design, which he runs with his wife Andrea Blaseckie from their Quadra Island home. The pair are still reeling from the accolades they received at the show. So far it's not turned into a rush of new business, but as Andrea says, people don't decide to have a custom-made bike as a spur-of-the-moment decision. Most of their bikes cost between $3,000 and $6,000, and from conception to delivery, there's a personal touch.

They encourage their customers to come to Quadra to test their bikes because despite running an increasingly well-known business, Sam and Andrea like to make sure that they, too, still get out on their bikes.

DISCOVER FISHING B.C. CAMPAIGN

B. Bennett: The Freshwater Fisheries Society of B.C. was created by government a while ago, and they've been coming up with some great ideas ever since. One of their exciting new initiatives, near and dear to my heart and just launched, is the Discover Fishing B.C. campaign. British Columbia boasts some of the finest fresh and saltwater fishing opportunities in the world, including the greatest diversity of angling opportunities available in any single jurisdiction in North America. Where else could an angler fish for sturgeon in the morning, fly-fish a gorgeous river for trout in the afternoon and troll for salmon in the evening while watching a sunset on Howe Sound?

The Discover Fishing B.C. campaign will remind people of the great opportunities in their own back yards and encourage them to get out on the water this spring and summer. The campaign, which is led by the Freshwater Fisheries Society of B.C. and a coalition of other groups — including the Ministry of Environment; Ministry of Tourism, Sport and the Arts; Tourism B.C.; the Habitat Conservation Trust Fund; the Sport Fishing Institute and the B.C. Fishing Resorts and Outfitters Association — will feature print and radio advertising, promotional contests and a new website designed to encourage occasional and lapsed anglers to get back into fishing.

While rural people are more plugged into fishing opportunities, many British Columbians in the Lower Mainland and the southern Vancouver Island area seem unaware of the fishing opportunities that exist in their own back yards. There are a half-dozen well-stocked lakes within ten minutes of this building that offer easy and inexpensive trout fishing for young novice anglers, and there are at least a dozen similar lakes in the Lower Mainland where individuals or families can escape for a day of excellent fishing without ever leaving the city.

Let's face it. We all want our kids to get out of the house and spend time in the outdoors. What better way to spend time together as a family than at your local fishing hole. So congratulations to the coalition for their bold new campaign, and to British Columbians: get out there and rediscover fishing in B.C. this year. Remember, a bad day spent fishing is better than a good day at work.

RIVERSIDE FUNERAL HOME

G. Gentner: Amrik Nijjar helped build the largest multi-denominational funeral home in British Columbia. Located along the Fraser River, Riverside Funeral Home offers funeral services for Christians, Sikhs, Hindus, Muslims and people of all religious stripes.

[1350]

Over ten years ago a little house was bought in Tilbury Industrial Park. No one then thought it possible that funerals and industry could coexist, but Mr. Nijjar had a vision. The high-ceilinged structure, the size of a hockey arena, is designed to accommodate religions which lay adherents to rest in ceremonies that draw hundreds of people and require the cremation of the deceased to be witnessed by mourners.

Traditionally in B.C., crematoriums are near cemeteries, and most zoning bylaws do not allow for the

[ Page 11286 ]

mix of a funeral parlour and crematorium in one location. But Riverside offers mourners a cremation hall right on site.

Mr. Nijjar convinced governments that a funeral home was a place of worship and not a business. But how far does one dare the profit motive behind the dealings of death? People should be paid for their services, yes. However, to create it into a franchise-like business venture is a western inclination.

In our society we live in denial of death. We live in guilt, and therefore we negotiate the final tributes of another's death at a time when we are most vulnerable. We make up for our loss with a push for the best coffin, casket, tomb or costly urn, the limo, flowers, obit editing, catering and even video productions for the service. It is then, while sitting there — your head full of remorse, thinking of what gilded package to choose from — that the seller closes the deal. Can we escape the profit-making of one's own death? Many see it as an opportunity that perhaps even Riverside Funeral Home cannot escape as well.

Last month Amrik Nijjar humbly retired from Riverside, but he gives us more than just a funeral home — celebrating life without pretence.

COQUITLAM COLLEGE AND

PACIFIC VOCATIONAL COLLEGE

H. Bloy: Last Friday the Minister of Advanced Education and I went on a tour. No, we didn't go to Stanley Park or Burnaby Village Museum. We toured two colleges in my riding of Burquitlam, Pacific Vocational College and Coquitlam College.

Pacific Vocational College is a piping trades training college which was started in 1991 by Robert Bradbury. In a few short years the college had become known as the leader in training for employers and apprentices providing excellent training grounds for future tradespeople. The programs are tailor-made for the apprentice tradeperson. Pacific Vocational has developed its own curriculum and course material. The visit with the minister allowed a dialogue of discussion for expanding training opportunities.

The students and teachers that I've talked to at Pacific Vocational College enjoy the atmosphere of learning at their own pace. Students are able to complete an eight-week course in five or six weeks. The benefit is that the apprentice is back to work sooner to keep the British Columbian construction industry moving ahead.

Our second visit of the day was to Coquitlam College, which is celebrating over 27 years in operation. Coquitlam College is known throughout Canada as a college that has helped thousands of foreign students study in Canada and go on to other universities to further their education. Coquitlam College is only one of two colleges in British Columbia allowed to teach the university transfer program.

I have attended the graduation ceremonies at the college and am amazed at the number of students that have graduated with full scholarships from Simon Fraser University and other institutes in B.C. I am proud that they are part of the Tri-Cities area, yet serve all of British Columbia and beyond.

The minister and I had a productive meeting with the directors and staff of Coquitlam College, including their president, Tom Tait. They offer a mix of programs, including ESL.

Oral Questions

HANDLING OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE CASES

IN JUSTICE SYSTEM

C. James: For many, the tragic murders in Merritt are raising serious questions, just as the Oak Bay murders did seven months ago. In that case, Peter Lee killed his entire family before killing himself. There are many questions about how the justice system may have failed that family.

Today we see widespread confusion over how the justice system dealt with Allan Dwayne Schoenborn, the suspect in the Merritt murders. The provincial chief judge was out in the media saying one thing; police were saying another. There are many questions about what the authorities knew and what the justice system did or didn't know.

[1355]

My question is to the Attorney General. Given these two shocking crimes, will he commit to a broad review of the justice system and how it deals with domestic violence cases?

Hon. W. Oppal: Well, all of us have been touched by the horrible tragedies that have taken place in Merritt. I have heard the statements of the chief judge. I recognize that there are some conflicting views as to what took place. I recognize that the police have said certain things with respect to the release of the person who is now said to be the suspect.

I think what we have to do in the circumstances is await the results of the inquest. In the event that there is an apprehension of a suspect and in the event that there are charges laid, we'd have to await the outcome of the trial. In the meantime, I think we have to give support to the victims — the mother and the whole of the community — for this horrible tragedy that has taken place.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a supplemental.

C. James: I know that every member of this House is providing what support they can to the family, to the mother, to the community, but part of giving that support is also making sure that answers are forthcoming and that British Columbians actually learn what has happened and get answers to the questions and the concerns that are being raised right now. They're legitimate questions, and that will also help us to learn from this tragedy.

There's been significant confusion, as the Attorney General says, about what the RCMP knew, about what information the justice of the peace had or didn't have,

[ Page 11287 ]

and about why the decision to let the suspect go was done over the phone. That confusion is enough of a concern and similar enough to the tragedy in Oak Bay that there should be a broader review than simply the coroner's inquest.

Again, my question to the Attorney General is: will he commit to a broader review, a public review, so that the public can ensure they get answers to all of the unanswered questions right now?

Hon. W. Oppal: I share the Leader of the Opposition's concerns. I recognize that at the end of the day, we need some answers. But I think that at this stage, given the various steps that are being taken and will be taken, it might be premature to hold an inquiry or to commission an inquiry.

I can tell you that we are very much concerned, and we are very much touched by what has taken place. If an inquiry is the route to go in the future in order to make the system work better, we'll do that. But I think it might be premature at this stage to commission an inquiry.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a further supplemental.

C. James: The questions that the public are asking are larger than simply this tragedy in Merritt. They're questions about the justice system. They're questions about how the justice system deals with people who are victims of domestic violence.

Just last week we saw the women's West Coast Legal Education and Action Fund call for significant changes to the criminal justice and family law systems to better protect women and children in British Columbia. So while I appreciate the response that I had from the Attorney General, these are in fact bigger issues than simply the case in Merritt.

I would like a commitment from the Attorney General today to actually make sure that we look at these issues. I would ask the Attorney General whether he'll commit today to the creation of an all-party committee that would review the justice system and look at the issues facing women in particular and domestic violence and victim services across our province.

[1400]

Hon. W. Oppal: I appreciate the concern again of the Leader of the Opposition. These are issues that we're continually working with and wrestling with. The issue of spousal violence, for instance — I have been saying for a large number of years that this is a cancer that has afflicted many, many generations. Unfortunately, we as a society have not been able to adequately and fairly address the issue of spousal violence.

There have been a number of forums held, particularly in the South Asian community, where spousal violence is said to affect a disproportionate number of people. We want to learn from those forums as to what we should do next.

I can tell the House that one of the positive aspects that has come out of these meetings and the interaction of victims and members of the community is that more and more women, more and more victims, are speaking out about these issues. I think that's a first step to take — to speak out about these issues.

DEATHS OF CHILDREN IN MERRITT

H. Lali: I want to thank members on both sides of the House for the tremendous outpouring of support that has been given over this tragedy in Merritt. The Solicitor General and I went to Merritt last Thursday, and we saw the community of Merritt grieving. The grief is real.

