2007 Legislative Session: Third 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)

WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 21, 2007

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 25, Number 1

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Page

Introductions by Members

Tributes

Cosmos Richard Frank

Hon. M.

de Jong

Introduction and First

Reading of Bills

Maa-nulth First Nations Final

Agreement Act (Bill 45)

Hon. M.

de Jong

Tabling Documents

Maa-nulth First Nations tax

treatment agreement

Maa-nulth First Nations harvest

agreement

Maa-nulth First Nations real

property tax coordination agreements

Motions without Notice

Permission for Maa-nulth Chiefs to address the House

Hon. M.

de Jong

Address from the Bar of the

House

C. Cootes

V. Mundy (R. Mundy speaking on

her behalf)

T. Smith

R. Dennis Sr.

S. Peters

B. Mack

Statements (Standing Order

25 B )

Oaklands corners project

Fleming

Maa-nulth first nations leaders

Cantelon

West Shore Centre

Trevena

Traditional Chinese medicine

R. Lee

Haida Gwaii volunteers

G. Coons

French immersion

I. Black

Oral Questions

Staffing at seniors facilities

C. James

Hon. G.

Abbott

Routley

Chouhan

A. Dix

KPMG report on actions of Paul

Taylor

L. Krog

Hon. C.

Taylor

Highway of tears

G. Coons

Hon. J.

Les

Second Reading of Bills

Greenhouse Gas Reduction Targets

Act (Bill 44)

Hon. B.

Penner

Simpson

McIntyre

Macdonald

Fraser

Sultan

Point of Privilege

Hon. G. Abbott

Second Reading of Bills

Greenhouse Gas Reduction Targets

Act (Bill 44) (continued)

Robertson

Puchmayr

[ Page 9357 ]

WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 21, 2007

The House met at 1:35 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Mr. Speaker: Elmer George Sr., elder of the Songhees

Nation, will lead us in prayer.

Prayers. [Elmer George Sr., an elder of the Songhees Nation,

delivered a prayer in the Lekwungaynung language.]

Introductions by Members

Mr. Speaker: Members, on behalf of all of us, I would

welcome all the people who are here today on this very special occasion that is

about to be put forward before this Legislative Assembly.

Tributes

COSMOS RICHARD FRANK

Hon. M. de Jong: Mr. Speaker, on a day of celebration, I

regret to inform the House of the passing of Hereditary Chief Cosmos Richard

Frank of the Ahousaht First Nation. Chief Frank, aged 77, passed away on Monday

here in Victoria. I know that all of us in this House, the Maa-nulth elders,

chiefs and hereditary chiefs are saddened that he is unable to be with us in

person physically, but we know that he is up there in spirit.

I would ask the House to join with me in observing a moment's

silence for the passing of Hereditary Chief Cosmos Richard Frank.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

MAA-NULTH FIRST NATIONS

FINAL AGREEMENT ACT

Hon. M. de Jong presented a message from His Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Maa-nulth First Nations Final Agreement

Act.

Hon. M. de Jong: Mr. Speaker, I move that the bill be

introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. M. de Jong: What an honour, on behalf of the

government, to be able to introduce Bill 45, the Maa-nulth First Nations Final

Agreement Act.

[1340]

This is the legislation that will enable the Maa-nulth First

Nations final agreement, the first such agreement with multiple first nations

under the British Columbia Treaty Commission process. This legislation will give

that agreement effect.

The five first nations that comprise the Maa-nulth First Nations

are all members of the Nuu-chah-nulth Tribal Council. They are the Huu-ay-aht

First Nation, the Ka:'yu:'k't'h'-Che:k:tles7et'h' First Nation, the Toquaht

Nation, the Uchucklesaht Tribe and the Ucluelet First Nation. These, comprising

the Maa-nulth First Nations, represent in excess of 2,000 people living on

Vancouver Island near Bamfield, Port Alberni, Ucluelet and Kyuquot Sound.

I know that there are many individuals — many of them are here in

this chamber — who have toiled for years with passion and with dedication to

work to the day when this final agreement could be presented to the House. It's

because the Maa-nulth — their leaders, who we are going to hear from in a moment

— have confidence in what this agreement can do for their communities, for their

people, that this negotiation has ended with a successful treaty.

The Maa-nulth First Nations agreement-in-principle was signed in

October 2003, and the final agreement was initialled last December. We're able

to celebrate the introduction of this legislation because all five communities

have overwhelmingly endorsed the agreement in a series of community ratification

votes, culminating in a nearly 80-percent ratification mandate for the visionary

leaders who negotiated this agreement.

The final agreement presents the Maa-nulth people with an

unprecedented opportunity to begin building a better future — self-governing,

self-reliant communities enjoying the same opportunities as other British

Columbians to translate their energy, their culture and their passion into

economic and social stability. The Maa-nulth First Nations final agreement will

provide land, cash and resources to these five first nations and their

communities so that they can build stronger and more prosperous futures for

them, for their families and for all of their communities.

Treaties help bridge that socioeconomic gap that has separated us

for so long. The Maa-nulth First Nations final agreement will create certainty

for the Maa-nulth people and their communities but also for their neighbours in

nearby communities.

It's an honour to bring this settlement legislation to the chamber

and to pay tribute to Chief Charlie Cootes, Chief Robert Dennis, Chief Bert

Mack, Chief Vi Mundy and Chief Tess Smith for their visionary and courageous

leadership in helping to make this a reality. It's a historic day again for

British Columbia, for the Maa-nulth First Nations and for members on both sides

of this chamber.

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

for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 45, Maa-nulth First Nations Final Agreement Act, introduced,

read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second

reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Tabling Documents

Hon. M. de Jong: I seek leave to table the following

documents: the Maa-nulth First Nations tax treatment

[ Page 9358 ]

agreement and the Maa-nulth First Nations harvest agreement, which are both

referred to in Bill 45, and the real property tax coordination agreements for

each of the five Maa-nulth First Nations.

Leave granted.

Motions without Notice

PERMISSION FOR MAA-NULTH CHIEFS

TO ADDRESS THE HOUSE

Hon. M. de Jong: Mr. Speaker, by leave, I move the

following:

[Chief Councillor Charlie Cootes of the Uchucklesaht First Nation,

Chief Councillor Violet Mundy of the Ucluelet First Nation, Chief Councillor

Therese Smith of the Ka:'yu:'k't'h'/Che:k:tles7et'h' First Nation, Chief

Councillor Robert Dennis Senior of the Huu-ay-aht First Nation, and Hereditary

Chief Bert Mack of the Toquaht First Nation be permitted to address this

Assembly from the Bar of the House.]

[1345]

Leave granted.

Motion approved.

[Applause.]

Mr. Speaker: I welcome Chief Charlie Cootes to the Bar of

the House.

Address from the Bar of the House

C. Cootes: Good afternoon. This is a great day. I would

like to start off my presentation by thanking the Esquimalt and the Songhees

people for allowing us to carry out this historic event in their traditional

territory.

It is an honour to be standing here in the B.C. Legislature

addressing our Maa-nulth people, who have made this long journey to come to be

with us here today. It is an honour for me to be here addressing Premier

Campbell and his government and, as well, the opposition party and other guests

that have been invited.

The Maa-nulth treaty is an expression of our vision of the future.

It is a vision that permits us to see a future filled with opportunities. It is

a vision that removes the crippling institutions of our colonial era, and it is

a vision that confidently embraces a new relationship with Canada and British

Columbia. It is a vision that permits us to move forward and leave the pain of

the past behind.

It is a vision that we share with B.C. and Canada, which we have

reached through respectful negotiations. It is a vision that has as its

foundation a mutual respect and coexistence, and it is a vision that we believe

will improve the lives of not only Uchucklesaht citizens but also fellow British

Columbians and our country as a whole.

Our communities have spoken confidently and overwhelmingly in

support of this treaty. This treaty is an acknowledgment of the unique legal

status of the Uchucklesaht Tribe within Canadian Confederation. The treaty is an

acknowledgment of the distinctiveness of the Uchucklesaht society.

The treaty will provide us with constitutional assurance of our

right to remain distinct. At the same time, it permits us to participate in any

meaningful and positive way with the rest of society. We are neither trapped in

the past nor afraid of the future.

Our lands are protected to the greatest possible extent of the

law. Our rights to access resources, fish, timber, water and so forth are

assured at law and extend off of our treaty settlement lands.

As you know, there is a significant gap between aboriginal people

in Canada and the rest of society in areas such as health, education and other

social issues. Now we have a significant opportunity to construct viable modern

economies that allow us to address and to remedy many of the social issues we

face.

[1350]

We will free ourselves of the historic burden of a bureaucracy and

reclaim our historic right to govern ourselves and determine what is in our own

best interests. We will have the opportunity to revive, protect and express our

language and our culture.

We have negotiated a social contract — a contract that is alive,

like the parties to it; a contract that will be reviewed periodically to ensure

that our mutual objectives are being met. As such, this is an agreement in which

all British Columbians and Canadians should take pride. Our membership has given

us direction and has endorsed what we have negotiated through their ratification

of this final agreement.

Now that the final agreement has reached the B.C. legislative

chambers, I hope that the governments of B.C. and Canada will respect what their

governments have negotiated and also ratify this agreement in short order to

create the first multi–first nation treaty under the BCTC process in British

Columbia. [Applause.]

Mr. Speaker: Welcome, Chief Councillor Violet Mundy, to the

Bar of the House. Ucluelet member Richard Mundy will speak on her behalf.

R. Mundy: Mr. Speaker, honoured Members, ladies and

gentlemen, on behalf of the Ucluelet First Nation Chief Councillor, I am

honoured and humbled to stand here, where so many of Canada's leaders have come

before me and so many will follow.

The peaceful transfer of authority is rare in history. With the

Maa-nulth final agreement, we affirm old traditions and make new beginnings. In

conjunction with other pioneering treaty nations, we are rewriting the history

of treaty negotiations in British Columbia and in Canada. Ratification of our

treaty has inspired membership to re-examine their identity as Yu-cluth-aht.

There is renewed hope for the future as we embrace the principles that unite and

lead us onward.

As we continue planning and preparing for our future in a

post-treaty environment, innovation and inclusion will be paramount themes

within the struc-

[ Page 9359 ]

ture of our implementation strategy. This emphasis on community involvement

speaks directly to the spirit of our new government, ones whose aspirations

could never come to life under the dark shadow of an archaic Indian Act.

Implementation looms on our horizon. This will be the serious work

of Maa-nulth leaders and citizens in every generation. However, I think it is

the goal of everyone in this room to better understand how we as first nations

can move forward and make the best of a system that has never before worked in

our favour. Collectively, we are regaining our strength as first nations leaders

and will be in a better position to heal the wounds of the past and begin to

weave our people back into the fabric of society.

Our youth are getting smarter. Everywhere I go within the first

nations communities, I encounter an increasing number of healthy and vibrant

young people getting involved with important things — things that will have a

positive impact on our people and the people of Canada for generations to come.

Today's children and youth will have the privilege of contending

with the groundbreaking opportunities of tomorrow, because trade and industry

potentials have been redefined under our treaty. We have negotiated a landmark

in the history of our people. We are part of a revolution spurring controversy

at the highest levels of local, national and international governments.

[1355]

Even after all these years of aspiring to improve conditions for

our people, we have a long way yet to travel. We have a place, all of us, in

this long story — a story we must continue but whose end we will not see. With

passion and purpose, today we affirm a new commitment to live out our nation's

promise of a better future. [Applause.]