We also saw the community asking tough questions. The questions are also real. They're concerned that the system failed them and also failed the innocent children who were murdered a week or ten days ago.

One of the key questions my constituents have asked me to raise today is the length of time it took to get the information about the suspect out to the community. Is the Solicitor General able to provide some information to my community as to why such a long delay took place in alerting the public about Allan Schoenborn?

Hon. J. van Dongen: I want to again express my deepest sympathies to the family and the community in Merritt. I appreciated the opportunity to visit in the community with the MLA for Yale-Lillooet. It was an opportunity to share in the grief of the community and listen to their concerns and comments.

Certainly I cannot comment on the specifics of the RCMP's handling of the investigation. They are concentrating on two things. They are concentrating on keeping the community safe, and they are concentrating on ensuring that we continue the priority of finding the person who perpetrated these horrible crimes.

I think there are processes in place. The chief coroner of British Columbia certainly recognizes the seriousness of this situation and has announced a full inquest. That is a fact-based process to determine what actually did happen. It will look at the range of issues in terms of the situation. There are other processes in place to examine the conduct of the RCMP, and we await the results of those processes.

Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental.

H. Lali: There are also many unanswered questions about the effectiveness of the telephone justice of the peace hearing, and these telephone hearings started after the courthouse in Merritt was closed in 2002. In the Schoenborn case, on the Thursday evening before the fateful Sunday, the telephone JP system failed. There was no eyeball-to-eyeball contact between the suspect and the justice of the peace. The JP was not able to see the body language or the demeanour of the suspect before he made the decision to release him.

Again, my constituents have asked me to raise the following question to the Attorney General. Will

[ Page 11288 ]

the Attorney General take a serious and long look at the telephone hearings of the justice of the peace and the centralized justice of the peace process to make sure that this kind of tragedy never happens again?

Hon. W. Oppal: I thank the member for the question. I can say that the reason for the…. Tele-bail — bail either by video conferencing or by audio conferencing — is a program that the government has introduced in order to expedite bail hearings so that those persons who are arrested by the police after hours, when courts are closed, will have access to justice. The system itself is a good one in that it provides access to a judicial officer for someone who has been arrested.

The issue as to whether or not the tele-bail system in this case resulted in any adverse consequences or played a role in the tragedy is something that we'll have to wait for the process to take its place to determine and confirm.

[1405]

VICTIM SERVICES

N. Simons: You know, I think that at a certain point, it's important that we all reflect on the relationship between the policy of government and programs that are delivered in our communities. I believe that as a legacy for victims of crime, we mustn't lose time in that process.

We know that in 2002 a number of cuts were made to social programs. My question is specifically to the Attorney General. Would he support a comprehensive review of the programs that were cut and the impact that those programs being cut has on families and on communities and on victims of crime in this province?

Hon. J. van Dongen: I want to assure the member that in the process of reviewing victim services programs, a lot of collaboration has taken place with community agencies, with the police-based programs. In fact, the government has put additional dollars, 17 million additional dollars, into victim services programs.

On Saturday, for example, the Attorney General and myself announced an additional $1½ million going into domestic victim services. This will help to assist a number of front-line community organizations to do prevention work and provide assistance to victims in domestic situations.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

N. Simons: Thank you to the minister.

Yes, there was an announcement of $500,000 for three years, which will go to agencies in the Lower Mainland. That's recognized and appreciated.

I believe that what I'm asking for — and what I believe most British Columbians would like to see — is a larger review of the impact of service cuts in 2002. Crown victim services was eliminated in its entirety. That was a program where specialized victim assistance workers would advise Crown prosecutors on issues such as release of people who have been charged with domestic violence.

So my question is again to the Attorney General. Does he not see this as an appropriate moment to engage in a broad, wide-ranging review of the criminal justice system in terms of the cuts that have been implemented in this province since 2002 and the impact of those cuts on British Columbians?

Hon. J. van Dongen: I want to acknowledge to the member that the victim services programs were restructured in 2002. But there were a number of other changes made, including a number of new programs. A 24-hour crisis line was launched to improve service, and there were integration projects, such as a pilot project in Port Coquitlam where a victim service worker has an office right in the courthouse. So while there were changes made, there was also a very thoughtful study done of how to ensure that all of the victim services program needs were met.

HANDLING OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE CASES

IN JUSTICE SYSTEM

M. Farnworth: The terrible tragedies in Merritt and Oak Bay have raised serious questions in the public about the issue of tele-bail — how it's done, how it works or does not work. The tragedies in Oak Bay and Merritt have raised serious questions around the justice system and how it deals with issues of domestic violence. A coroner's inquest will deal with the cause of death but not with what happened afterwards.

Given the public's concern around these issues — given the fact that we want to ensure that when a decision is made, we not only have all of the information available, but we have the best system available to make a decision — that the Attorney General recognize that now is the time to do a broad public review that deals with the issues of domestic violence and issues such as tele-bail….

[1410]

Hon. W. Oppal: Well, the tele-bail system was brought in after complete consultation with the judges, and the judges are in the best position to decide how fair hearings are conducted. In other words, is the judicial officer who hears a bail hearing handicapped by virtue of the fact that the person appearing during the hearing is not appearing in person but is appearing by way of video conferencing?

In fact, much of the system is now operating on video conferencing because it is more efficient, and there is no evidence that it detracts from any of the principles of natural justice. All of that has been fairly canvassed with the lawyers, the prosecutors and the judges. We haven't had any adverse comments or criticisms regarding the tele-bail system.

Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental.

M. Farnworth: Well, with regards to that last comment, I would suggest that the Attorney General talk to

[ Page 11289 ]

the public of the last week, because I think they have a very different view.

The Attorney General may think that it's working fine, that judges think it's working fine, but two terrible tragedies in the last seven months have raised some very serious and legitimate questions that need to be addressed. There's a very real argument to question about making a decision on the basis of a phone call, particularly when it deals with issues around domestic violence.

So again to the Attorney General. Don't listen to just the judges and the lawyers, but listen to the public, and recognize that there is an opportunity to ensure that we have the best system possible and that we can find ways to improve it. Will he commit to a broad public review of how the justice system deals with issues of domestic violence and, in particular, the issues around tele-bail?

Hon. W. Oppal: We're always prepared to look at ways in which we can improve the system. We're always prepared to look at ways we can improve justice being dispensed to members of the public. But you know, the tele-bail system has been with us since 2001, and the fact that some people are making adverse comments regarding the tele-bail system at this stage does not necessarily mean that the system itself is flawed. It may well be that it needs to be improved.

If it needs to be improved, we will move in that specific direction. But to suggest that because some people in the community have suggested it is not working is something that we'll have to consider at the end of the day. We'll have to determine whether or not the system ought to be changed, whether or not the system can be improved by dispensing with it.

I agree with you that we don't simply listen to judges. But the judges are in the best position to determine whether or not a fair hearing can be conducted, and that's the reason I alluded to the fact that it was done with the full concurrence of all of those people in the criminal justice system.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO

TREE FARM LICENCE LAND REMOVALS

J. Horgan: I'd like to change directions, if I may. Fifteen months ago the Minister of Forests — without consultations with first nations in my community, without consultation with the capital regional district and certainly without consultation with the people in the communities of Shirley, Otter Point and Jordan River — removed vast tracts of private lands from previously public-private tree farm licences. Last week we raised this issue again with the Minister of Forests, and in his insensitive way, he said that we were riding an old horse.

I know that the Minister of Community Services has, after a two-month delay, signed off on a bylaw for the capital regional district. I'm wondering if she could stand in her place today and explain to my constituents why she sat silent at the cabinet table when this decision was being made, why she sat silent while the turmoil raged in my community over how we were going to manage a regional growth strategy that had just been blown up on a whim by the Minister of Forests.

[1415]

Could the Minister of Community Services stand in her place today and explain to the people in my community why she has been mute on an issue of fundamental importance to growth and development in the capital regional district?

Hon. I. Chong: I hope the member realizes that when deciding on whether or not to approve a bylaw, I am legally obliged to consider matters of provincial interest. That includes whether the affected stakeholders have been consulted and whether they have been heard.

While the member would like to suggest that the bylaw has been in our office for two months, I will correct him and correct for the record that that is not true. The bylaw actually was received by our ministry at the end of February, about six weeks ago.

Staff routinely, when they receive these bylaws, ensure that all outstanding matters are reviewed, and they have done that. There was one outstanding matter which was not resolved until late Friday at 5 p.m. When I came in this morning and saw that matter resolved, I was then able to sign off on the bylaw.

I would respectfully hope that the member does not continue to perpetuate untrue statements — statements that he is not familiar with.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

J. Horgan: I know that the minister would like to confine her participation in her government's actions to the past six weeks, but as I'm aware, she's been on executive council for a considerable period of time. When the decision was made to destroy the regional growth strategy in the capital regional district last January, the minister had responsibility for the file.

My question, again: following the Association of Vancouver Island Municipalities convention in my constituency this past weekend where, when the minister was asked, she said: "The issue was complicated…." Will she do something quite simple and support a unanimous resolution from the Association of Vancouver Island and Coastal Communities and do the following: resolve as an urgent matter to declare a moratorium on the sale and land transfer of all land currently zoned as forest or resource land and a moratorium on the development approvals within these forest lands?

That's not complicated. You may not feel you have a legal obligation, but you certainly have a moral obligation to stand up for the people in your region. Say no to these withdrawals. Do it now.

Mr. Speaker: I remind members to put it through the Chair, please.

[ Page 11290 ]

Hon. I. Chong: Firstly, I would like to remind the members and all members of this House where authority lies in terms of land use decisions. The Local Government Act provides regional districts with the legal authority to make land use decisions and consider them in the broader community interest.

When they make those decisions and when they require approval or a decision by the ministry, then they come into my office for me to review to ensure that the process of consultation has been adequate and whether first nations have also been adequately consulted.

That is what has occurred in this particular case. Land use decisions are under the purview of the local government. When there is a request for a change and where I am to be involved and engaged in that, then I certainly take that responsibility seriously.

B. Simpson: I sit here thinking: what great irony that the Minister of Community Services is sitting there talking about due process and consultation after the fact when we have canvassed in this House time and time again that the Minister of Forests failed to consult with the public, failed the public interest, failed — as we find out now — to even protect the animals on the land base in this deal.

[1420]

Where was the consultation that occurred before? There was another member of that cabinet who sat quietly. We now have news, as we signalled to this government months ago, that the first nations would challenge this in court — this Western Forest Products release.

My question is to the Minister of Aboriginal Relations. The Kwakiutl are now going to challenge this decision in court. We warned this government that that would occur. Will the Minister of Aboriginal Relations commit today to engage with the Kwakiutl and make sure that we don't have to go to the courts? In the spirit of the new relationship, will he deal with that first nation and redress their concerns?

Hon. M. de Jong: Thanks to the member for the question. This government and each member of this government take very seriously the obligation that we have to consult and, where necessary and appropriate, to accommodate first nations for decisions that are made. Our record in that respect speaks for itself.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

The member has a supplemental.

B. Simpson: That member's record is crystal-clear on this issue. [Applause.] Hold your applause. That member, as previous Minister of Forests, was found to have dishonoured the Crown in a previous private land release. That minister knew the road that the government was on. That minister knew what had happened in the first case.

My question to the Minister of Aboriginal Relations…. The Minister of Community Services won't commit to stopping this on Vancouver Island. There are a number of first nations who are concerned that they're going to have to take the government to court in the Pope and Talbot decision pending in the Kootenays.

The minister failed to protect first nation interests in the Weyerhaeuser case. He's failed in the Kwakiutl case. Will he stand up now and say: "No more private land releases in this province until full consultation with first nations occurs"?

Hon. M. de Jong: Thanks, again, to the member for the question. It's an ironic question when you consider that all across British Columbia, aboriginal and non-aboriginal communities are celebrating the manner in which a new relationship has been created in British Columbia.

Whether it's land use planning decisions that have taken effect because of that new relationship, whether it's reconciliation agreements or whether it's forest and range opportunity agreements that have given first nations their first real opportunity to become involved in forest operations in British Columbia…. Or maybe it's one of the six communities that have signed on for an actual treaty, a final agreement….

Confronted by an opposition that can't seem to make up its mind when we're discussing aboriginal matters, our record speaks for itself.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION FUNDING

R. Fleming: Last week Simon Fraser University announced program casualties from the Minister of Advanced Education's failure to honour his three-year budget commitment. The latest is a 34-year-old program that provides credit courses to senior citizens.

The minister has been in denial about emerging program cuts and layoffs across B.C.'s college and university system. Now he's saying that his broken budget promise is the fault of the institutions. They took his ministry's three-year budget plan too literally. He said: "We were the first government to do a three-year planning budget, so I think people just assumed it was not just an estimate, but it was an actual. So I think there's a little bit to be learned from that."

[1425]

My question to the minister: is the minister saying to college and university presidents that the lesson they should learn is that his word and the word of this government's service plans don't count for anything?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

[ Page 11291 ]

Hon. M. Coell: I think the member should maybe go visit SFU. Go visit the new buildings on the campus. Go visit the Woodward's site. Go visit the $1.5 billion in construction on our universities which that member and that opposition voted against — every penny of it.

The budget for advanced education has gone up every year since we've been government, and every year they voted against every penny of it. This opposition doesn't know what to do with advanced education other than complain about huge increases in construction and huge amounts of money going into programs. I don't know whether that member has gone and bothered to look at any of the institutions, but they're doing great.

[End of question period.]

Tabling Documents

Hon. G. Abbott: In accordance with

section 14 of the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act, I am tabling the major capital project plan for Fort St. John Hospital and residential care facility.

Hon. O. Ilich: I'd like to take the opportunity to table the 2007 annual report for WorkSafe B.C. and also the 2008-2010 service plan for WorkSafe B.C.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: In this chamber I call continued second reading debate on Bill 18, Greenhouse Gas Reduction (Cap and Trade) Act, and in

Section A, Committee of Supply — for the information of members, continued debate on the estimates of the Ministry of Employment and Income Assistance.

Second Reading of Bills

GREENHOUSE GAS REDUCTION

(CAP AND TRADE) ACT

(continued)

On the amendment ( continued ).

G. Gentner: I continue with the referral or the amendment made by the member for Vancouver-Hastings relative to Bill 18, and I'm basically wrapping up. I know my time is almost at an end.

I brought to the attention of all members of the House the lack of transparency in this bill, and this is where I believe the opposition has one of our gravest concerns. If we are going to enter into this new era, the 21st century, relative to cap-and-trade and how we're going to deal with an issue that's going to impact all of us — the environment, our children, our grandchildren — with the horrors that are being predicted for 2050, I believe we need an open book, an open discussion, a consultative approach that's consensus-building. That is why this referral motion has come before us today.

[K. Whittred in the chair.]

Last Thursday I ended my remarks giving a brief description of what had occurred relative to some e-mail that was bantered back and forth by a committee struck by the Ministry of Environment — namely that with regards to emission standards for wood-fibre boilers, specifically, of course, in the area of agriculture…. It was very enlightening to find out who was telling who what to do in what ministry.

[1430]

That is of grave concern because without that transparency, the opposition would not have had the ability to ferret it out and bring it to attention today. We believe that without proper amendments and proper recapitulation, so to speak, with the government opposite, we're going to be going into a very shallow area of transparency. I think it's incumbent upon all of us to represent our constituents as we move forward into the 21st century regarding how we're going to deal with this most concerning issue of global warming.

Hon. Speaker, when you look at my constituency, that of North Delta, and I think to probably even the same extent to all constituencies, particularly those which share in the Fraser Valley airshed from Delta all the way up to Hope, there is an inversion layer created by carbon. It's there year after year. We see a mini-climate that is cyclical, which has evolved with the microclimates of the Georgia Strait. What happens when there's a cooling off the straits versus the warmth of the land mass up the valley is that it creates some interesting weather patterns.

For some time now Delta has been very concerned with the greenhouse industry. I'm not here to single out the greenhouse industry. We can talk about the big polluters, but we seem to refuse to acknowledge the cumulative effect of the smaller polluters. When you start looking at the cogeneration that's happening up and down the valley and the ability now to plug into the grid which, of course, the Ministry of Energy and Mines is so adamant to support, we are going to see an increase of cogeneration everywhere in the valley.

Without a proper and open discussion on transparency and what this cap-and-trade means, I think we could be losing out on some very fruitful discussions and amendments to move into the 21st century.

I know that in 1997 the GVRD amended the permit, for example, for Houweling Nurseries in my community and required the nursery to cease using wood fuel for its boilers by the end of 1999. It went back and forth between the authority…. Why I raise the GVRD, now Metro Vancouver, is that it's an agency that has been delegated the authority to regulate air emissions in the Lower Mainland.

The GVRD had some time with this one. It went back and forth. They committed to consultation with the industry. Five years later they reaffirmed their position to refuse to amend the permit. However, afterwards of course, it was the Ministry of Environment, through the B.C. Environmental Appeal Board, that oversaw and went beyond that and submitted that Houweling Nurseries wasn't required to obtain a permit from the GVRD because it was somehow

[ Page 11292 ]

exempt as an agriculture operation. So there are exceptions already built into the legislation, and those are discussions that should be amply discussed in a very transparent manner. My concern is that that is going to be lost in this legislation.

Of course, years later in June 2007, the Ministry of Environment has come forward with a policy paper, the Agricultural Waste Control Regulation: Wood-Fired Boilers policy intentions paper, but admits that a more comprehensive review would be undertaken within the next few years. Here we are again. We are going forward with a new direction which we certainly welcome. It's needed. But when it comes down to looking at the cumulative effects of all boilers in the Fraser Valley, that has somehow followed its way onto the shelf.

I'm quoting the Minister of Environment to Delta — for example, June 26, 2007. The mayor received a letter from the Minister of Environment stating: "The GVRD remains the lead agency responsible for managing air quality issues within their boundary. The GVRD's authority, delegated to it under the Environmental Management Act, is the primary instrument available for managing air emissions from greenhouses within the GVRD area."

[1435]

Again, what is the role of local government? What is the role of the regional governments to play in this most important and perhaps sweeping legislation, if there's a lack of transportation that is not inclusive?

Also on July 17, 2007, the Fraser Valley regional district sent out a letter limiting its concerns, outlining its concerns, to the agricultural waste control regulation team working on behalf of the Ministry of Environment stating: "Combustion of fuels other than natural gas, oil and other gaseous materials is highly sensitive in the Fraser Valley regional district." Again, where is the consultation with the Fraser Valley regional district, and where is the support?

There is also talk, discussion, and the Fraser Valley regional district has been very concerned about visual smoke densities, the increased opacity and another problem they have. They state that there is no focus on nitrogen oxide in the intentions paper.

Where in this discussion of Bill 18 will we enlarge that discussion to talk about NO x and of course acid rain? It's all interrelated — the global warming, how we're seeing dimming throughout the planet. We can move very quickly and create legislation and suggest this is somewhat illuminating, so to speak, and steadfast. However, it certainly is refusing to look at the larger picture.