Mr. Speaker: I welcome

Chief Therese Smith to the Bar of the

House.

T. Smith: Good afternoon. Uk-tlaas Hu-palth-wa-tuu

his-tiith Ka: yu: k’t’h .

My name is Therese Smith, and I represent the

Ka:'yu:'k't'h'-Che:k:tles7et'h', where hereditary chiefs' traditional

territories amount to 6,551 hectares of sea and land.

Your honour Mr. Lieutenant-Governor Steven Point, Premier

Campbell, Mr. Speaker, Members of the Legislative Assembly and all citizens of

Canada and British Columbia, it is an honour to address you.

I must begin by saying we Ka:'yu:'k't'h'-Che:k:tles7et'h' are not

without feelings. We are sensitive people. We love the sea and the land that has

always supported us and provided us with a rich lifestyle. The generosity shown

us in our ha-holthe has led us to a lifestyle rich in deep spirituality.

We are known around the world for our feasting and potlatching system based on

generosity and sharing of resources. We have always known how to share with our

neighbours.

Since before this province was founded in 1858, our people have

been uncomfortable about the invasion of our private properties, the

unauthorized extraction of our resources and the way in which our people have

been treated.

Today, with the ratification of this agreement, we have the

opportunity to address these ills. We can now begin to accept each other in a

manner unprecedented in our history. We can begin to share in a realistic way

the resources in the ha-holthe of our Ha’wiih . The profits of all

resource extraction in our traditional territories must benefit our communities.

As of this point in time, we also have an opportunity to readjust

and reshape our social relations. Until now, racism has played a very damaging

role in the way our people have experienced education, labour and indeed

citizenship in this province. After today we must build together as sisters and

brothers. Coming to this podium presents me with the opportunity to address our

new coming together.

The almost 800 pages of political and legal chapters, clauses and

subclauses in the final agreement cannot and will not guarantee our people a

better life, a fair share of our resources nor a place in the hearts of all

British Columbians. We cannot legislate love.

It is through the intent and the spirit of these very long, tiring

and costly negotiations that we shall get to a better place — all of us — as

British Columbians.

[1400]

I also would like to take this moment to remember George Watts and

all the things he made possible for us to be here today. His strong leadership

and negotiation skills have accomplished much. These will certainly be

appreciated for a long time.

George always said: "We need to move forward. We will make

mistakes, but we will learn from them." I know he'd be happy for our people. So

it is with hope that I come to this podium, and it is with hope for our shared

future that I leave this podium.

Tsi-tsi-kink-tliis kwaa-uk-tlin o’nits ‘naas uhh-kuu tsu-shuuk

iih-miis iisaak uhh-iish uu’yiilth-k ko-maatk ko-us. My prayers are that we

can all look to the future with a new and greater respect and care for each

other. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen of the Legislature. [Applause.]

Mr. Speaker: I welcome Chief Councillor Robert Dennis Sr.

and Hereditary Chief Spencer Peters to the Bar of the House.

R. Dennis: Klecko klecko, Songhees, klecko klecko,

Esquimalt, for allowing us on your traditional territory to be here today.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, hon. Premier, hon. Leader of the

Opposition, hon. Members of the House, ladies and gentlemen. It is indeed an

honour to be in your House today to share a few words from a Huu-ay-aht

perspective before you begin your discussions on the Maa-nulth treaty.

It is also my honour to stand here with our head chief

[Nuu-chah-nulth was spoken.] Beside [Nuu-chah-nulth was spoken] stands his son

[Nuu-chah-nulth was spoken] and also his other chiefs [Nuu-chah-nulth was

spoken.] If you were in our house, those chiefs would be standing here today

beside him.

[ Page 9360 ]

Since the time of contact we have had an opportunity to see many

things happening in our territory — many things that were beneficial to our

well-being but, unfortunately, many things that were not good for our

well-being. We suffered diseases, we suffered intrusion, and we suffered

situations where we saw our children placed in residential schools. And then we

saw our people removed from our lands.

Today we begin a road of reconciling that. Today, working with

this House, this government and the opposition members, we can reconcile the

mistakes of the past.

We entered this modern-day treaty with a goal in mind. The goal in

mind was that we wanted to make lives better for our people. We wanted to see

more of our children educated. We wanted to see more of our people earning a

meaningful income within their homeland. Today we hope those things can become a

reality. Working with you, we are positive that those changes will occur.

Since the time of contact we have seen resources removed from our

territory, sometimes of little or no benefit to the Huu-ay-aht people. Our

chiefs and his chiefs had to watch this happen, even though they did not want

that to happen.

[1405]

Unfortunately, there was this legislation called the Indian Act

that regulated how Indian people were going to live from the day they were born

until they died. That legislation is not a proud history of our people and our

chiefs. Today we hope to change that.

In the late 19th century there were records — they called them

census records — that showed how many people lived in these different villages.

In Kiix?in's village it showed that there were 207 people left after the

diseases wiped our people out. Of those 207 people, ladies and gentlemen, 67 of

them were fishermen and sealers.

Kiix?in's people were people of the sea. They were fishermen. They

made a living on what they took from the sea. Through time, that has changed by

legislation from the federal government that effectively removed our people from

the fishing industry. Today we hope the treaty will rectify that terrible

injustice that was done to our people.

We spent a lot of years educating the negotiators from Canada and

B.C. about Kiix?in's culture and his people. It was a hard task, and I tell you

that even today I think some of those negotiators still don't know what it's all

about. So we will begin a new road. Maybe one day they'll wake up and realize

that there is something to change. Something must change; something needs to

change.

[Nuu-chah-nulth was spoken] envisions one day that he will be

working side by side with the new elected government of Huu-ay-aht. Once again,

his nation will stand proud to be Huu-ay-aht. Once again, his nation will gain

the benefits of the resources of his [Nuu-chah-nulth was spoken] — or, as you

call it, his territory. We hope that this treaty will begin to bring that vision

to reality and true meaning of reconciliation.

Positive change can take place. Positive change will take place

with us working together. We all represent different people, different

communities. But at the end of the day, we need to work together so that our

elders are looked after, our children are looked after and the people of each of

our communities are looked after.

The treaty offers opportunities for all of us. The treaty is not

just a treaty for Huu-ay-aht. It is not just a treaty for Uchucklesaht or

Toquaht or Ka:'yu:'k't'h'/Che:k:tles7et'h' or Ucluelet. This treaty, in my view,

is for all of us because today British Columbia can stand proud and say: "I was

part of that change. I was willing to stand up and say things must change.

Things cannot stay the same. Things cannot remain status quo."

In closing, Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank you for allowing us

to be in your House, allowing us to say a few words to the members here. Thank

you. [Nu-chah-nulth was spoken.] [Applause.]

Mr. Speaker: I welcome Hereditary Chief Bert Mack to the

Bar of the House.

[1410]

B. Mack: To the honourable hawith , otherwise known

as chiefs; to the hon. Premier; to the honourable ladies in this Legislature;

and the honourable men, the gentlemen: I am very happy to stand here before you.

We have been through so much, and we have accomplished a few

things at a time, mind you. But the day I heard Premier Campbell make a speech

in Alberni, it was about hope, and hope is what we're looking for — our people.

Hope is so important. Hope you can work with and accomplish, once you get the

meaning of hope.

There are so many tracks. We have people out there that think

we're on the wrong path. I don't believe we're on the wrong path.

What happened to my territory? There is not enough timber there to

sustain my people, and the fish are disappearing in the bays in the ocean in

front of my territory. I had to think of another trail where I could tell my

people after I heard Premier Campbell say "hope," and that's what I came back

and told my people. We have hope.

There are so many ways to look at where we're at now, and I know

we are on the right track. I appreciate the people that say we're on the wrong

track. To me, this proves that we have a good democratic system — when you can

listen to the people, the opposition. I hope that these people will listen to us

also.

The way of the opposition is not very clear to me, because I know

where I stand. I just mentioned that all the resources are gone in my territory.

I had to find a new way and a new path, and I believe I'm right.

To those people…. As I said, I appreciate the opposition, because

it's given me more strength to prove that I'm on the right track. I hope someday

they, too, will say the same thing I'm saying now. I have no animosity against

these people. That's why I say I appreciate it. It gives me strength.

[1415]

[ Page 9361 ]

My father was a leader that was on the trail of the treaty in the

1930s. I was seven years old when I first sat in a meeting with my father and

his peers.

When I was 18, he turned over his chief's chair to me. I was 18

years old. But he never left my side. He was beside me till he was 84 and passed

on. I will never forget what my father taught me, and that was the trail to the

treaty. That was his aim, along with the people from all over B.C. I cannot

mention every one of them that were the leaders on the trail of the treaty in

It has not been easy, but I never dwell on…. If anything does

happen to me, I don't dwell on that. I dwell on the good things that I've

learned, the good things I want to show people — that we are British Columbians,

Canadians and our own tribes. I am proud to be in that position.

There are so many ways I've been through, as I said, since I was

18. I have met a lot of you gentlemen that are sitting here before you — and the

ladies. And I've got to mention to the ladies that you're an inspiration to our

young ladies. As of today they are trying to do the same thing you're doing

right now, and I know some of them are going to make it. They admire you young

ladies in this chamber. I should say something about the handsome gentlemen. I

have known many, many politicians and ministers. To me, it's been a great

adventure.

I must say, too, that I have never in my life run into

segregation. I have never run into people that are against my people.

My father and my grandmother taught me how to be a gentleman. I

hope I'm making it.

In this room there are so many people that I know. Some of the

gentlemen and ladies in the Legislature I know, and I admire them. They don't

give up what their beliefs are.

[1420]

I have already said this is a democratic country, and it's a good

one, where you can say, "You're wrong," and where I can say: "I'm right." There

has got to be a compromise somewhere.

With that, I think I'm over my ten minutes anyway. I wish to thank

you people for listening to my peers, the Chiefs from the Maa-nulth Nations on

their needs and aspirations. We all have the same. That, I believe, is why we

can work together in the way we have been doing for the last four or five years

— through the way we listen to each other.

[Nuu-chah-nulth was spoken.]

I'm not going to translate that, but it is good. [Applause.]

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, we'll take a five-minute recess

and reconvene.

The House recessed from 2:23 p.m. to 2:32 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Hon. P. Bell: Mr. Speaker, I seek leave to do an

introduction.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

Introductions by Members

Hon. P. Bell: Well, it's become a bit of an annual event

that I stand up on November 21 each year to re-introduce someone to the House

who really needs no introduction. Last year, if memory serves me correctly, I

introduced the member as an individual who had just entered the second half of

her particular century. This year suffice it to say that it is the second

anniversary of her 49th birthday or perhaps the 12th anniversary of her 39th

birthday. But I would ask that all members of the House please join me in

congratulating the member for Prince George–Mount Robson on another birthday.

Mr. Speaker: Look at the bright side, Minister. We're not

singing Happy Birthday .

Statements

(Standing Order 25

b) OAKLANDS CORNERS PROJECT

R. Fleming: I'd like to take a minute just to recognize a

wonderful community project in my constituency of Victoria-Hillside, and I'm

referring today to the community of Oaklands project, the Haultain at Belmont

corners project. It initially started in August 2002 when Oaklands residents

Lisa MacDonald and Kay Marshall stood on this unique boulevard talking one

afternoon and decided that something had to be done to improve the economic

vitality of the corners area and its use as public space.