The Fraser Valley regional district also stated that — and this, of course, was only a year ago — for new boilers, the proposal is to optionally allow provision of a manufacturer's certificate as proof of compliance with emissions requirements. Certificates are a poor substitute for actual stack-commissioning tests to determine compliance. That's the position of the Fraser Valley regional district, but you know, when you look at it….

As I brought it forward Thursday afternoon, the position of the government is to simply accept the manufacturer's certification of boilers without doing proper public, endorsed tests of smokestacks, etc.

There's a lot of hypocrisy on the other side, opposite, relative to that of pollution and how we are going to deal with global warming, and it's not inclusive. Again, it is not bringing in local government. Not only is it ignoring some of the current concerns by Abbotsford city, the Fraser Valley regional district and Metro Vancouver, but it's ignoring those valuable delegated authorities. That's what the ministry has done for many years — delegated the authority of regulating the ambient air in the Lower Mainland airshed.

Abbotsford suggests that this particular airshed is very vulnerable to particulate matter pollutants because of the mountainous regions which trap them. This is very important because one can have the strictest regulations in the world, even zero emissions, but if there is neither monitoring nor strict enforcement, it is meaningless. That is from the city of Abbotsford.

This is a real red herring because, frankly, when we look closer at Bill 18, the question of enforcement and the interrelationship between local governments is very questionable. Here we are, going to a cap-and-trade system, yet it certainly isn't outlined properly in Bill 18 how we're going to deal with that.

Of course, this referral motion that's brought forward is to step back and take a breath. Let's look at this, and let's talk to local government. That's all we're asking.

Also, a decision was made by, again, the environment advisory board, and they said the following: "With respect to particulate matter, opacity odours emitted from wood-fired boilers used in agricultural operations within the GVRD, the district director has no authority to require a permit that imposes further requirements beyond those set in regulation." In other words, the trust and the social contract evolving with local government that they were to be delegated the authority to regulate particulate matter, opacity odours from wood-fired boilers, etc., is null and mute. It's void.

[1440]

It certainly is wrong, what's happening with this legislation. I think it's only incumbent upon the government to step back and seriously address how all the team, all members of government — local, regional and, of course, provincial — and all people contribute and make things better.

In conclusion, in my community of Delta, there's been a real lack of consultation on this issue. The difficulty with it is that when you register or regulate or look at the cumulative effect of air ambient qualities, it's done in monitoring stations that have a hodgepodge of locations — dynamic — instead of having monitors right on the stack. It's been very costly and very ineffective. Frankly, Metro Vancouver and other jurisdictions have had a hard time and a difficult time, particularly with the government, to assist in that type of monitoring.

It's not the cumulative effect alone that we should be looking at and worrying about when it comes to carbon. We have to seriously look at who the real

[ Page 11293 ]

polluters are. To do that, there has to be law whereby the emitters have monitoring on every other stack.

My municipality, amongst others, is very concerned with that. We hope the government will reconsider its position and take a stronger look at the referral motion that's been brought forward by this side.

C. Wyse: It is indeed my pleasure to get up and speak in favour of the referral motion. Bill 18, the Greenhouse Gas Reduction (Cap and Trade) Act, is a very important piece of legislation. There is no question in everyone's mind — at least those minds that are willing to share their thoughts with me — that cap-and-trade, effectively designed, will reduce pollution and at the same time keep the economy and communities strong.

I'd like to repeat that, Madam Speaker. There is general agreement that cap-and-trade, effectively designed, will reduce pollution and keep the economy and communities strong. But when you look at the bill as it stands right now, it begs — as a matter of fact, it cries out loudly for referral — to be referred to a committee so that it can be studied and have some actual meat put on about five different areas I've identified that require further information before any informed Legislature in this House can vote upon it.

Before I go into those points, one of the aspects that comes into play is the different processes that have taken place previously by this government. An agreement called the Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement, in actual fact, was signed off quite quietly by the side between two cabinets, between two provinces. There's a component contained within that agreement that there has been very little discussion given to.

We hear about trade. We hear about labour mobility, but the part that the government has been reluctant on and, as a matter of fact, has run and hidden from is the investment component. One of the items that I will come back to is the need for transparency and accountability and the chance to approach the government from various segments of British Columbia.

[1445]

When we look at the investment component, when we look at the report that was provided to the UBCM on how local government would be able to address greenhouse issues and climate changes, very clearly their report stated that they would be severely limited in implementing any type of a carbon-dioxide-gas reduction.

As a matter of fact, their report was so damning, so concerning, that in a time and a vote that no one can recall…. With one dissenting vote, all the delegates at the fall annual meeting of the UBCM voted to have discussions undertaken with the provincial government and that without major changes to the TILMA agreement — nine or ten of them — the UBCM would not be able to proceed. Their opposition — based from their lawyer, Mr. Lidstone — was based around the environment, the investment component.

We are looking at an enabling legislation that is suggesting…. That is not a strong enough word. It is legislating that the enactment would be turned over to the cabinet — a cabinet, once more, that makes their decisions in private, in secrecy and beyond accountability.

That is why I stand here in front of you in this House speaking for the referral motion, speaking for the opportunity not only for local government to be able to have their say but also for industry, individuals, environmental groups — in other words, the whole cross-section here in British Columbia.

The bill is an enabling act. It doesn't, in actual fact, deal with a broader issue. The broader issue of Bill 18 deals with the 40 percent reduction of gases that are not captured by the fuel tax that was introduced by the government. That is not an insignificant amount. That is a major aspect of dealing with the issue of climate change. It is the implementation of the cap-and-trade component being done effectively that allows the economy and our communities to remain strong.

As with TILMA, which was done in secrecy in cabinet, Bill 18 requests the same enabling legislation. Once more, without the referral motion passing, you can see that British Columbia is left to react rather than being in a position to respond.

There are legal opinions by environmental groups that enunciate, in their opinion, that underneath the investment component of TILMA there are a variety of actions that TILMA will impede here in British Columbia — certain things to proceed to protect the environment, particularly at the local government level. One of those areas falls within the greenhouse gas areas, never mind species and so on.

[1450]

It is important that this House hears what I am saying today and supports the referral motion so that there is adequate time to review the effect of this particular bill, to provide input to an item that, if it is not done correctly, will not protect the environment necessarily but will definitely have an effect on the economy and on community stability.

With that, I stand here in front of you now, having done what I believe is my responsibility as critic for local government affairs. I have drawn the attention of this House to that particular item, particularly the Minister of Environment, so that he may also take into account that sharing of information as he looks at Bill 18 in the future.

Now to return to some of the broader issues that I mentioned — why the House should be voting for referral. Referral gives us the opportunity to obtain information and answers to questions that are raised by the bill. To turn over the authority and power to the cabinet so that they can walk outside the doors of this Legislature, close them behind us, if you like, go off in secret and then determine the answers to these questions…. That's the process with Bill 18 being passed where it stands. That's why legislative committee work is required.

Now, there are a number of questions. How many permits will be issued, for example? If there are too many permits issued, one of the effects becomes that there isn't enough value. There isn't necessarily enough force behind them in order to reach the limit of targets

[ Page 11294 ]

that are being set. Without an answer to that question, it then begs the need for further study.

To empower cabinet to go away in their wisdom, without any other input being required, to answer that question has the cart before the horse, in my mind. That is why I'm standing here in front of you attempting to convince this House to support the referral motion to a legislative committee.

Likewise, what sectors will be covered by the regulations? It's a very important question. Right now, as it stands, with the western climate initiative, only facilities that produce 100,000 tonnes of greenhouse gases per year are required to report to Environment Canada. In British Columbia there are 38 of those. Do we need to lower that threshold? I'm not in a position to answer that question, nor am I willing to turn that over completely to the cabinet to have them go away, without the review that this Legislature has, to answer that question. At this moment in time, I do not even know if the cabinet is willing to seek answers to those questions.

For me, it is another reason why we should be voting for referral so that that information can be brought together, so that it can be examined. Then, in a knowing fashion, the people of British Columbia will have an understanding of what the effect of Bill 18 will be, rather than being asked to accept it as a pig in a poke.

A third possible question needs to be answered — a third question that would require a committee to be reviewing it — and is another reason to be supporting the referral motion. How will these permits be allocated? The legislation doesn't say that. It simply enables the cabinet to do such. There are different options that are used around the world to determine how permits are awarded.

Should there not be a chance to provide input — public input, input that's open to scrutiny — compared to what Bill 18 presently would allow to happen? To go and make the decision, with minutes never given — simply the results of the decision — on an item that is crucial not only here in British Columbia but to the world in general, as we have heard on numerous occasions…. To have it sent off to a group enabled to deal with these items — and I'm only at question 3 — to me, begs for the referral motion to pass.

[1455]

So another possible question that should be answered before Bill 18 proceeds further is: how big will the penalties for non-compliance be? An item. Do we simply accept on goodwill? Do we need a big stick? Do we need big carrots? What is the answer to that question? What should it be? Again, in my opinion, it is a reason for referral, a reason to go out and collect that information with both sides of the House.

Another question is: what restrictions will be placed on the alternative compliance units? Where I am from, upcountry, I didn't understand what that meant. So I had somebody explain it to me, and they used the word "offsets" — where you can make some trades, some changes.

There may be, and there seems to be, a general consensus that there's a need to allow for offsets in the industry for a short term so that adjustments can be made. There appears to be agreement in British Columbia. However, it raises the question once more. Offsets do not signify the change. How long do they last? How many of them are given out?

I think that the intent of Bill 18 is to move for improvements on the environment but that at the same time as moving on that, the economy and the stability of communities are not destabilized at the same time. On this very same point, same question, once more, to me, suggesting that there is the need for referral to pass is a review to make sure that previous lack of legislation around reforestation that did have a compliance for reforestation to take place doesn't become an offset….