They took their afternoon visioning session and began talking to

other neighbours of theirs in the Oaklands area, and together they formed the

corners project. The residents immediately set to work on the corners by doing

some much-needed gardening on the overgrown and disrepaired area. Thereafter

neighbours began meeting weekly, where they turned their vision into a

commitment to create a safe, attractive, welcoming space conducive to neighbours

meeting and talking and a gathering place that enhances the community of

Oaklands as a whole.

That evolved into an application for and a recipient of a city of

Victoria neighbourhood matching grant and the beginning of making physical

improvements to this area. The corners group used the matching funds to purchase

colourful bike racks, street furniture, large planters and a landscaped

expansion of the existing gardens areas.

They also partnered with the Oaklands Community Association to get

the city of Victoria to install new lighting for safety. The city utilized their

crime prevention officer at Victoria police to help do an assessment.

Now on a spring or summer evening you'll often see Oaklands

residents spending their evenings down at the corners planting, watering and

pruning to maintain the planters and gardens. Kids in the neighbourhood have

also become an active part of these projects and are proud to help the corners

remain well looked after.

Residents are currently in the process of raising funds to create

unique Oaklands banners for the business district and a safety-designed

crosswalk with

[ Page 9362 ]

bumped-out sidewalks as part of the boulevard space. A new business has just

opened in the district as well.

[1435]

Each member here represents constituents who I know work long

volunteer hours to make their communities a better place. I would ask the House

to join me in thanking the following Oaklands residents who have revitalized

their community: Shane Ford, Jim Kerr, Angie LaFontaine, Len and Val Stubel,

Mary Jane Teachman and Cimarron and Sarah Corpe for their extraordinary

volunteer work over the past several years.

MAA-NULTH FIRST NATIONS LEADERS

R. Cantelon: It's a privilege to rise today and salute the

leadership of the Maa-nulth Nation. The man I know best is Chief Robert Dennis,

but what I say applies to all of them. We heard Robert's voice today — a strong,

clear voice, simple and direct — about seeking a better life for his people. He

provided the vision and then the leadership to move his nation forward. He

inspired hope and built expectations for a better life.

But building a vision means nothing unless you can provide

leadership, unless something comes of it. Otherwise, visions are just dreams,

empty dreams, and the people, just dreamers. Leadership requires the call to

action. It requires the leader to step out in front with his ideas and stand the

test of criticism. When you stand out in front of a pack, you become an easy

target for criticism. So it takes courage. It takes courage to make decisions

and to act.

Robert Dennis is such a man. He organized a logging company and

employed white men to do it. Despite the unemployment in his nation, he

recognized that the white people had skills and could teach his people. He

recognized he couldn't stand by, and he sued the provincial government for

rights that he felt were due to him.

That's where I became involved in a very small way. Robert

approached me, again in his simple, direct way. He could have used an army of

lawyers to sort things out, but he asked me. He said to me: "Ron, is the Premier

still mad at me?" I took the message to the Premier and received a simple,

direct answer back: "No. Proceed." And they did. We're happy to see the result

here today in a very momentous decision.

I think all these leaders you heard today — so eloquent, so

direct, so simple — deserve our respect and encouragement. They spoke very

eloquently in a different way than we might expect a visionary leader to speak.

They spoke directly from the heart to the heart of their people and have

inspired them to new things. Let's salute all these great leaders.

WEST SHORE CENTRE

C. Trevena: It's my pleasure to stand in the House today

and share with members the story of the West Shore Child, Youth and Family

Services Society. It's a non-profit organization of a dozen partner members

which serves the children, youth and families of Victoria's West Shore: Colwood,

Langford, Metchosin, Highlands and View Royal.

It opened in 2005. The West Shore Child, Youth and Family Centre

is a 38,000-square-foot facility on Wale Road in Colwood. It was built through

the generous support of the Queen Alexandra Foundation for Children.

The multicoloured building — blue, purple, red, orange, gold,

green and silver — reflects the theme of harmony in diversity. It's home to more

than a dozen community organizations, including the Capital Families

Association, the Pacific Centre Family Services and Métis Community Services.

The member organizations make great use of the centre's

facilities, which include a community kitchen, youth training café, day care

centre, three playgrounds and community meeting rooms. The gym is particularly

well used by participants, young and old alike, and offers a place where

children, youth and families can gather for exercise, health and enjoyment.

The centre's multifaceted programming serves all ages and

encourages the development of social networks and connections, all in a

people-friendly environment. Programs include a parent and tot drop-in, speech

and language therapy, a young mom support group and a youth leaders program.

By fostering a cooperative and collaborative, innovative and

respectful approach, the West Shore Child, Youth and Family Centre is a beacon

in the community of Esquimalt-Metchosin. I thank those who, each and every day,

share their education in the delivery of services at the centre and hope the

House will join me in recognizing this exceptional organization.

TRADITIONAL CHINESE MEDICINE

R. Lee: I will do my speech in Cantonese.

[Cantonese was spoken.]

[1440]

[I rise in the House today to talk about the importance of

traditional Chinese medicine.

Last May I arranged a meeting between the delegation with

representatives from the College of Traditional Chinese Medicine Practitioners

and Acupuncturists of B.C., the B.C. Qualified Acupuncturists and Traditional

Chinese Medicine Practitioners Association and the government caucus to discuss

the importance of recognizing traditional Chinese medicine.

I would like to continue engaging discussion on the support given

to traditional Chinese medicine and acupuncture as alternative treatments.

Knowledge will bring an understanding of the importance of making alternative

therapy treatments available to the public and help us move forward with

respecting and supporting this as an excellent treatment option.

I am working hard to raise awareness for the importance of

understanding traditional Chinese medicine and acupuncture. I feel it is

important to integrate traditional Chinese medicine with other choices British

Columbians have for health services.

I was happy to see that the delegation made an impressive

presentation to the government caucus, held a good discussion with Ministry of

Health staff and received a very warm welcome from everyone.

[ Page 9363 ]

I'm pleased with the progress we have made with the recent

announcement of acupuncture being covered under the Medical Services Plan for

those with premium assistance. It was announced on October 9, 2007, that

acupuncture treatments will be included for the first time in Canada as a

supplementary benefit.

The inclusion of acupuncture is an excellent example of the

province's commitment to ensure that all British Columbians have access to a

wide range of health care treatment options.]

[Translation provided by R. Lee.]

HAIDA GWAII VOLUNTEERS

G. Coons: Hon. Speaker, I sure hope I don't repeat what the

hon. member just said.

It's a pleasure to stand in the House today to recognize the

hard-working heroes of Haida Gwaii. Twice this past August volunteers worked

together to protect and preserve the integrity of this jewel of the North

Pacific.

The first instance involved a fire in the Rose Spit ecological

reserve less than a kilometre from the Naikoon Provincial Park. After the

Northwest Fire Centre in Smithers decided that they would let the fire burn, a

group of volunteers, including members from the Council of the Haida Nation and

the RCMP, worked together to form a firebreak and a bucket brigade. After about

five hours of hard work they managed to contain the fire and end the threat that

it posed to the provincial park. The people of Haida Gwaii took it upon

themselves to take action and protect this pristine area.

The second instance of heroism on the part of the residents of

Haida Gwaii involves a young whale which came ashore on North Beach. It started

at six in the morning when Michael Konig and Gavin Hooten spotted the humpback

beached in about three feet of water when the tide was going out. The two

quickly mobilized people from the surrounding areas, and hundreds of volunteers

mobilized to keep the young whale wet and calm until the tide came back in.

Donnie Edenshaw of Old Massett actually sang Haida songs to comfort the whale

through the long ordeal and to help it find the strength to swim back out to

sea. It took 11 hours of constant vigilance on the part of many people to save

the life of the young humpback.

These events, both of them within the space of a month,

demonstrate the values that small communities have to impart to people in the

rest of the province. Self-reliance, courage, determination and teamwork are

values that define rural communities. I think these people that preserve Naikoon

Provincial Park and those that took the time from their busy lives to rescue a

whale demonstrate the sort of stewardship and environmental leadership that we

all need to emulate.

FRENCH IMMERSION

discutés, il y a cinq ans, la possibilité d'inscrire nos enfants dans un

intéressante.

Nous avons partagés nos inquiétudes en tant que parents

anglophones d'être capable de fournir à la maison, l'appui linguistique

maintenant pour deux enfants qui parlent pendant toute la journée à leurs amis

et professeurs en une autre langue.

Nous avons pesé le risque de ralentir leur développement en

anglais, en particulier la lecture et le vocabulaire. Aussi, nous nous sommes

demandés si nos garçons seraient capables de rattraper si nous décidions que

leur succès n'étaient pas suffisants dans l'environnement bilingue.

Une soirée de renseignements pour les parents, tenue par la zone

scolaire 43 nous a aidé à apaiser ces craintes. Alors, il y a quatre ans, notre

fils aîné fut inscrit à l'école bilingue de notre quartier.

[1445]

Nous ne cessons d'être étonnés par leur métrisations de la

assemblées et les spectacles. Nous sommes très impressionés par les merveilleux

professeurs qui continuent d'être patient avec maman et papa.

leurs professeurs et les milliers des parents qui, à chaque jour, font les

efforts additionels nécessaire pour élever nos enfants bilingues.

Five years ago, when my wife and I discussed the possibility of

enrolling our children in French immersion program, it was a surprisingly

interesting conversation.

We shared the anxiety, as Anglophone parents, of being capable of

providing the linguistic support at home for two children who now spend all day

speaking to their friends and teachers in a different language.

particular their reading and vocabulary. As well, we asked ourselves if the kids

would be capable of catching up if we were to decide that their progress was not

sufficient in the bilingual environment.

An informational night for parents put on by school district 43

went some way to ease these concerns. And so four years ago our eldest son

enrolled at the bilingual school in our district.

We never cease to be amazed at their growing fluency and the

bilingual structure of the school that includes assemblies and school

productions. We are very impressed by their terrific teachers, who continue to

be patient with mom and dad.

I applaud the success of our French immersion programs, their

teachers and the thousands of parents who every day make the extra effort

necessary to raise our children bilingual.]

[French text and translation provided by I. Black.]

Oral Questions

STAFFING AT SENIORS FACILITIES

C. James: Yesterday very disturbing evidence came to light

about shocking violence and abuse at a Salmon Arm seniors care home. Families of

the victims say that there is simply not enough staff in place to provide proper

and safe care for seniors.

My question is to the Minister of Health. These are very serious

concerns that require immediate attention.

[ Page 9364 ]

What steps is the minister taking right now to ensure that seniors remain

safe in B.C.'s care homes?

Hon. G. Abbott: I know the Bastion care centre very well,

and I know the special care unit of Bastion as well. My father was a resident

there for 18 months prior to his death. He had excellent care in that facility.

I know that we're very concerned about the recent incidents at the

facility. I can advise that one male patient there has been moved to a more

secure facility as a result of those incidents. This is most unfortunate,

obviously, but one of the symptoms of advancing dementia and Alzheimer's is that

occasionally we see violent tendencies emerging in those patients. That is the

case here, but I do hope that all the appropriate steps have been taken to deal

with this.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a

supplemental.

C. James: There's one piece that the minister left out that

helps address these very serious concerns and serious issues, and that's

staffing levels. The victims' families say that there is only one nurse and one

care aide for 24 residents on the locked ward for patients with dementia at

Bastion Place. There simply isn't enough staff to properly care for the

residents.

This isn't an issue simply at Bastion Place. This is an issue that

I hear concerns raised on all across this province. Now the Interior Health

Authority won't speak, won't say anything. We heard the minister again saying

that everything is fine for seniors care in British Columbia.