Where I'm coming from, that could be looked at as palming something off the table that should be done, that was required to be done but now, with the rules changing, gets credit at another card table — gets credit for something that should have been done. I'm not saying that is what is going to happen, but without there being the openness of discussion that the referral motion would allow to take place, I'm left in a position to have to assume that the cabinet would do that.

[1500]

The people of Cariboo South did not elect me to make those assumptions. They elected me to stand up when the opportunity presented itself to bring forward their concerns in the venue where they could be heard. Clearly, that is not in the cabinet room where Bill 18 takes this legislation. Therefore, I find myself in an awkward situation, speaking for a referral on a motion — that I need to explain why the referral should pass.

When I'm back home in Cariboo South, I'm hoping that they will allow me a little bit of grace. These are the rules that are required for me to be in the House to bring forward their concerns. I will be able to explain to them that I had to use the back door in order to try and ensure that cabinet doesn't take this out the door, behind closed doors, so that we do not know what's happening with such an important item.

That leads me to another question, which, in my mind, begs for the referral motion to pass. What sort of government oversights will there be on the cap-and-trade regime?

When I was driving last…. I'd like to share a little bit of a story with you about oversight and it being done by self-policing and how it doesn't work. We've had practice here for the last several years that oversight is to be provided by the individual groups that, in actual fact, are looking after themselves.

I've asked a few people over the last week how that works when it comes to speeding. I asked people about the last time that they were driving down the highway and they were breaking the law and they were speeding: "How many of you said, 'Whoops. I'm speeding here. I'm breaking the law,' then pulled over to the side of the road and wrote yourself a ticket?" They looked at me like I was right off the wall. They thought I was certifiable in a whole bunch of different ways. I've got a colleague, a friend of mine that, in actual fact, would second the motion.

[ Page 11295 ]

But they did understand that there are many, many circumstances — whether it be our forests, our seniors care facilities, whether it be whatever — where self-policing is not adequate. As a matter of fact, they recognized, as Mr. W.A.C. Bennett recognized, that there are places in which government has a responsibility — as a matter of fact, it has a duty — to look after on behalf of all four million people here in British Columbia.

That's why referral here is important. It is ensuring that the cap-and-trade is going to be effective, that it is not going to be done behind closed doors. It is not going to be controlled by who made the largest amount of contributions to whatever party might be in power. Those are the items that beg this motion to pass.

Those are six questions that I believe require the opportunity for British Columbians to respond to before Bill 18 goes ahead. In addition, I pointed out to the cabinet minister how another piece of legislation — the Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement — likewise has an effect here upon how things proceed. Now, those are two items.

I mentioned, I believe, that I have five, but I doubt that I'm going to have time to get through all of them in the same detail. So I'm going to now move on to the third point that, in my mind, begs the referral motion to pass, and that is one of the accountability part.

[1505]

The cap-and-trade is left up to regulations. Regulations are changed quite easily, not with an awful lot of scrutiny and not necessarily with a lot of thought, particularly when you're dealing with the bill, which asks us to go ahead and do something.

If I was back in Cariboo South and I was sitting around the coffee table back at home, I would describe Bill 18, the way it stands right now, as: "Trust me. I'm with the government. I'm here to help you." I can report to this House that that particular defence and explanation doesn't carry very well, at least in the Cariboo.

So that is another way of approaching that the cabinet does give itself the unlimited ability to distribute the carbon allowances by whichever means they determine, which in that type of form become a possible real asset value.

Earlier today we were debating the effect of the result of taking what was an asset value for British Columbians — tree farm licenses, things that have been in place for decades…. A change in regulation along the way, a little change here in legislation, a little nudge there, and the next thing you know, something that belonged to all of British Columbians ended up belonging to a corporation that, all of a sudden, was no longer seeing the value in the forest industry. They were now becoming a land developer.

Carbon allowances come with real economic value, and that becomes available to be bought and sold. That significant item requires more input than what this bill presently provides. That would be my third point for the need for passing this particular motion, the referral motion.

Thank you for waiting, Madam Speaker, and for so kindly listening to me. I've taken some of my thoughts, and I've rolled them into different places. I appreciate your kindness to wait for me to recollect where I wish to go with the next point.

My next point is that the bill itself is incomplete. In actual fact, sections of this bill leave unanswered questions in addition to the ones I've raised.

Section 26(1) states that corporations can commit an offence under the act, but guess what. "Corporation" is not defined.

That term alone becomes important. That term alone demands that we pass the referral motion. In the United States, the Supreme Court of the United States narrowly, 5-to-4, ended up defining a corporation in the United States of America and giving a corporation the same rights as a human being.

Since then, that is how their law has been driven. A corporation, an entity that exists legally on paper only, has been given the same rights as a human being. You cannot walk past legislation that does not include definition that is crucial to the understanding and the implementation of the act. If we pass the act the way it stands right now, the cabinet gets to walk outside these doors in secret, and they determine who a corporation is — they alone.

[1510]

It's another reason why, in my mind at this moment in time, the referral motion must pass so that we can take a piece of legislation and we can flesh it out as we started off — at least in my discussions in my mind — to obtain a cap-and-trade situation that, if effectively designed, will reduce pollution and keep the economy and community strong.

Where I'm from, community is a very broad word. We need all of our communities to be kept strong. We need an economy that allows that to take place, but in the new world of realization, we recognize that issues around the environment concurrently — and if not concurrently, at the head of the parade — need to be leading us from here on in. If changes are not made — if I may say so — wisely, we will end up in a very bad set of circumstances.

In closing, I call upon this House to support the referral motion so that the answers to these very important questions may be found. With that, I thank you for your time and patience.

C. Puchmayr: I, too, rise in support of the motion to refer Bill 18, the Greenhouse Gas Reduction (Cap and Trade) Act. There are some very compelling reasons to go into committee stage on this. I think referral to a legislative, all-parliament committee is an excellent way to go to try to come to some realities and conclusions to some of the very ambiguous language in the bill and the very large loopholes that it can create without actually having points and triggers in the legislation itself.

The actual bill itself is an enabling act which sets the regulation. It allows setting regulations, but it doesn't set it by legislation. That is very concerning to this side, and it's very concerning to many British Columbians who would like to know what a true

[ Page 11296 ]

cap-and-trade is. Is it merely a cap-and-trade that everyone looks at on first blush and says: "Well, it's great to cap emissions, and it's great to look at a system that creates some incentives towards capping emissions"?

What is it precisely? What are some of the triggers? What are the penalties? Who plays a role in making those decisions? If the public doesn't play a role in it, who is making those decisions, and how are those decisions made? Are they made behind closed doors? Who are the people that have the ear of the government that are able to set the policies and the regulations of the cap-and-trade act? That is certainly very concerning.

We look at the impacts that cap-and-trade will have. The committees that are involved in it…. Certainly, there are a lot of environmental committees that are looking at the positives of cap-and-trade. We also have to look at all of the impacts of cap-and-trade, and we have to have something put forward that everyone can look at so people can do an analysis of whether it's fair, whether it fits in with the rest of the climate initiative that is ongoing right now, so we can clearly understand the positives and also look at the potential negatives of cap-and-trade.

How do we address those negatives so that at the end of the day, the conclusion is that we have a system that's going forward, where we're showing some leadership, where we're actually doing and playing a role in cap-and-trade?

We've heard of the Premier's blue-ribbon panel on the environment. Again, here's a group of people that are hand-selected. No disregard for who the people are or what their credentials are, but the fact is these are people that aren't democratically elected. These are people that were handpicked by the Premier. Many of them could have business interests, and I think one of them is the president of Mobil Canada. Obviously, there is an advantage to sitting inside that very small tent and making decisions that could have a very positive effect to your own corporation or your business interests.

[1515]

Again, this legislation promotes that same kind of possibility of people getting together in a very small, select group and sitting down and coming to conclusions on cap-and-trade and the potential of cap-and-trade and the impacts of cap-and-trade. Certainly, without having that in a public format, there is the ability for someone to actually take advantage of that and profit from having the very ear of the government on the cap-and-trade system.

This isn't just something that is coming forward from the opposition. This is even David Loukidelis. The Privacy Commissioner has expressed a concern in a communication to the government, as well, about how the actual legislation itself creates exemptions of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. One needs to be alerted when the Privacy Commissioner makes those kinds of comments.

We certainly have to sit up and listen to the concerns of the Information and Privacy Commissioner. We're seeing that there's more potential for secrecy. There's less potential for disclosure. There's less potential for FOIs. We may never find out whether or not somebody can actually be benefiting from having the inner ear of the inner cabinet.

So I think a legislative committee, to get together to look at all the different impacts and to look at what is required or what we can do together to create a system of cap-and-trade that is fully transparent, that has absolute disclosure so that every member of the public can look at the document and see precisely how it works…. People that are affected by large industries may have some concerns. People heading into contract negotiations with large industries need some kind of a concrete document that they can look at to see what impacts this type of cap-and-trade legislation will have on them.

Those are very important questions that go unanswered in this legislation, or in this, basically, enabling legislation, that sets the ability for someone to write those regulations after the fact and also for the regulations to continually be able to be modified and to be changed without any impacts or without any input from the public.

So if we can support this motion…. I think it's an easy direction to go. It certainly will create transparency, because these committees are committees of the public. These are committees where meetings can be televised. People can be called to the legislative committees, and they can be asked about the potential impacts of this type of legislation, what kind of legislation is required. We can talk to business groups. We can talk to labour groups. We can talk to environmental groups, all in the same arena with the government and with the opposition.