Well, we know that there is a crisis right now, so my question

again is to the minister. Just how widespread is the violence against care home

residents, and what is he doing today, now, to actually protect residents?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Hon. G. Abbott: Again, I know Bastion Place very well. I

know the staff there very well. The people in that facility work very hard to

provide the very best of care to the people that are served at Bastion Place.

For the member to suggest that somehow, in this publicly owned,

publicly operated facility, people are not receiving appropriate care is, I

think, entirely unfortunate. It is entirely unfair to the people who work so

hard both in administration and at staff levels to provide the best of care to

the people who are resident there.

I have reviewed the staffing levels with Interior Health. Interior

Health believes strongly that the staffing levels are appropriate to the acuity

levels of the patients that they serve. As conditions or circumstances may

dictate, those staffing levels can be increased.

[1450]

Mr. Speaker: Leader of the Opposition has a further

supplemental.

C. James: Mr. Speaker, I can tell you that staff who work

in long-term care homes and with seniors across this province know who's

standing up for them, and it's this side of the House. I hear concerns raised

from staff every single day. They do an extraordinary job under very difficult

circumstances, and they're not getting the leadership they deserve from this

government.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

C. James: This government refuses to acknowledge that there

is a problem with seniors care that they created. This is a government that cut

care to seniors. This is a government that won't take action to improve care for

seniors. This government won't advocate on behalf of seniors. Just as….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members. Members on both sides.

Continue.

C. James: Just as children and youth need an independent

representative, so do seniors. That way, families and residents won't have to

actually rely on a minister and a government who won't stand up on their behalf.

The stories of abuse and neglect keep piling up, and we see this government

doing nothing.

So again, my question to the minister: will he commit today to

establish an independent adviser for our seniors so that this government…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

C. James: …will be forced to listen to the issues that

seniors and their families are facing across British Columbia?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. I want to remind members on both

sides of the House: listen to the question; listen to the answer.

Minister.

Hon. G. Abbott: I am very proud of what our government has

done for vulnerable seniors. I am very proud that we have added now 3,500

residential care and assisted-living units in this province. I am proud that we

have remediated another 6,000 units, including at the James Bay Care Centre in

Victoria.

The opposition has been shamelessly attempting to besmirch the

excellent care that seniors across this province receive each and every day. She

should talk to

[ Page 9365 ]

the member for Cariboo South, who is deeply embarrassed by his attacks on

Williams Lake Seniors Village. I understand he wants to get up and say

something, and he should do that.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

D. Routley: Perhaps a simple question about an individual

case will cut through the bluster of the Health Minister.

Like many families in this province, Karen Haarala cares for her

89-year-old mother, who has emphysema. Like all caregivers, she needed a break.

To get two weeks respite time, Karen placed her mom in the Lodge on 4th, a

private care facility in Ladysmith.

Now, Karen's mom needs emphysema medications, but with only one

LPN in the evenings for 37 residents, there was not adequate time to properly

administer her medications — medications she needs to breathe.

[1455]

To the Minister of Health: does the minister agree that getting

prescribed medications to patients properly and on time is an important part of

health care, and does he think this is an appropriate level of staffing for

seniors in our care?

Hon. G. Abbott: I am, first of all, obliged to point out to

the member that we do have a nursing shortage in this province. We have been

working very hard….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Just take your seat.

Members.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. G. Abbott: We have been working very hard to remedy

that situation. But the fact of the matter is this — and I know the members

opposite don't like to hear it: in 1993, 839 nurses graduated in this province.

By the year 2001 that had been reduced to 574 nurses in this province — a

shameful and deplorable part of that former government's record. Since 2001 we

have increased the number of nursing spaces in this province by 83 percent —

3,381 new nursing spaces for British Columbia since 2001.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

D. Routley: Karen's mom was able to walk into this facility

on her own. Within a few days she was in diapers, couldn't walk and was covered

with bedsores. That was the result of being in that care home for a few weeks.

And the clothes that were packed for her were never used. She's been there for

close to five weeks now, and Karen's looking into the cost of hiring an

ambulance to rescue her mom from the care she's provided. This is….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Take your seat.

Members, listen to the question; listen to the answer.

Continue, Member.

D. Routley: This is an impossible situation. Health care

staff are stretched to the limit by this government's underfunding. Does the

minister believe that more needs to be done to protect our seniors?

Hon. G. Abbott: What I am hearing from this member are

shameful, deplorable charges that I think are inappropriate. What he has just

accused that facility of and what he has just accused those caregivers of is a

shameful neglect. If he has charges to make of that character, he should make

them outside this chamber. We will investigate, and we will see.

But let me say this. If this member's charges are spurious, will

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members on both sides of the House.

[1500]

R. Chouhan: If somebody needs to resign, it's this minister

sitting there doing nothing.

On October 11 the opposition revealed that several seniors with

complex care needs were being forced to move out of New Vista Care Home in

Burnaby because this uncaring government refused to provide the resources for

adequate staffing. Since then, the government and the health authorities have

failed to take any action to protect these vulnerable seniors. Now it is

confirmed that six families have learned their parents are getting an eviction

notice.

My question is to the Minister of Health. Will you intervene

immediately and stop this forced eviction of six vulnerable seniors?

Hon. G. Abbott: It's interesting that this member should

raise this issue today, given that it has been in the news media in Burnaby now

for several weeks. I guess that thematically it worked into the line of question

period questions today.

The New Vista Care centre in Burnaby has been in discussion for

some time with Fraser Health. In fact, they have been in discussions with them

since back in June with respect to the per-diem rates. It is the view of Fraser

Health, based on a careful assessment of the acuity rates of the residents at

New Vista, that the

[ Page 9366 ]

per-diem rate that is being provided to them is entirely appropriate.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

R. Chouhan: This so-called discussion has done nothing for

the sick seniors at New Vista Care Home. This is a human story. We are not

talking about just numbers. We are talking about real people.

One of these people is Corinne MacDonald. She is 82 years old. She

has complete dementia. She's unable to recognize her own family, but she does

recognize the caring staff at New Vista who meet her needs every day. She is

forced to move by a government that refuses to provide adequate staffing levels.

My question is to the minister again. How can you justify forcing

this vulnerable woman to move?

Hon. G. Abbott: I think it is, again, most unfortunate when

we see vulnerable citizens in this province being used for political purposes as

they are here.

First, the facts.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Take your seat.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. G. Abbott: The facts are this. The per-diem rate for

New Vista has increased by 28 percent since 2003. Fraser Health has provided

almost $1 million to New Vista for capital equipment and renovations.

They have also offered, on a one-time basis, an efficiency expert

to review their operations and make recommendations. They've also offered an

occupational health consultant to work with the facility to address their very

high WCB and long-term disability costs due to staff injuries.

I understand that New Vista hasn't yet accepted any of these

offers from Fraser Health.

A. Dix: Well, we know that….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue, Member.

A. Dix: We know that the minister gets indignant when his

failures are brought before this House. But where was the minister's indignation

when the Premier passed Bill 29 in this House and had the largest layoff of

health care workers in the history of this country? Where was the minister's

indignation?

Where was the minister's indignation in 2005 when the Beacon Hill

Villa report came before him, kept from the public? Where was the minister's

indignation then? Where was the minister's indignation in 2006 when the same

company was awarded a huge contract — Casa Loma up in the north Island? Where

was the minister's indignation then?

Where was the minister's indignation when seniors across British

Columbia raised issues of concern about their care?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

A. Dix: Those are the issues that should draw the

minister's indignation. The only thing that seems to upset the minister is when

he's publicly criticized.

My question to the minister is simple. Why not give seniors an

independent representative? Why not give them a place to go?

[1505]

Why does he continue to allow his government to hide behind the

confidentiality awarded seniors? Why doesn't he agree with the opposition on the

constructive proposal to establish a representative for seniors?

Hon. G. Abbott: The Premier had a Council on Aging and

Seniors Issues. I hope the opposition's not disparaging that council now. Dr.

Patricia Baird was the chair of that council. That council met for, I think,

well over a year. They did extensive consultations across this province. They

delivered a very thoughtful report, which I thought the opposition embraced as

well as the government. One of the things that does not appear in that report is

a suggestion that there should be an office for seniors.

What we believe on this side of the House is that actions speak

louder than words. That's why we have added billions of dollars in new

investments for seniors across this province. That's why, when we took office,

there were over 600 separated seniors in this province. Today there are less

than 70, because of our investments in campus of care.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

The member has a supplemental.

A. Dix: You bet action speaks louder than words. When every

care aide was laid off at Nanaimo Seniors Village and at a half-dozen other care

homes in May and June and July, actions spoke louder than words.

The Minister of Health, the minister whose responsibility it is to

protect seniors and seniors care — what did he do? He did nothing. He supported

the very care home operators that did it. He supported them. Fifteen hundred

care aides laid off in a few months. How does that help seniors care?

The reason I think they're afraid of an independent officer for

seniors is that they would stand up and say: "That's wrong because it's wrong."

Will the minister not consider that proposal? And when will he insist that

[ Page 9367 ]

every report on every care home is made public so that the citizens of

British Columbia can make judgments about the level of senior care in care

homes? Why should seniors learn about the state of care homes in British

Columbia from FOIs obtained by the opposition?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. G. Abbott: You know, often we hear a lot of rhetoric

in this House. I'm sure at times it is confusing to the folks back home. But the

folks back home actually have a pretty good grip on what goes on in this

chamber, and they have a pretty good grip on what goes on in this province.

That's why I was so interested in looking at this November 14 edition of the

Cariboo Advisor , which has a full-page ad. It says: "So what is…?"

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Hon. G. Abbott: It says: "So what is the MLA for Cariboo

South really up to?" And it says: "The MLA could…."

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Minister, just take your seat.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Minister, continue.

Hon. G. Abbott: The member says: "Who sponsored the ad?"

Well, it's the staff and management of the Williams Lake Seniors Village. It

includes a picture of all of the staff.

[1510]

Here's what they say: "The MLA could easily have discovered these

facts for himself by calling either the licensing authority or Miss Glover. He

chose instead to once again unfairly attack the integrity of the staff at

Williams Lake Seniors Village. As you can imagine, the staff are understandably

angry about the way the MLA and the NDP are maligning their work in an effort to

attack the government."

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members, you know what's

embarrassing? It's the way we're acting. That's embarrassing.

KPMG REPORT ON

ACTIONS OF PAUL TAYLOR

L. Krog: Over a month ago the government released only a

summary reporting letter from KPMG into the activities of Mr. Paul Taylor and

the B.C. Automobile Dealers Association.

In this House on May 29, the Premier promised that the full

review, the terms of reference, the documentation, the process undertaken, the

steps taken and the full report will be made available on completion of the

review.

The

summary reporting letter does not meet the Premier's promised

standard. It is quite simply a whitewash, and so my question is very simple.

Will the Minister of Finance live up to the government's promise to this House

and direct forthwith the release of the full KPMG report as promised?

Hon. C. Taylor: As has been said in this House, when the

proper FOI process has been completed, information will be released.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

L. Krog: It's very clear that that process appears to be

more of a delaying tactic than a process.

The opposition has received a further relevant e-mail dated

January 27, 2003, from Mr. Kieran to Mr. Bornman, part of which reads: "Just got

a call from Paul Taylor's wife. She is his message bearer. He suggests we get

Omnitrax together with Larry Blain, the new CEO of Partnerships B.C., the P3

agency that Paul engineered. Larry is on holiday at the moment. Paul says all

partnerships with government including BCR will be funded by Partnerships. We'll

put this together next week."