I think it's very important that we not go forward with this until all the t's are crossed and all the i's are dotted, and that certainly isn't happening right now.

The other thing that we're seeing now in British Columbia in this Legislature which is unprecedented is a change in how this House is managed. Estimates are all put into the small House. We're not seeing a full disclosure of the estimates process. There's certainly a fear on this side and a concern that we may run out of time for estimates. We may not have enough time for the public, through their official opposition, to address the issues of the estimates.

[1520]

Some of the ministries may not even get a chance to get in front of the minister. Some of the opposition may not even be able to ask the ministers about their own service plans. You take that right now, and you take this type of enabling legislation….

Let's say that next year the Ministry of Environment…. If the government decides that they don't want to bring them forward into the estimates process, they can run the calendar out. They can literally run the calendar out on the estimates process. We'll end up not only having an enabling act that allows us to write regulations and change regulations without any public disclosure, without any public consultation, certainly no open public consultation, and then suddenly, when it comes time to look at the service plans and to ask the minister about cap-and-trade — you know, where the downfalls are, what is positive about it, how it is

[ Page 11297 ]

interfacing with the rest of the climate initiative — we may not even have the ability to do that.

If that isn't a concern in itself, it certainly should be to the other side as well as this side. There is a real concern here when you start heading into government secrecy, when legislation is done with very little public disclosure, very little public input. We certainly have to have some concerns, we have to express those concerns, and we have to do so vocally. We have to talk to our communities.

Our constituents are speaking to us about it. They have questions too. People that support cap-and-trade are going to say: "Cap-and-trade is a good idea. Do you agree that cap-and-trade is a good idea?" Well, yeah, cap-and-trade is a good idea, but we need to see how the legislation is going to work on cap-and-trade so that we can see the positives and the negatives and have an ability to have some influence on the negative impacts that cap-and-trade might bring.

There are sections in here with cap-and-trade where you can buy offsets from companies that aren't producing. Where's the technicality with respect…? Can a company that is polluting a lot start other shell companies and then buy offsets from each other — from themselves, actually? This would be just an incredible shell game. But without legislation, I'm concerned that that is a possibility.

We'll have all this good, green legislation, and we'll all pat each other on the back and say, "You know, we're doing this for the environment; we're doing this to save the planet," yet shell companies will be going around it and offsetting the pollution targets. So those are very real concerns.

We have an industry in British Columbia that is starting to make a huge comeback, which is the foundry industry. At one time they went to China because they thought that they could get cheaper commodities in China. You know, they were right. They were right. They got cheaper commodities in China.

I spoke to a couple of foundries just recently. I toured one of them and spoke with the son of the owner of another one. They said that yeah, the commodities were cheaper in China but that they've sent whole shipments of castings back because they were so inferior, and they couldn't get a consistency. It shows that the industries in British Columbia, especially in the foundry industry — which has been around for a hundred years in British Columbia; I think there's only about seven of them left — are building quality products, and they're paying good wages.

They're creating an interesting trade and a stable workforce for people of British Columbia, and they're doing so by producing, possibly, something that may create greenhouse gas.

So how do we deal with the foundries? How do we keep those high-paying jobs in British Columbia but also assist them in an ability to maybe look at some different alternatives or to look at ways of assisting them in reducing some of their greenhouse gas exposures?

[1525]

That's what you do when you bring everybody to the table, and that's what you do when you sit down with all the different groups. You sit down with the business groups, the labour groups, the environmental groups and you say: "Here's what we have here. Here's what our goal is. How do we best achieve that? How do we do that and keep meaningful employment in British Columbia as well?"

It's fine to have a cap-and-trade system in place, but we can't just have a cap-and-trade system that encourages pollution. We have some of the largest polluters that are exempt from cap-and-trade. I think it's 40 percent of the producers of total greenhouse gas emissions that will be exempt. So how does that happen? Why are they exempt? Why aren't they brought into the fold so that there's a complete analysis of what they provide, what they do, what their exposure is? How do we work with them to ensure that they're not exempt but to also ensure that they continue to be a viable industry?

If they're in the oil and gas sector…. I mean, the oil and gas is right here. You can export manufacturing to other countries, and you can bring in foreign workers, but the oil's in our ground. So the oil is there, and there is a cost to taking that oil out of the ground. How do we work with that? When you have oil companies that make billions and billions of dollars in aftertax profit a year, surely they can play part of this game. Surely they can come to the table with us and be part of the cap-and-trade initiative.

The other states in the western climate initiative, the other players, all have fairly open disclosure. They have legislation that's governing them, and they have directions that they're going with respect to that. We don't. For some reason we don't want to go that way. So, you know, there are a lot of unanswered questions.

For instance, how many permits will be issued? What is the overall cap? What sectors are covered by the regulations? What sectors are not going to be covered by the regulations? Will that change? Can that change? Obviously, there's not going to be legislation, so if a regulation regulates a company that is covered by it, you can also set a regulation that says they're not covered by it. So that's very concerning.

How will those permits be allocated? How big will the penalties be for non-compliance? Will there be penalties or will there be a sliding scale? Will some companies be penalized and some not be? What restrictions will be placed on alternative compliance units, on the offsets? What sort of government oversights will there be on the cap-and-trade regime?

There's not a lot of accountability. It authorizes cabinet to introduce any kind of trade regime and change at any time without legislation or oversight. That's very concerning to me. You know, in a time when we're talking about openness and transparency…. That was the key, the hallmark, to the election campaign last time. The Liberals' campaign slogan was: "The most open and transparent government of all time" — or "bar none" or something like that.

We haven't seen that openness. We've actually seen a loss of democracy. We've seen a loss to the estimates process. We have seen a closing of the calendar. We saw closure on a very important bill last year which

[ Page 11298 ]

was the bill that brought in the independent power projects. The bill which brought in the independent power projects received closure. Something as important as that this government elected to close.

Interjection.

C. Puchmayr: The member for Kamloops–North Thompson…. I see he's suddenly awakened here. The other day when I was trying to get some questions out of him in his role as junior minister, he didn't really want to talk too much. He certainly says a lot when he's in the background heckling. That just shows…. There's a lot of secrecy, but with that secrecy comes a lot of hot air, I'm afraid.

Madam Speaker, my time is up, and I will conclude on those comments.

[1530]

D. Thorne: Today I rise to speak in favour of referral of Bill 18 to an all-party committee. I think Bill 18 is probably one of the most significant pieces of legislation that we have debated in this Legislature, certainly since I have been in this Legislature. It is the enabling legislation for a cap-and-trade system in British Columbia. That's a system that I certainly support and have always supported setting up.

I think we're at a point in time in the history of the world and the environment where we're left with very few choices for what we can do as government on a large scale to try and mitigate the damage that we — our generation, actually — have already done to the environment and to the world. I certainly support the idea of a cap-and-trade system.

Speaking in favour of referral to an all-party committee, to me, is speaking in favour of Bill 18. I believe it is an important enough piece of legislation that everybody should have a voice. It should be fully transparent. The public should be involved in not just bringing forward enabling legislation and then leaving the balance — the meat, the law itself — up to cabinet fiat…. I think that is opening up cabinet and the Legislature, as a whole, to cries of not just lack of transparency but secrecy, no accountability and, perhaps down the road, all kinds of screams of favouritism, etc.

[S. Hammell in the chair.]

I think this referral motion would be something that everybody in this Legislature would support. It might not only help the bill to become better in the long run, in the end when it's passed, but it would also avoid all of these potential lawsuits and cries of favouritism and secrecy, etc.

When you have a bill of this magnitude dealing with some of the biggest industries in British Columbia — in fact, probably within the world actually, but today we're only speaking about British Columbia…. When you're dealing with industry and a situation like the environment and capping emissions, which means capping the industry itself in some ways, then I think you have a burden of transparency that is beyond belief. I don't believe we've ever discussed a motion of this magnitude where we're talking about this kind of business.

Some of the significant problems that I see in just passing this and sending it off to cabinet are the same kinds of issues that have been raised by my colleagues — and not just by my colleagues but by significant third-party stakeholders in this, not the least of which would be our freedom-of-information independent officer of the Legislature, Mr. Loukidelis, who has made his points very, very clear to several ministers of the House. In so doing, of course, we all became aware of those issues.

Speaking for myself and the official opposition, we are very concerned, as is Mr. Loukidelis. I can't believe that the members on the government side of the House wouldn't be equally as concerned about Mr. Loukidelis, whom they hired to do a job.

[1535]

Unless I misunderstand the purpose of Mr. Loukidelis's position, I believe he is there to give us advice on these matters of freedom of information and that we are obligated to take his advice because he is the person we have hired as the expert — which means we sit here not as experts, as people relying on the information that he gives us.

Another important stakeholder that is looking at us in the matter of the environment would be the public, made up of many people of many different positions.

I see that one of the ministers is so interested in what I'm saying that he has come up and is sitting right in front of me and is listening. That is quite gratifying to me.

I think the public in general is getting more and more jaded as the days go by with government — with us. They think that we are not always as transparent and accountable as we could be in many different ways. Here we have an opportunity to move on — to move in the direction the public and the freedom-of-information officer want us to move in — and open up this bill to public scrutiny, to transparency, rather than having all of the bits and pieces, the meat of the bill, brought in by cabinet fiat.

I'm just going to go through a few of the reasons that I think secrecy is a huge problem with this bill. In doing so, I am going to refer to the letter that Mr. Loukidelis did write to the government and copied to the official opposition.

Mr. Loukidelis has pointed out to several ministers his concerns around

section 36 of Bill 18, where he talks about third-party information being protected unnecessarily and adding to the scope of

section 22 in the Freedom of Information Act where a trade secret may be exempt from the bill but not information regarding it.