This clearly shows that the real issue is the relationship between

Mr. Taylor and Pilothouse, which KPMG was not instructed to investigate. This

e-mail shows that Mr. Taylor was providing Pilothouse with a range of

information dealing with the most sensitive and confidential government matters.

Will the Minister of Finance do the right thing and launch today a

full inquiry with real powers to investigate the activities of Mr. Taylor?

Hon. C. Taylor: When the information came forward to the

Premier's office, an investigation was launched with KPMG, a reputable firm.

They found in their results that, in fact, there was no wrongdoing by Mr.

Taylor.

If any new information is available, I would suggest that the

opposition make it available to the Premier's office.

HIGHWAY OF TEARS

G. Coons: Last month the highway of tears investigation was

expanded to 18 murders, even though the number is closer to 50 missing and

murdered young aboriginal women. At the time, the Solicitor General said he

thought "the current activities were appropriate," and he had no request from

Carrier-Sekani for additional funding.

Carrier-Sekani officials were shocked when told that the Solicitor

General knew of no additional

[ Page 9368 ]

requests for funds. They are constantly lobbying for more provincial money,

and they aren't getting it.

The Solicitor General also stated that he "takes the community's

concerns extremely seriously and that resources have never been an issue."

If that is true, will he stand up to the plate, will he put his

money where his mouth is, and will he commit funding for all 33 recommendations?

[1515]

Hon. J. Les: My staff are in constant communication with

the Carrier-Sekani and others who are working on issues related to the Highway

16 tragedies. Those discussions are active, and they're ongoing. We are

entertaining funding considerations that will enable the important work that's

going on to go forward.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

G. Coons: It's been 20 months since the symposium in Prince

George. The Solicitor General was there. He committed to the recommendations. A

proposal is currently sitting in front of the Solicitor General for funding for

two coordinators, an event coordinator to help implement the recommendations. In

response to the Solicitor General, Mary Teegee from the Carrier-Sekani stated

that the Solicitor General "publicly stated his dedication and resolve in

contributing resources to the highway of tears initiative. It is very

unfortunate that there is no provincial funding dedicated to the highway of

tears initiative."

Again, will the Solicitor General put the money where his mouth is

and commit to that and quit with the rhetoric and ensure that young aboriginal

women in the north stop being murdered and disappearing along the highway of

tears?

Hon. J. Les: Again, these are very serious issues that have

transpired along Highway 16. There are serious investigations going on to get to

the bottom of what happened in all of those tragedies.

When we had the symposium last year in Prince George, a number of

recommendations flowed from that. We committed government to working with the

people along Highway 16 to implement those recommendations. We are doing that

actively.

We have made funding available. There is over $5 million available

on an annual basis for victim funding in that region of the province. We made

$150,000 available directly to assist with the implementation of the

recommendations that were made, and we continue to discuss further programming

that could be beneficial to the people of the region.

[End of question period.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: I call second reading of Bill 44,

Greenhouse Gas Reduction Targets Act.

Second Reading of Bills

GREENHOUSE GAS REDUCTION

TARGETS ACT

Hon. B. Penner: I move that the bill now be read a second

time.

I am pleased to speak to this bill which was introduced yesterday,

which sets out in legislation the fundamental expression of this government's

commitment to addressing the reality of global warming and the impending crisis

of climate change.

Our fundamental commitment is to reverse the growth of greenhouse

gas emissions in British Columbia and ultimately reduce those emissions in

absolute terms to a fraction of the amounts that are currently being released

into the atmosphere.

[K. Whittred in the chair.]

The proposed Greenhouse Gas Reduction Targets Act is the first

step in establishing a legislative framework for British Columbia to ensure that

decisive action takes place as needed to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. It

is our government's position that decisive action, including new laws, is

necessary to respond effectively and quickly to climate change.

The evidence that the climate is changing is becoming increasingly

clear, thanks to the efforts of and debate within the international scientific

and political communities and, most notably, the Intergovernmental Panel on

Climate Change. That evidence indicates that rapid warming of the atmosphere is

occurring on a global scale.

[1520]

As noted in this government's Speech from the Throne in February

of this year, the rate of atmospheric warming over the last 50 years has been

found to be faster than at any time in the past 1,000 years. This rapid change

has implications that are already being felt and seen in various ways at the

local level around the world. In the Pacific Northwest of North America we are

seeing our climate change at a rate greater than the global average and the

beginnings of ecosystem changes.

In British Columbia, animals and plants in our forests are already

reacting to this change. We have seen the explosive spread of the mountain pine

beetle, with 78 percent of our pine forests now infested, partly as a result of

the disappearance of the extreme cold winter temperatures in the north and the

interior which used to be the norm only a few decades ago.

Projections for British Columbia's climatic zones in the next 100

years and the vegetation changes this implies show we can expect major changes

in the mixture of forest species, grasslands and desert areas. These changes in

ecology will occur throughout the province, on the coast as well as in the

interior. Another issue for the coast is that a measurable rise in sea levels is

also beginning to occur, with grave implications for low-lying and densely

populated coastal areas here in British Columbia and around the world.

[ Page 9369 ]

Seasonal patterns of precipitation are also changing. In some

parts of the world there have been prolonged droughts, while in others, such as

here in British Columbia, there's been increased precipitation and, as we saw

this year, record snowpacks, which cause significant flooding in some areas and

which have the potential to cause much higher, devastating floods in the Fraser

Valley, where I live.

If I reflect back on just the last 20 months or so, I can remember

when the Vancouver news media were talking about the need for Noah's ark because

there were a record number of consecutive days of rainfall recorded. We went

from that very wet early spring to one of the driest summers on record. Last

fall there were actually record low-level stream flows in British Columbia, to

the point where returning fish stocks were threatened due to their inability to

access their spawning grounds.

That drought was quickly broken by a series of very powerful

Pacific storms that struck the lower mainland and southern Vancouver Island and

other parts of the province, resulting in the damage that we have all seen and

heard about at Stanley Park but also in other provincial parks around the

province. In short order, record snowfall accumulations started to occur in

certain mountain ranges.

So we saw really firsthand in British Columbia the effects of

climate change that had been predicted: extreme variations of weather in a very

short period of time, literally going from record rainfall days in the southern

part of British Columbia to record low stream flows and all the way back again

where we had extreme storms and mountain snowpacks. About a year ago at this

time I was standing on the banks of the Chilliwack River as it was flooding due

to a record rainfall event in a 24-hour period in that watershed.

As our climate warms over the next several decades, we can expect

less snowpack as more precipitation falls as rain. This will mean the opposite

problem: less snow-melt water sustaining our rivers and streams during the

summer months, with negative impacts on fisheries and for communities that

depend on those runoffs for water supplies.

In some parts of the world we've also seen heat waves occurring

with increasing duration and intensity. Extreme precipitation events and periods

of increasingly strong hurricanes and typhoons have also been observed. Now,

although individual extreme weather events are not proof themselves of climate

change, scientists warn that, over the long term, the trend will be an increase

in the number and severity of such extreme events.

British Columbia is highly sensitive to climate change, and the

observed and projected rate of warming is higher than the global average. What

that means, unfortunately, is that we are facing the prospect of dramatic

impacts affecting many of our natural resources and the economic activity that

is based on those resources.

But if we have the foresight to recognize the shifts that are

underway and the way in which we are all interconnected in the face of climate

change, then we also have an opportunity in this province. That opportunity is

to make a difference. We have the means to take bold action, to face this

challenge and, in doing so, to become leaders in a global fight to alter our

present course.

By taking on a leadership role, we can build partnerships — such

as with the western climate initiative, the Pacific coast collaborative and

others — that will inspire and help guide the actions of other nations as well

as societies and organizations elsewhere.

The environmental, economic and social costs associated with

climate change are anticipated to be very high for societies around the world.

Unnaturally rapid climate change to some extent now appears inevitable, and

we'll have to adapt to those changes.

[1525]

One example of that locally, again, was the threat we had this

past spring of flooding. The province of British Columbia put forward $33

million, and we were pleased when the federal government chose to match our

contribution. But we know that we have other diking and flood-protection works

that will be necessary in the years ahead, and that's why the province has

recently committed $100 million over the next ten years to work on further

mitigation.

We're also asking the federal government to join us in this

endeavour as well, because if they can match our $100 million, we'll have $200

million, and then we can work with local communities to see what they can

contribute to maximize our resources and improve our chances of withstanding

further extreme weather events in future runoff periods.

Meaningful action, however, begins with setting of goals. The

Greenhouse Gas Reduction Targets Act will put into law the goal of reducing

British Columbia's greenhouse gas emissions by at least 33 percent below the

2007 level by 2020. This follows through on the commitment made in the Speech

from the Throne earlier this year, in February.

A target for 2050 to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by at least

80 percent compared to the level of emissions in 2007 is also set out in this

bill. It is important to set the 2050 target to respond effectively to the

long-term nature of the climate change problem.

Climate change did not become a challenge overnight; nor can it be

solved overnight. Other jurisdictions around the world have also recognized

this, and a number of them have committed to long-term targets. For example, I

understand that the parliament in the United Kingdom is debating a law now where

the U.K. target is 60 percent below 1990 levels by 2050.

There is a growing consensus that limiting the increase in average

global temperatures to 2 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels will be

necessary to avoid the most dangerous impacts of climate change, impacts that

will exceed society's capacity to adapt.

[H. Bloy in the chair.]

Limiting the risk of exceeding the 2-degree threshold will

require stabilizing the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere at

levels below 500 parts per million of carbon dioxide equivalent. In turn, this

[ Page 9370 ]

means that global greenhouse gas emissions must be reduced by between 50 and

90 percent by 2050.

The 80-percent reduction target for 2050 that this government is

setting for British Columbia is consistent with recommendations from the

scientific community as well as with the targets set by other jurisdictions that

are leaders in climate change action.

The legislation also requires that interim targets for 2012 and

2016 be set by the end of 2008 in order to provide tangible goals in the short

term to help focus our efforts in government and across society.

The climate action team was established yesterday by the

government. I just have to tell you how delighted I am at the calibre of people

who have stepped up to the plate and are volunteering their services, not just

on behalf of the government of British Columbia but on behalf of all people that

live here and in fact, I would say, on behalf of people beyond our borders.

The climate action team will determine the most aggressive targets

possible for 2012 and 2016. These interim goals will be realistic and

economically viable but also challenging. It's going to challenge all of us —

government, industry and individual citizens — to begin doing everything that

must be done to achieve sustainable levels of greenhouse gas emissions and to do

our part here in British Columbia to stabilize the rate of global warming for

the long term.

As noted at first reading, this government plans to bring forward

additional legislation in the next session to authorize regulatory mechanisms

that will be implemented with respect to various sectors of activity in the

province in order to achieve these targets. The means by which reductions will

be attained will be a combination of market-based mechanisms and legally

enforceable limits on emissions.

We will introduce legislation in the spring to put in place a

cap-and-trade system for all large emitters of greenhouse gas emissions in the

province. That system will set firm caps on the quantity of emissions that

specified industry sectors and individual operations may release, while

providing for participation in emissions trading to take advantage of market

forces that promote innovation, competitiveness and, ultimately, efficiency and

sustainability.

We are also intending to introduce legislation next spring to

follow California's lead in adopting tailpipe emission standards for new

vehicles. These standards, which will be phased in from 2009 to 2016, will

require car manufacturers' annual vehicle fleets to become more and more

efficient and clean.

Now, our Premier met with his colleagues from across the country

at a first ministers meeting back in August and challenged other provinces to

follow our lead and to support us in the establishment of California tailpipe

emissions standards, because as a market on our own, we're pretty small. We're

four million people. But if you start to combine forces with other like-minded

jurisdictions, I believe we can influence the market.

That was behind our thinking when the Premier and I travelled to

California in March to meet with Governor Schwarzenegger. He was very receptive,

and since then our governments have been working very closely together and

cooperatively in sharing information both directly as well as through the

western climate initiative.

[1530]

In response to the Premier's challenge at the first ministers

meeting back in August, nine out of ten provincial Premiers have agreed that

their provinces will support California tailpipe emissions standards.

I'm very pleased at that response. That shows that leadership can

work, but it also shows that other provinces are willing to work together to try

and drive the kind of changes that we need to see, frankly, if we're going to

reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

There will also be legislation in the spring to provide authority

for the regulation of landfill gases. This government will work closely with

local governments and private industry to establish a regulatory regime

requiring the capture of gases emitted by landfills.

One component of landfill gas is methane, which tonne for tonne

has a much greater global warming effect than the most common greenhouse gas,

carbon dioxide. That's the one you hear most about, but in fact every tonne of

methane is about as damaging as 21 tonnes of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere.

I'm pleased that today in British Columbia we are starting to capture methane

gas from landfills, as a direct result of this province's energy plan introduced

in 2002.

At the GVRD landfill in Delta, at the Hartland Landfill north of

Victoria and very soon in the landfill in the regional district of Nanaimo,

methane gas which previously would just be escaping straight into the

atmosphere, adding to climate change problems, is being captured and combusted,

which reduces its harmful effect. The combustion process is allowing electricity

to be generated and fed into B.C. Hydro's grid.

Mr. Speaker, I suggest to you that that represents a couple of

things. It's the power of inviting the private sector to play a partnership role

in meeting our energy challenges and in solving environmental problems. It also

demonstrates what the opportunities are. We can have a win-win situation, if we

approach this thoughtfully and strategically.

In this case, we have an opportunity. We have the advantages of

now creating energy and revenue streams that we need and of decreasing the

impact from that methane gas that previously just escaped directly into the

atmosphere.

Bill 44 sets requirements for the provincial government to reduce

emissions and to become carbon-neutral. Starting in 2010, the provincial

government and designated public sector organizations will be required to

achieve carbon-neutral status, taking all operations into account.

Even before that, requirements for carbon-neutrality will kick in,

starting in 2008 with respect to greenhouse gas emissions produced by core

government business travel. Travel emissions for the last three months of 2007

will also be included.

Our government recognizes that we should lead by example to help

ensure success in achieving the greenhouse gas reduction targets for the

province as a

[ Page 9371 ]

whole. The carbon-neutral provincial government requirement will apply to

this Legislative Assembly and to provincial government ministries and agencies,

schools, colleges, universities, health authorities, Crown corporations and

other public sector organizations identified by regulation.

A major feature of this bill is its public reporting requirements.

The provincial government and other public sector organizations that will be

subject to the new act will be required to make public annual carbon-neutral

action reports, beginning with the report for the 2008 calendar year.

In addition, the Minister of Environment will be required to

publish a report every two years, beginning with the report on the 2008 calendar

year, concerning progress being made by the province as a whole towards

achieving British Columbia's emission reduction targets, the actions taken to

achieve that progress and plans for continued advancement towards achieving the

targets.

Action on climate change is central to our government's great goal

of leading the world in sustainable environmental management, and it has been an

important performance objective in the province's last two strategic plans.

British Columbia's recently adopted energy plan is the cleanest, greenest energy

plan in North America.

Just to put that in context, today, as a result of our new energy

plan released in the spring by my colleague the Minister of Energy, Mines and

Petroleum Resources, B.C. Hydro has a requirement to find 90 percent of their

new additional energy sources from clean sources of electricity. When we took

office, that requirement was only 10 percent. I would submit to the House that

that represents significant progress.

We are determined, as well, to become self-sufficient again in

electricity because, frankly, I'm not very comfortable at simply relying on

imports from coal-fired plants in either Alberta or outside of our borders in

the United States to help us keep our lights on — if we're really serious about

reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

[1535]

Our side of the House believes it's imperative for us to become

electricity self-sufficient in British Columbia. We do disagree with members on

the other side of the House, including their Energy critic, who yesterday on

CFAX Radio said that that goal of ours to become electricity self-sufficient is

"ludicrous."

Our side of the House begs to differ. Due to the vision of

previous governments and Premiers in this province, I think British Columbians

became accustomed to us actually being self-sufficient in electricity and being

net exporters. They had the vision and the foresight to make difficult decisions

to build the infrastructure that has now benefited this province for decades.

During the 1990s very little new additional capacity was built in

British Columbia. As a result, we have now been a net importer of electricity

for quite a number of years. I think about five or six years.

We are committed to developing new clean energy resources in

British Columbia. All together, with the capacity additions at Bridge River; at

the Revelstoke dam that's now been approved by myself and the Minister of

Energy; a new turbine at Seven Mile dam, which I had a chance to visit;

additions to the W.A.C. Bennett dam on the Peace River; additions including the

Brilliant expansion project, which is a government-owned corporation in the

Kootenays; and the recently approved expansion to the Waneta dam that the

Minister of Energy and I approved last week, there will be enough additional

electricity generated from B.C. Hydro and Columbia Power Corporation generating

assets to keep the lights on in 227,000 homes in British Columbia.

That is clean, renewable electricity that will help us meet our

objectives of weaning ourselves off the coal-fired imported electricity that

British Columbians had to rely on over recent years. As well, it keeps the

dollars at home, and we can do it without contributing to greenhouse gas

emissions. That's a win-win situation, and it represents the kind of vision that

our government is pursuing.

Building on those initiatives, the Greenhouse Gas Reduction

Targets Act will initiate the next phase in meeting the challenge of climate

change. It will involve taking firm regulatory measures to reduce greenhouse gas

emissions coming from all major sources in the province.

Meeting the targets and requirements set out in the Greenhouse Gas

Reduction Targets Act will be hard work, but there's no place better suited to

meeting this challenge than here in British Columbia, building on the successes

that people and the government of this province have achieved in recent years in

building our diverse and strong economy.

There is no better time to begin than right now, and while it will

be hard work, this government is confident that firm action on climate change

will also mean new investments and jobs. Our goal is ultimately greater

prosperity for British Columbia. Climate action must be seen and pursued as an

economic opportunity as well as an environmental imperative.

We are taking decisive and necessary action to confront global

warming but in a way that will increase our quality of life, help to protect our

environment and seize on economic opportunities as the world transitions to a

low-carbon economy.

In British Columbia there are close to 1,300 companies active in

the sustainable technology industry across the province, employing about 18,000

people. This number is expected to grow.

We have built our industry by investing in world-class research

institutions. British Columbia is home to 15 research centres of excellence and

other clean-technology research institutes. Backed by a research and innovation

infrastructure, our companies provide sustainable technology solutions and

practices in both domestic and export markets.

These opportunities have not gone unnoticed by the investment

community. Venture capitalists have invested $3.9 billion into green and clean

technology ventures in North America last year — almost doubling their

investment from 2005, helping to drive this industry to become one of the

fastest-growing sectors

[ Page 9372 ]

in the North American venture capital market. B.C. can and will be a leader

in geothermal technologies, energy-efficient buildings, solar thermal systems,

cellulose ethanol technologies and gas-to-liquid technologies that would capture

gas otherwise flared in gas and oil fields.

We are already leading the world in fuel cell technology. The

government that can best attract entrepreneurs and investors, and harness the

creativity, ingenuity and power of the private sector will have the best chance

to create self-perpetuating, sustainable technology clusters that drive dynamic

economic growth while also improving the environment.

British Columbia is making history by being the first Canadian

province to put into law aggressive greenhouse gas reduction targets. These

targets will spur the new thinking and actions that will be needed to address

the challenge of climate change. Just as our province's economy has evolved and

diversified over the past century beyond simply being an exporter of natural

resources, a move towards a low-carbon economy is the next step in our economic

evolution.

[1540]

It is historic and inevitable, and it will be a next

chapter in

B.C.'s history. Generations from now, people will look back and ask: "What

started the change for the better? What made our communities what they are

today?" I believe that the passage of laws such as Bill 44 will be marked as the

turning point in addressing global warming and protecting the environment for

future generations.

With that, I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the

Whole to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Deputy Speaker: We'll have to pass second reading.

S. Simpson: Hon. Speaker, I would note at the start that I

am the designated speaker for this piece of legislation.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to stand in my place and

speak to Bill 44, the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Targets Act. This act is put in

place, and it establishes greenhouse gas reduction targets for 2020 and 2050 in

relation to greenhouse gas emissions for British Columbia generally.

Starting with 2008, it requires the provincial government and all

other public sector organizations to pursue actions to minimize their greenhouse

gas emissions, and then goes on to speak about a number of things related to

that.

We're happy that this legislation has come forward. You'll

remember, I'm sure, that back in February the throne speech brought the issue of

climate change to this House from this government for the first time. We at that

time, when the government announced in the throne speech the reduction for 2020

— that it should be entrenched in law…. This piece of legislation does that, and

we're pleased that the government has chosen to take our advice and entrench

this in law.

We know that climate change is a compelling issue, and we know

it's a global issue that affects all of us and affects people around the world.

There has been much commentary around the issue of climate change for the last

couple of years. I think it's a concern that has touched the public in British

Columbia and elsewhere in the world to the extent that it has become arguably

the single most compelling issue globally right now. It certainly is a

significant and major issue for British Columbians and for all Canadians.

It's an issue that we know well in British Columbia. We know it

probably best of all in our province because of the pine beetle. Most British

Columbians know and understand that historically the pine beetle — which has

devastated our pine forests in the most horrific of ways for those forests, the

habitat and those communities that rely on those forests — has pretty much

always been there, but because of our weather and our climate, we could rely on

the beetle to be dealt with by cold weather.

In the better part of the last decade, of course, that has not

been the case. What we in fact have now is a circumstance where the beetle has

ravaged our forests and is now moving across borders and heading to other

jurisdictions.

We also know that we've seen flooding. We know communities across

the province that have suffered from flooding. We know our friends in Richmond

and Delta have raised those concerns — and in other communities throughout the

province where flooding has been a serious issue. While we can't say that any

one incident of flooding is related to climate change, the increasing nature of

flooding is certainly indicative of what our expectations are about the impacts

of climate change. We certainly will expect to see more of it, and we'll

certainly expect to see more of it in our communities in British Columbia which

are at lower elevations.

[1545]

We also know — and this is certainly a very concerning issue for

all British Columbians — the impacts of climate change, potentially, on

agriculture and on food security issues in our province.

It's a bit ironic, but there are those in the global community who

suggest that in some ways Canada and Russia will be — at least for a short

period of time, through climate change — beneficiaries of climate change to the

extent that more moderate climates may increase our growing areas for

agriculture. But I don't think we wish the extent of that on anybody, because

what we know, of course, is that it is changing.

It will change what happens in the Okanagan, on Vancouver Island

and in other communities as certain crops become less able to be grown — or more

so. It does make changes, and I know from our discussions with the agriculture

community that they have significant concerns about that.

Also, it raises issues around health care. The impacts of climate

change, potentially, on the health of our citizens is a growing concern.

Another example, of course, would be in the area of water. I've

had the opportunities to talk with people at Water Highway B.C. and the

hydrologists in British Columbia, who have expressed serious concerns about

[ Page 9373 ]

how prepared we are to deal with that issue and their concerns about

insufficient and inadequate support for hydrometric water monitoring by both the

provincial and the federal government.