If this bill were to pass, if regulation were to be brought in by cabinet to speak about information that was brought forward to government anytime in the future, then this would be almost nullifying. That's how I'm reading Mr. Loukidelis's letter. It would nullify the whole purpose of freedom of information in this aspect.

[ Page 11299 ]

He says that he is aware of no credible reason why the kinds of third-party information addressed in this bill in

section 36 would merit all but unprecedented protection that was contemplated originally by the

section of the Freedom of Information Act. That is one of the major concerns that Mr. Loukidelis had, and he does not understand why information supplied in confidence would necessarily not be covered under that section.

Just looking through it…. He has pointed out that

section 36 — he phrases it in a more concise way — makes a sweeping confidentiality. It will deny the freedom-of-information access to previously accessible corporate data, and it relates to a market that will be potentially worth hundreds of millions. That was what I was referring to earlier with the scope of this bill and the size of the industries that we are dealing with when we talk about capping emissions.

[1540]

The trading part, of course, is just as important, but the meat of this bill is really the capping of emissions. That means that if I have an industry and my emissions get capped because I've used them all up in the first seven months of the year, then I have to find another industry that can give me some of their emissions to use so we don't go over a certain quota.

A lot of corporate information would be secret. That leads to, as we can all imagine, all kinds of questions that will arise out of this bill because of that one section. Even if information was supplied in confidence by the government, it might be exempt from the Freedom of Information Act, but certainly it would cover any commercial, scientific, technical or financial information, which might not then fall under freedom of information.

It's an extremely broad definition for this information, with respect to a trade secret. One wonders what small amount of information might be left that actually would fall under freedom-of-information regulations. Secrecy and transparency would seem to be the areas where the government would be open to criticism on an ongoing basis about this bill — were it to pass in this form, without any public consultation with anybody from the public.

There are many, many unanswered questions from a bill with such significant stakes as this kind of bill. We have no idea, because these are the kinds of issues that will be dealt with at cabinet, as to how many permits would be issued. In other words, what would the cap be? That's the meat of it. What would be the cap? How many people would be covered under it? How many permits would be issued? What sectors are going to be covered by these regulations? One of the biggest issues here would be: how will permits be allocated?

I'm no expert in industry or in any of these issues, but I can't help but think that these permits would become some of the most valuable permits or trade issues in the province. I've lived in Trail for five years. I know a little bit about how Teck Cominco works and those kinds of issues. I'm not picking on them. I just happen to know them because I lived there.

I would assume that Teck Cominco would be a perfect candidate for a permit for cap-and-trade emissions. Now, I could be wrong. Perhaps they wouldn't be, but I'm assuming that they would be a perfect example of a rather large multinational kind of company that obviously has had problems in the past with pollution issues. That would lead me to think: carbon emissions. I mean, we don't say "pollution" anymore, it seems. But when you're talking about carbon, carbon emissions and cap-and-trade, I think you're talking about a place like Teck Cominco.

How valuable these permits will be. That's another reason why transparency and accountability become the most important order of the day. I would hope that I'm not speaking into the wind. I would hope that the members on the other side of the House would surely agree with that and would also agree that these permits will be very, very important.

Penalties. How big would penalties be? Personally — and this is just my personal opinion — I don't think a penalty could ever be big enough that it would stop a big industry like Teck Cominco from pretty much following the order of its own business.

That certainly was my experience when I lived in Trail. They would get their hands smacked all the time. We were always hearing about them getting their hands smacked because they'd dumped into the Columbia River incorrectly or had done this or the other thing. They would get their hand smacked, and they'd get a big $5,000 or $20,000 fine. I lived there in the '70s, and that was a fair chunk of money, but the next day there was another smack on the wrist.

[1545]

Obviously, you've got to go so high in order to stop a huge industry of that magnitude. You've got to go so high that you probably would never go that high. I don't see penalties for non-compliance as being as big an issue to the general public in the future as the permits and the restrictions.

I think that restrictions that might be placed on alternative compliance units, the offsetting, could probably be very, very important. One thinks about the area of subsidies. That's a word that everybody gets nervous around — subsidies — or not nervous, depending on where you're coming from on any given day or who the subsidies are for.

I think that….

Interjections.

D. Thorne: Yeah, we're pretty clear on where everybody sits on subsidies.

Of course, I'm not speaking about subsidies today. Or am I? I'm not sure. Maybe cap-and-trade someday will be considered a kind of subsidy. Who knows?

Who knows where this road will take us? This is a new road, and the government may feel, because they have 11 or 12 more seats than people on this side of the House, that they know all the answers, that they know where this road is going to take us. But I don't believe they do.

[ Page 11300 ]

I don't believe anyone in the world right now knows where this road is taking us. We do not know what is happening in the world with the environment. We are doing what we think is best. We're doing what we think is our very best, and we don't know where the road is going. So we don't know what permits will be considered in the future, and we don't know how anyone is going to feel about that.

We're very clear, as I was saying a few minutes ago — and certainly it engaged the other side when I brought up the word "subsidy," so it seems to be something that the government is very interested in…. We do know where the different people stand on subsidies and on who gets subsidies, and as we know, the two sides of the House don't always agree.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members, order.

D. Thorne: We don't always agree on who should get subsidies, if anyone should get subsidies — right?

You know, I suspect — if I'm still here in three, four or five years' time — that I'll be standing up and discussing at that time permits and capping emissions and trading emissions and carbon this and carbon that. We'll be discussing it, and we'll be a little further down that road, that dark road that we can't see right now — no light down there. We're just plowing ahead and hoping we're doing the right thing.

Heaven only knows, we might all find, four years down the road, that there's a better way that we'll be discussing. Cap-and-trade will be gone, and we'll be discussing something else. We don't know because there's no light down that road. No one in the world has been down that road yet — no one.

Even the Governor of California doesn't know where that road goes, because he hasn't been down that road. He's doing what he thinks is best too. He thinks he knows the goalposts on the road, and he hopes he's doing the right thing, but none of us really know. So these are all unanswered questions. They're all unanswered questions.

I stand here today, and I wonder: what kind of government oversight will we have on a cap-and-trade system? What will that look like? What will that mean? I would suspect — as I say, the road is dark, and I can't see down the road — that the members sitting opposite from me today don't know much more about that road than I do.

This is something, because this is an enabling bill, that will get discussed at cabinet. There are a good number of cabinet ministers sitting across from me, so they're going to be in on all the discussion when the regulation comes in — when these questions that I just read out start to get answered. These are some of the people here who will be answering the questions, doing the discussion.

[1550]

Whilst I believe that the members here today from the opposite side are, I'm sure — they wouldn't be sitting there if they weren't — quite capable of engaging in that discussion and coming up with what they think some of the answers might be and debating them, etc., and trying to find the goalposts and lights down that dark road…. I just think how much more illuminating, how much better for the people of British Columbia, if more people were involved in that discussion.

More ideas, more insights, more discussion — that's exactly why I support referring to an all-party committee that will not just have members from both sides but also have more of the general public, who have many ideas and good thoughts and who may in fact be the ones that would best find those goalposts and lights down the dark road that we're just starting out on.

Just because they're not elected here to the Legislature, it doesn't mean they can't participate and give us good information for the really dangerous job that we have to do with pollution issues. We're in a very dangerous position. People are looking to us to save something here, to do something good and to bring in legislation — in other words, ideas — that might work and might save us from the damage that our generation has done to the world and to British Columbia.

I can only say that I can't see the downside of it. I'm sure the members on the other side will be pleased to hear that that's pretty much all I can think of to say here at the end — that I cannot see the downside. Why would the government not want to refer this to an all-party committee? Why would they not vote for this amendment when more ideas can only be good? And why wouldn't we listen to the experts who have not been elected?

Perhaps the only reason that these experts in the general public haven't been elected is because they don't like the process. They don't want to be standing up here doing what we're doing today, but that doesn't mean they're not still going to help us to do this very important job.

Interjections.

D. Thorne: I think the member for Kamloops probably wants to speak when I'm done. It would appear so. I'm sure he'll stand up and, hopefully, say that he agrees with what I'm saying — that the more light we illuminate the subject with, the better we will all be in British Columbia. With that, I just once again say that I'm in full support of the amendment.

C. Trevena: I stand here to support the move to refer this bill to an all-party committee. I've got to say that I think we use the committee structure very poorly. We have the opportunity to actually move on with a lot of legislation and a lot of issues through the committee structure. This would really be a great test case to see how we can use this committee structure, because I think we all agree that cap-and-trade is one of the ways forward to deal with greenhouse gas emissions.

We, along with environmentalists and along with the government side, are all very aware that cap-and-

[ Page 11301 ]

trade is a way that we can be working very constructively to deal with greenhouse gas emissions. So referring this bill to an all-party committee would allow us to sit down, talk together and talk as legislators in a discussion rather than in a debate where we stand up and give our point of view, and then the members of the government stand up and give their point of view — which they obviously aren't doing for their referral, but where it is opposing sides.

We can sit together, talk about these issues, hear from expert witnesses, really take it on — actually do something innovative for B.C., do politics differently in B.C., say that we have an issue that is of vital importance to all of us in this province. There's no question that climate change is an issue of vital importance, and let's deal with it as grownups.

[1555]

Let's deal with it where we sit and talk it through, where we discuss it, where we hear people's opinions. We can work together so we have a bill that is complete, a bill that doesn't have what I think many people on this side of the House…. We've been discussing this for some time now. It has a number of gaps, and this is why we want to refer it to a committee.