They aren't providing the levels of support that they, as the

experts in the field, believe are necessary in order to better understand the

impacts on our water and to understand how, in fact, we deal with those impacts.

We know, of course, that as water and water flows are affected by climate

change, it affects our local communities. It affects our drinking water. It

affects water available to our resource industries that are essential and

critical users of water.

When we talk about climate change, of course, it is a global

issue. We know that it's accelerating. It's interesting that the

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and many other credible thinkers on

the issue of climate change have been accelerating their concerns. Issues that

they were raising not that long ago, telling us a year or two years ago…. Issues

that they said would be coming in the next century, they're now telling us will

come in the next decade.

That acceleration is becoming very rapid and very concerning.

We're hearing more and more of that from experts, from people in communities who

are starting to see and feel those impacts. That urgency is growing, and we need

to respond to that urgency here in British Columbia as we do throughout the

world.

Last weekend our party, as you may know, had our annual convention

in Vancouver. At that convention we had a keynote speaker, Dr. Thomas

Homer-Dixon. Dr. Homer-Dixon is an expert in this field and quite well

respected. Dr. Homer-Dixon holds the George Ignatieff chair of peace and

conflict studies at the Trudeau Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies at the

University of Toronto.

He is the author of a number of well-recognized books. Included in

some of his books are Environment, Scarcity and Violence , which won the

Caldwell Prize of the American Political Science Association; The Ingenuity

Gap , which was the 2001 Governor General's non-fiction award winner here in

Canada; and his most recent book, The Up Side of Down: Catastrophe,

Creativity and the Renewal Of Civilization , which was the 2006 National

Business Book Award winner here in our country.

One of the things that Dr. Homer-Dixon does…. Part of his studies

and his research looks at the issue of climate change. It is one of the key

issues he looks at. He looks at climate change and its environmental, social and

economic impacts, and that's a really important focus for Dr. Homer-Dixon.

[1550]

When he spoke to our convention, he spoke about that. He really

stressed to our members the growing urgency of our challenge to deal with this

question of climate change. His focus and inspiration were a little scary at

times — what he had to say. But I think it did energize our members, certainly,

and was even more compelling for the 700 or so people in that room who were very

much focused on this issue. They left that room even more compelled to deal with

this challenge.

What I'd like to do is just quote. Dr. Homer-Dixon is a regular

contributor to the opinion pages in the New York Times as well as the

Globe and Mail. He wrote recently, on October 4 of this year in the New

York Times, an opinion piece that he contributed called "A Swiftly Melting

Planet." In that, he was speaking about the arctic ice fields and the impacts

that we're seeing on those fields.

Just to pull out of his quote, he said: "This past summer sent

scientists scrambling to redo their estimates. Week by week the National Snow

and Ice Data Center in Boulder, Colorado, reported the trend: from 2.23 million

square miles of ice remaining on August 8 to 1.6 million square miles on

September 16 — an astonishing drop from the previous low of 2.05 million square

miles reached in 2005."

What Dr. Homer-Dixon was saying here is that in that very short

two-year period, half a million square miles, roughly, of the ice fields

disappeared — something that was being projected to maybe happen by 2040. It's

happening now. The melting of the arctic ice fields has huge implications across

the world in terms of raising sea levels.

He went on to talk about the impacts on our oceans. We need to

understand that the oceans are a critical factor in meeting our challenge of

climate change. He went on to say in the same opinion piece:

"There are other destabilizing factors in the carbon cycle

that involve the oceans. Each year the oceans absorb about half the carbon

dioxide that humans emit into the atmosphere. But as oceans warm, they will

absorb less carbon dioxide, partly because the gas dissolves less readily in

warmer water and partly because warming will reduce the mixing between deep and

surface waters that provides nutrients to plankton that absorb carbon dioxide.

And when oceans take up less carbon dioxide, warming worsens."

The challenge that we face here is incredibly compelling.

He talked about global warming melting large areas of permafrost in Alaska,

Canada and Siberia. As it melts, the organic matter in the permafrost starts to

rot, releasing carbon dioxide and methane into the atmosphere, again

accelerating our challenge.

What Professor Homer-Dixon is talking about is this rapid

acceleration that the scientists across the world who have been engaged in this

did not foresee. Interestingly, if you read the last report of the

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, they clearly talk about that. They

have recognized this acceleration, and I'm sure that Dr. Weaver and the others

on the panel will be bringing that expertise to bear in terms of the work of the

panel that has been established.

The final comment from Dr. Homer-Dixon that I think is important

was in his close to this piece, where he said:

"We need a far more aggressive global response to climate

change. In the 1960s mothers learned that the milk they were feeding their

children was laced with radioactive material from atmospheric tests of nuclear

weapons and that this contamination could increase the risk of childhood

leukemia. Soon women organized themselves in the tens of thousands to demand

that nuclear powers ban atmospheric testing. Their campaign largely succeeded.

[ Page 9374 ]

"In response to the new dangers of climate change,

we need a similar mobilization — of mothers, of students and of everyone with a

stake in the future — now."

We need to engage in that call to action now. That's what Dr.

Homer-Dixon is telling us, and he's certainly right. He's certainly right that

that's what we need to do.

[1555]

Now, what's this government doing? When we look at the plan, which

has primarily been the Premier's plan…. We know that at the beginning — last

year, sometime around last Christmas or so — the Premier was on his holidays and

came back. The rumours started to fly that the Premier had made the decision,

had had a bit of an epiphany on the question of climate change, and that we

would be hearing about climate change in the throne speech. And of course, we

did. We did hear about it in the throne speech.

What we also know is that as that came forward, there was a

serious lack of any evidence that anybody other than the Premier had been

engaged in that epiphany and that revelation. Interestingly, as the Minister of

Finance at the time said when she was asked whether there would be resources

applied in the budget…. Her comments initially were, I believe, that there would

be no additional dollars in the budget related to climate change.

Then, as we know, there was $4 million put in the budget — $4

million out of a $37 billion budget or so. But $4 million was put in, and those

are the funds that are presumably paying for the climate action secretariat that

currently works with the cabinet committee on these matters.

The other thing that was interesting is that as we looked into the

service plans of all the ministries that are provided for last year, with the

exception of the service plan from the Ministry of Environment, I think we'd be

hard pressed to have found a single time where there was a significant

discussion on the question of climate change in any of those service plans.

That's a concern, hon. Speaker, because it suggests a real disconnect between

the government at that time and where the climate change initiative was to go.

We raised this issue, and certainly for the last ten months the

issue has been raised a number of times about what substance there was behind

the revelation of climate change in the throne speech.

Also, I've heard these comments raised, and we've heard these

comments raised by journalists and by others — issues they've raised about the

disconnect between the cabinet and the Premier's office on this issue of climate

change. We know this is an issue that requires everybody's attention, requires

us all to be involved, yet there are serious issues around what the ownership in

cabinet is of this issue.

I suppose we're going to see more of it. I think we can reasonably

suspect that none of the members of cabinet are going to want to aggravate their

boss very much, so they're likely to all want to talk about climate change in

some way, shape or form. I suspect that when we see the service plans next year,

it will be remarkable the number that say climate change somewhere within those

service plans — significantly more than the last time we looked at them, I'm

sure.

Having said that, I want to deal with an issue that I think is a

significant concern here. It reflects on the lack of a relationship between the

climate change initiatives that we have heard from the government and the

practices of the government around other policy areas.

The government, on one hand, has talked largely about two climate

change initiatives. They've talked about a cap-and-trade system, and they've

talked about California tailpipe emissions standards. We'll talk about those two

initiatives a little bit later on, but that's been largely the thrust of the

initiatives outlined by the government to date.

On the other side, there

is a whole series of very significant

government initiatives that are totally disconnected from the question of

climate change and that arguably go miles to exacerbate and make the situation

in British Columbia significantly worse. I'd like to talk about a couple of

those for a moment, because I think that is a challenge in meeting the emissions

standards as laid out in Bill 44.

[1600]

We have a transportation issue. We've seen that the Minister of

Transportation has advanced very aggressively — enthusiastically, obviously —

his concern. He has enthusiastically supported the Gateway project and a number

of similar kinds of initiatives, largely, we would guess, allowing for the cost

overruns that will inevitably happen — probably about $6 billion of investment

in roads and bridges.

Now, you can argue whether the roads and bridges are important,

but what we do know is that it will increase the amount of vehicles on the road.

Every example anywhere we have seen in North America has resulted in increases

in vehicles on the road when you've had those kinds of expansions. There just is

not an example where that hasn't occurred. That's one issue.

But the most significant challenge here is that the investments

have all been there. There have been almost no investments to date of any

significance — certainly nothing significant in terms of transit when you relate

it to the investments that have been made in roads and bridges. The extent so

far…. We hear that there will be more, and I hope there are. I hope the

northeast line gets built, and I hope there are other commitments.

But when we've heard from people about…. The mayor of Surrey has

told us about the need for 500 buses in Surrey. We've heard calls in Vancouver

for the Broadway line. We've certainly heard calls in the Tri-Cities to build

the northeast line, a SkyTrain line. We know there's a need for further

expansion of rapid transit south of the Fraser.

We know all of those things are meant to get people out of their

cars, among other things, and we know getting people out of their cars is a

critical part of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. As we put fewer cars on the

road, have more emission-free or -reduced methods of transportation, that will

go a long way to meeting the challenges that we face around greenhouse gas

emissions.

But we haven't seen any investment. We have seen $6 billion,

essentially on roads and bridges. To date, the

[ Page 9375 ]

only commitment we've seen in the last while that relates to this is a

commitment to put 20 buses on the new Port Mann Bridge sometime in six years.

That's the significant commitment. There's not been another commitment. Now, I

would hope that we will see more significant commitments around transportation.

But to date we've not seen them, and that's a concern. That's the disconnect

between these policies.

We've also another area where we have significant emissions.

Probably 25 or 28 percent of our emissions in British Columbia come out of

energy — the oil and gas sector in large part. The Environment Minister spoke

and talked about the green energy plan. The reality of the green energy plan is

that much of it is green by cover of the report and not much else. We've seen

one of the most aggressive and rapid expansions of oil and gas proposed in this

report that we've ever seen.

It's interesting that between this year and 2010 there will be

over a billion dollars of public subsidy given to the oil and gas sector. That's

what's proposed. This year alone was $265 million. There will be over a billion

dollars given. At the same time, for alternate energy initiatives and

development, at this point we've seen that about $25 million has been provided

there to look at innovative proposals. It's not necessarily to provide, as it is

for oil and gas, for infrastructure and supports in that, but it is to provide

for some initiatives. So we have $25 million for what we might call green energy

and a billion dollars for what we would call old, conventional fossil fuel

energy. That's a disconnect.

That's a disconnect between the climate change initiatives that

Bill 44 talks about, the reductions that Bill 44 looks for us to accomplish and

the reality of government policy. Of course, it doesn't quite end there.

The Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources is one of

the strong advocates of going offshore. We know that at a time when we should be

looking at conservation, when we should be looking more closely at other

initiatives, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, along with

his federal counterparts who share his view, are looking at ways to advance

offshore oil and gas — not exactly in sync with the Premier's plans for climate

change and emission reductions.

[1605]

I guess that brings me to the question, as we discuss the whole

question of energy…. It's interesting. The Minister of Environment, in his

opening comments, talked about electricity and the need to deal with

electricity. I would agree that electricity is important, and we're very

fortunate in this province to have had, actually, the foresight of W.A.C.

Bennett, who built our dam system. He built B.C. Hydro.

Absolutely, W.A.C. Bennett deserves the credit for building B.C.

Hydro — he knew it should be a Crown corporation — for building our dam system

and for knowing it should all be public. W.A.C. Bennett led the charge to keep

energy public in British Columbia, something this government is in the process

of dismantling.

What we have here is this government going down that road. The

minister talked about these things. Now, we know this government has looked at

the question of power. The Minister of Environment in his opening comments

talked about energy. That's an important topic when you talk about climate

change. He talked about the need for energy self-sufficiency.

Well, the government here is clearly a big proponent of

privatizing power. They've been actively supporting that power with agreements

that make no economic sense at all, but they're doing it. They're paying $88.

They're getting B.C. Hydro to sign power purchase agreements that will pay

companies $88, when you could buy on the spot market for $56, and we're getting

$5 or $10 back out of that in terms of fees. Pretty bizarre situation. Doesn't

make much sense, but the government has chosen to do that.

But, hon. Speaker, here's the problem. That privatization of power

obviously also creates significant environmental impacts, because there are no

controls on those projects. There are no cumulative impact studies. It's a

problem.

I want to get to the point that I think is particularly concerning

as it relates to climate change. It relates to energy self-sufficiency that the

Minister of Environment spoke about in his opening comments and about how energy

self-sufficiency is important for us if we want to be able to accomplish the

climate change initiatives that are in Bill 44.

Those power purchase agreements that I spoke about, which have

been signed by B.C. Hydro with those companies, are 30-year agreements — some of

them a little longer, some a little shorter. What those agreements say, at the

end of the day, is that those companies are then free to sell that energy on the

market at the expiration of those agreements.

We know that California is waiting to buy that power. So what

we'll see is energy sufficiency by 2016, which is talked about in the energy

plan. I think we will see it by 2016. My concern is that by 2030, we will have

lost it again when we lose the competitive advantage of energy when those power

projects are then selling their power to California and we don't have much to

say about it.

Our other option — other than that, of course — will be to allow

California to set our power prices and to decide what we'll pay for power,

because we'll have to match or beat those prices in California to make those

deals work.

So we have a situation where we're going to lose on this. We're

selling out our rivers, our natural resources, and it's a very concerning thing.

It has a significant impact on the greenhouse gas reductions that the Premier

talks about in Bill 44.

The last comment that I want to make about the challenges that I

see is the disconnect between the climate change initiatives of the government

as reflected in Bill 44 and the challenges with current policy initiatives for

the government. This relates to an agreement that the government has signed with

Alberta. It's the trade, investment and labour mobility agreement. That's an

agreement that affects a whole array of areas of public policy and affects the

relationship and the

[ Page 9376 ]

movement of goods and services between Alberta and British Columbia.

Now, when that agreement was signed…. Unfortunately, we've not had

the opportunity to discuss that agreement here in the Legislature, because the

government's chosen not to bring it to the Legislature for us to discuss, but it

has been looked at.

I had the opportunity to look at a legal opinion that was

provided, particularly around the questions of TILMA and the environment. It was

provided by the Sierra Legal Defence Fund, or what's now called Ecojustice,

which is a non-profit team of lawyers who do work mostly in the environmental

community but who look at these kinds of issues from a legal perspective.

The question I have as it affects Bill 44 and the Greenhouse Gas

Reduction Targets Act is whether, in fact, the implications of TILMA create a

situation where the government may not be able to accomplish its objectives

because it doesn't have the authority to do that.

[1610]

There is a whole series of issues — measures that are adopted,

particularly around renewable and alternate energy — that are clearly exempted

from TILMA. There's no question that a significant number of environmental

issues are exempted from TILMA and will be free from TILMA. That's a good thing.

However, there are other issues under

part V of TILMA exemptions

that aren't so clear. We have situations around the management and conservation

of forests, fish and wildlife. We know that global warming has significant

impacts on our forests, our fish and our wildlife. We know that that happens. We

just have to look at the pine beetle. We have to look at our habitat. We have to

look at our rivers and streams, and we'll know that's the case.

The challenge we may face with TILMA is seeing a panel that was

established under the terms of TILMA likely holding this exemption as a measure

aimed primarily at forests, fish and wildlife. Are those panels going to take a

very narrow view of what constitute forests, fish and wildlife and instead look

at greenhouse gas emissions as being primarily around climate change and not

necessarily fitting there? That's a concern.

In terms of the management and disposal of hazardous and waste

materials — some might argue that greenhouse gases certainly are a waste

material — the management and disposal of those materials is likely to be

interpreted as meaning the collection, handling, recycling, storage and

transportation of such materials, as opposed to avoiding their generation in the

first place. The question is: will TILMA in fact look at that?

It's interesting that the government, in a document they produced

called "For the Record" on the B.C.-Alberta trade, investment and labour

mobility agreement and the environment — which was put out by the Ministry of

Economic Development in February of this year — talks to some of this. In that

release the ministry responded to questions about how TILMA will apply to the

province's climate change action plan.

It emphasizes the importance of the justification process under

article 6 and briefly notes that there are provisions regarding conservation

measures. Although it lists some of those

part V exemptions, like the renewable

and alternate energy, there is no mention of the other

part V exemptions that I

mentioned around fish and wildlife or around hazardous and waste materials. It

doesn't say anything about those, suggesting by its nature that it was going to

be silent on that because it wasn't sure that it would not apply there.

In

summary, I think what can be said is that while the basic TILMA

prohibitions don't apply to the promotion of renewable and alternate energy,

what is important is that they may apply to a whole bunch of other areas. Those

areas around greenhouse gas emissions may affect our ability under Bill 44 to

deal with those reductions and the array of options that, presumably, the

government is going to bring forward to us in the coming year.

Those things under TILMA that are not part of

part V will likely

breach the prohibitions altogether. I'd like to give you just a couple of

examples of that, because I do think this issue with TILMA is a very significant

one.

"Measures requiring improved energy efficiency and reduced

wastage during consumption will impose costs on manufacturers to redesign their

products and on building owners or operators to buy new products and will

therefore likely be found to restrict or impair investment.

"Other measures aimed at reducing energy

consumption — such as incentives to use public transit and disincentives to use

cars, or the promotion of locally-produced goods — will likely be found to

impair investments, such as in car manufacturers and non-locally produced goods.

"Measures requiring carbon capture and storage" —

and we know that the government has spoken a lot about that in relation to coal

and sequestration — "will impose additional costs and will therefore likely be

found to restrict or impair investment."

The way that this will be responded to, because I think

there's a fair question here, is that there is an argument made — and I think

this may be a legitimate argument — that these issues could all fall under the

parameter of protection of the environment and that there might in fact be a

case to be won at TILMA under

article 6 that this is protection of the

environment.

[1615]

The challenge is this. It's not hard to imagine difficulties —

this is part of the challenge with TILMA — in defending such measures under the

"not more restrictive than necessary" test. This is the test that complicates

things for us. Let me just give you two examples.

Measures aimed at improving energy efficiency, reducing waste and

otherwise reducing energy consumption. Complainants might argue that it would be

less trade-and-investment-restrictive to implement measures to change our energy

sources to renewable, alternate or nuclear, rather than trying to decrease the

amount of energy we use. That argument could be made.

The second, to give you an idea about the carbon capture and

storage, which I spoke about previously — measures requiring carbon capture and

storage. Complainants who will be associated with a relatively small number of

significant point-source users of GHG emissions, such as those in the oil sands,

might argue

[ Page 9377 ]

the use of nuclear power or the public promotion of energy-efficiency

improvements would be less restrictive.

These will all be settled when these debates come up, and they

certainly will at some point. These will all be settled by a panel somewhere.

But what they do is raise significant issues and significant challenges around

whether TILMA will allow the kinds of initiatives that are being anticipated to

occur through Bill 44.

The problem we have there is that, as we know, as TILMA moves

forward, the lawyers for the government, legal counsel for the government, will

be telling ministries and ministers and others about the things they can't do

related to legal and binding agreements that have been put in place. I think

that's part of our challenge that we face with TILMA.

What are we looking at in terms of the government and in terms of

what we're seeing here? What we're looking at from the government is this. We

had a throne speech, which had significant endorsements. It was a revelation for

many people when the Premier did 180-degree turn and came out on the issue of

climate change. People supported that. I think it was an exciting time for

people, and I understand that.

The caveat that was put on it at that time — and it was not spoken

loudly at that time — was: "Well, let's wait for the substance, because we need

some substance." We're now ten months later, and we're still waiting for most of

that substance. That's been the comment. Those were the references we saw in the

media yesterday about much of Bill 44. "We'll be waiting to see what the

substance is."

We saw again, as I mentioned, that there was no connection to the

last budget in terms of climate change. There's a lot of anticipation about what

will happen this February coming up with the next budget — the green budget, as

we understand it. We'll all be looking with anticipation as to what occurs

there.

We've had roughly ten months since the throne speech was

announced. The government is still scrambling, without a plan that they've been

able to put out to the people of British Columbia — the people who will be

impacted by this plan, the people who ultimately need to take ownership of this

plan, the people who need to endorse this plan. They don't know what's going on.

The reason for that is that we have a cabinet committee on climate

change, which is maybe the most secretive committee that we've seen in a long,

long time, and we have a climate change secretariat that is equally secretive.

That's remarkable.

I know that the opposition doesn't get very much cooperation from

the government, but I find it interesting that I as the Environment critic sent

a letter in August to the government asking simply to get a briefing on the

activities of the climate change secretariat and to get some idea of who they

were and what they were doing. I sent that letter in August, and I'm sure I will

get a response to that letter someday soon, but it hasn't happened yet. But I'm

sure I will get a response — maybe next August, when apparently the government's

going to report out.

What have we had though? We've heard from the Minister of

Environment and we've heard from other sources that this climate change

secretariat and the cabinet committee have held some 170-odd meetings or

briefings — 170 of them. If those were only 15 minutes long, that's 45 or 50

hours of briefings. I can't imagine that all of these ministers were sitting

rapt for 50 hours to be briefed, but maybe it happened.

[1620]

They had 170 meetings and briefings. What do we know about those

meetings? Let me quote the Minister of Environment. The Minister of Environment,

on November 20 in Public Eye Online…. We all know Public Eye Online. It's a blog

or a website that reports on what we do here. When the minister….

These are in quotation marks. I did ask Mr. Holman, the author of

Public Eye Online, whether these were in fact quotes. Mr. Holman assured me that

what the Minister of Environment said is: "We don't publicly discuss who we're

meeting with and who we're not meeting with. But we've been very busy, and we'll

continue to meet."

Then he went on to say, when he was asked…. This particular

question was: "How come you don't talk to people in the labour movement?" He

went on to say: "Like I said, we don't publicly discuss who comes to meet with

us, because we want them to have an ability to feel confident that they can say

whatever they want when they get behind closed doors."

That's a quote from the Minister of Environment. I understand that

getting behind closed doors is what this government does best. That's what we're

talking about, and that's one of the biggest concerns with this initiative. It

is all going on behind closed doors.

The vast majority of the four-million-odd people in British

Columbia are not part of this discussion. They don't know what's going on. As

bits and pieces of it dribble out, they get increasingly concerned about what is

going on.

It's not a concern so much that they don't want action. Those four

million people want action. But they want to be part of that, and why on earth

the government chooses to exclude the population of British Columbia on the

climate change initiative is beyond me.

This lack of engagement of t