A committee can take it on, can look at the gaps, can work out how to fill those gaps, can work out how to say: "These are the issues that we need to look at before we take it back to the House, before we vote on it." If we don't do that, I think there is going to be a perception that this is all being done in secret and that this is all being done behind closed doors, which I think would be really unfortunate for an issue that is so important as climate change, as greenhouse gas reduction.

The Minister of Health this afternoon introduced a health amendment bill. He said very clearly that he was doing it because he heard from the people of British Columbia, in the Conversation on Health, the need for transparency and the need for openness. He mentioned several times the word "transparency" and how this bill was going to improve transparency.

The government clearly has the language of transparency, but it isn't turning that language into the reality. I haven't had the opportunity yet to read that bill; it's only just been introduced in the House. But at least in this bill, that concept of transparency — the idea of openness, the idea of ensuring that there is public involvement and public understanding — isn't there.

We are seeing something that is a piece of enabling legislation. Because of that, there are things that aren't there, but it appears to this side of the House — and this is why we'd like to see this bill referred to an all-party committee — and to many outside that this is being done with a veil of secrecy. It's being done without the necessary discussion, without the opportunity to fully debate the issues, without the opportunity to hear who is actually being consulted on some of the things.

As I go on with my remarks, I'll go into this a bit more, but we're talking about the level of emissions that any one sector or one company will be able to have. In basic language, with emissions we're talking about pollution, so we're saying how much pollution a sector can have. We want to make sure that we are very fully aware of who is being involved in the consultations in saying that.

We want to break away from this real veil of secrecy. We really need transparency. The words have been said so often by the government — the concept of transparency. We need to have that transparency in reality, not just in words. It has been said many times in the course of the last three years that the government had said that it was going to be the most open government and the most transparent government. We see more and more often that there is less transparency and that we really don't know what's going on.

Even the climate action secretariat is a concept which is really very interesting. You're going to bring together very bright minds to discuss climate change. The fact that that is not within the realms of freedom of information, again, is a real concern. One has to ask oneself: what has the government got to be afraid of? This is something we all want to see. We all want to see that climate change is tackled. We all want to find the best way of tackling climate change. So how are we going to do it?

It's not going to be done through being secret. It's not going to help anyone. It's not going to help the people of B.C. It's not going to help the initiatives that the government is involved with, and it's not going to really help the greater issue, which is the issue of climate change. We are in a situation where we have some very groundbreaking legislation, potentially, in front of us. We've got the fuel tax, the carbon tax legislation. We've got this legislation. We've got legislation that is dealing with greenhouse gas emissions. We've got legislation that's dealing with climate change.

[1600]

But twice now, the Information and Privacy Commissioner, an independent body of the B.C. Legislature, has had to write to ministers responsible to say that they are being too secret.

In the case of Bill 16, which I spoke against because I was very concerned about the use of biofuels and ethanol — the use of food for fuel — the independent Privacy Commissioner wrote to the Minister of Energy and Mines. For this case, the Information and Privacy Commissioner has written to the Minister of Environment saying that the bill would be at odds with the policy reflected in the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

This is very concerning, when we have an independent body writing to the minister and saying: "You are potentially contravening

an act. You are potentially contravening the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act."

I would hope that alone would encourage the government members to support our motion to refer and say: "Okay, we've been warned. It could be a bit dicey here. Let's make sure that we're all quite comfortable with it. Let's take it out of this chamber, take it to a committee for a while, sit down and talk it through. As we talk it through, let's make sure we get it right." This

[ Page 11302 ]

is too important to get wrong. This really is too important to get wrong.

We're talking about greenhouse gas emissions. We're talking about our future. We're talking about the future not just of our province, not just of our friends. We're talking about the future of the planet. That's why we have to get it right. That's why it's important to be hearing as many opinions as possible. That's why it's important that we are part of the western climate initiative.

Bravo for that, but there is very little point of doing these things if you are going to do them all in secret, if you're going to be giving the House, elected representatives, a piece of legislation — as we are seeing in Bill 18, the Greenhouse Gas Reduction (Cap and Trade) Act — which is so thin and leaves so many questions unanswered.

We really don't know enough about what is in this bill to be able to move forward on it, and that's why we need to refer it. We need to be able to take it out so we can flesh it out. We need to be able to put it with a committee so that committee can do an extraordinary thing for the B.C. political system. It can sit down and talk constructively about how we can move on and fill in some of those gaps.

At the moment it's an enabling bill which hands the authority to fill in those gaps simply to cabinet. Much as I respect members opposite as honourable members who have been elected by their constituents, cabinet is not necessarily the best place to be filling in the blanks on a piece of legislation which is so important — on the cap-and-trade bill. I really am not certain that the Minister of Environment with the Minister of Energy and Mines and the Minister of State for Mining would be among the best people that should be filling in all those blanks.

We don't know who is being consulted to get those blanks filled in. One of the very simple things that is missing in this bill, which is quite extraordinary…. We're talking about cap-and-trade. As my colleagues say, for those who just tuned in, cap-and-trade is a system of putting a cap on emissions to allow companies to trade pollution credits to meet that cap. So it is a way of using the market and innovation to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, to reduce pollution, to reduce those gases that are damaging the environment.

That's another issue. It doesn't actually say which emissions are going to be targeted, but I will move on to that.

It's a system that uses market forces. It isn't saying autocratically: "This is what we want." It's not the government coming down. It will allow industry to use market forces to reduce their emissions, but we don't know by what level they should reduce their emissions. We don't know what the cap is. I would have thought this would be one of the simple fundamentals.

[1605]

I did get the bill, like we all did. I flicked through it quickly, sort of like: "Okay, where's the magic figure? Are we going to be able to support that magic figure? Will it be too low? A bit worried it's going to be too low…." We go through it, and it's not there at all. There isn't a figure. There isn't a magic figure there.

The Pembina Institute has suggested that the figure should be 33 percent below the levels of 2007 by the year 2020. This might be the right figure. This might be too generous. It might be too harsh, but we don't know. We don't have a figure to compare it to. We have not been given a figure. As I say, it is one of those surprising blanks that really does need to be filled in before we can move on with the rest of the debate on this bill. We can't debate the bill if we don't know what the cap is going to be. Really, it's blindfolding us. It's expecting us to make wild guesses when we're having the discussion. I would hope it would be a discussion.

On the very fundamental reason that we don't know what the level is going to be, should we be saying: "Let's take it out, sit down and talk about it"? That's why I would hope that the members opposite, the government members, would look at that and say: "Oh, that's true. If we don't know what the cap is, yeah, let's go back and work out what that cap should be and what the target should be and sit down and have the discussion about this." I hope to see them voting in support of it.

One of the other glaring omissions in this bill, as well as not saying what the level of cap is going to be, is that it doesn't actually mention what sectors are involved. It doesn't say which of the bad guys are going to be targeted. Is it going to be a blanket brush? Is it going to be everybody, or is it going to be just the aviation industry?

We know the aviation industry is a massive polluter. Is it going to say: "Okay. WestJet, Air Canada, Pacific Coastal, all the airlines, you are the target. You are the ones we are going to be asking to reduce emissions"? Or is it going to be broad-based? Is it going to include all industry in B.C.?

We don't know what is involved, what sectors are involved, which industries — whether it's just going to be the top ten. If it's the top ten, that includes, I've got to say, the co-gen plant in Campbell River. So it's going to have an impact on my community, on how that plant works on the way forward there.

There is so little detail here. We are giving over these questions to the cabinet, to the executive council, to decide. The executive council may be able to be well informed on this and may bring in its experts, but it would be very nice to know, before we actually are asked to vote on it, what is involved and what impacts the cap is going to have on what industries.

It really is of great concern that we're just being given this, and they're saying, as one of my colleagues said: "Trust us. Here we are. Trust us." I think we really need to have a reasoned discussion. If we don't — and this may be completely wrong — people are going to assume that the government is going to go to its friends and say: "We'll do a bit of bartering here. How much do you want? How much do you want? Okay. You're going to be exempt. We like you. We don't like you."

We would hope, of course, that they wouldn't do that. They wouldn't just go to their friends and make sure their friends were okay and that levels were set which would suit the industries that were clearly in support of them. We would hope that wouldn't be the case.

[ Page 11303 ]

But without having that discussion, without being able to take it to a committee and saying: "Let's have an open discussion. Yes, let's hear from industry. Let's hear from environmentalists. Let's hear from local authorities. Let's hear from a wide range of sectors, a wide range of people about what will work, which industries should be involved, what should the cap be…." Instead we get something that is very sadly lacking.

[1610]

Another big gap, because this is a market-driven way of dealing with emissions, is that there are no details on the permits. This is all done on a permit basis. The industry gets permits. It's allowed so many permits, and it can trade permits. But we don't know how those permits will be allocated — again, another big question mark for a piece of legislation that is using the market to drive it.

We don't know how the market is going to be impacted by this. We don't know what those permits are going to be, how they're going to be allocated or what requirements there are going to be. Will companies be able to bid on them? Will there be an auction?

It's quite extraordinary that the government just says again, "Trust us. We know that we can do it. The cabinet can set it. We'll be fine. Leave it to us, and then, of course, the market will decide" — which is part of the cap-and-trade system.

Like the permits, we don't know what the penalties will be. There will be penalties for those companies that do not meet the emission targets. It's a carrot-and-stick approach.

Another thing that we have to expect the executive council to say: "We'll fix it. Don't worry. We're going to be talking to people. We know what we'll be doing, what the penalties are going to be." Are they going to be very big, or are they going to be tokens? How will they be enforced?

I mean, this is one thing that we've seen time and again over the last seven years of this government — the fact that enforcement often comes from the industry. We're seeing more and more the concept of self-policing and that it's the responsibility of the industry to look after itself.

I represent an area where there's a