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)

MONDAY, NOVEMBER 26, 2007

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 25, Number 5

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Page

Introductions by Members

Tributes

Eunice Michael

Hon. P. Bell

Introductions by Members

Statements (Standing Order 25 B )

Riverview Hospital lands

D. Thorne

International Day for the Elimination

of Violence Against Women

M. Polak

C. Trevena

Crossroads Hospice

I. Black

Farmers' market nutrition and coupon

pilot project

J. Kwan

Steveston Community Centre

J. Yap

Oral Questions

Child poverty in B.C.

C. James

Hon. C.

Richmond

J. Brar

N. Simons

Minimum wage

A. Dix

Hon. C.

Richmond

J. Kwan

D. Chudnovsky

Housing standards for income assistance

recipients

B. Ralston

Hon. C.

Richmond

Minimum wage

R. Fleming

Hon. C.

Richmond

Petitions

D. Routley

D. MacKay

D. Thorne

M. Farnworth

D. Routley

Tabling Documents

Report of the Crown Proceeding Act,

fiscal year ended March 31, 2007

British Columbia Utilities Commission ,

2006-07 Annual Report

Point of Privilege (continued)

D. Routley

Standing Order 81.1

Adoption of government business

schedule

Hon. M. de

Jong

Committee of the Whole House

Greenhouse Gas Reduction Targets Act

(Bill 44)

S. Simpson

Hon. B. Penner

G. Robertson

J. Horgan

D. Cubberley

Report and Third Reading of Bills

Greenhouse Gas Reduction Targets Act

(Bill 44)

[ Page 9469 ]

MONDAY, NOVEMBER 26, 2007

The House met at 1:34 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Introductions by Members

D. Thorne: Today I have the privilege of having four guests

in the gallery that I would like to introduce. I would like to introduce Donna

Crosby. She is the president of the Riverview Horticultural Society in my

riding. Her husband Ken Crosby is a member of the Riverview Horticultural

Society.

I am also introducing Carole Edwards, who is a member of the Burke

Mountain Naturalists, and Mary Brown, who is a member of the Burke Mountain

Naturalists and the Riverview Horticultural Society.

[1335]

These four hard-working volunteers are representing many, many

people in the communities of Port Moody, Coquitlam and Port Coquitlam who are

listening today to see the petitions around the Riverview lands tabled at three

o'clock. I would like the House to welcome these four people as if they were

4,000.

Tributes

EUNICE MICHAEL

Hon. P. Bell: I'm saddened to inform the House that a good

friend of mine, Eunice Michael from Mackenzie, passed away on November 11 of

this year. That date is even more relevant in that her husband Tom is a World

War II veteran who flew Spitfires in the European theatre during World War II. I

know it was a very tough Remembrance Day for Tom that day.

Eunice was an incredible individual — a real pioneer in the

Mackenzie region of British Columbia and someone who had a wide variety of

careers, from log scaler to nurse to private entrepreneur. She contributed

tremendously to the community and, in fact, was awarded the Citizen of the Year

in Mackenzie this past year.

Eunice is what makes Mackenzie a great place to live, British

Columbia a tremendous province and Canada a great country. Certainly, I know

that she will be remembered fondly by all who knew her.

Introductions by Members

G. Coons: I'd like to welcome Steven Pratt into the House

today. Steven grew up in Winlaw, which is in the Slocan Valley. Steven has lived

in Victoria for six years and drives for Victoria cabs. The member for

Nelson-Creston and I had the opportunity and the privilege of having lunch with

him today.

Please make Steven welcome.

Statements

(Standing Order 25

B) RIVERVIEW HOSPITAL LANDS

D. Thorne: I'm pleased to rise today to speak about the

Riverview lands, which are located in my constituency of

Coquitlam-Maillardville.

In 1904 the province of B.C. dedicated 405 hectares of land on the

west side of the Coquitlam River to provide treatment facilities for the

mentally ill. Within ten years B.C.'s first provincial botanist, John Davidson,

had planted over 300 native species at Riverview, including 30 species of trees,

to form the first provincial botanical garden and arboretum.

Since the 1960s the hospital's population has declined, and nearly

300 hectares were sold in the 1980s for market housing. Over the years there

have been many rumours that the province planned to sell all or part of the

remaining Riverview lands. This prompted the city of Coquitlam to set up a task

force in December '03.

The task force recommended that the Riverview lands be kept in

public ownership with enhanced services and housing for mental health and

wellness; that the botanical heritage and ecology of the lands be protected;

that centres of research, education and innovation be established on the site;

and that opportunities be provided for heritage, arts and cultural endeavours.

The Riverview lands are an important heritage and ecological

treasure. The prospect of them being covered with dozens of condo towers is of

great concern to residents not just in my community but throughout B.C.

Thousands have signed petitions against commercial development of the lands. I

will be submitting these later this afternoon.

In closing, I urge the government to follow the recommendations of

Coquitlam's task force and preserve the ecology, tranquility and mental health

purposes of the entire Riverview site.

INTERNATIONAL DAY FOR THE

ELIMINATION OF VIOLENCE

AGAINST WOMEN

M. Polak: Last night as the sun set, a small group of

people gathered at Innes Corners in Langley city. The group included

representatives from Ishtar Transition Housing Society, the mayor, city and

township councillors, the wife of the local MP and the chief superintendent of

the Langley detachment of the RCMP.

Together with those who have been touched by the tragedy that is

violence against women, we gathered to remember the victims past and present and

to stand in solidarity with those who continue the struggle to change an

increasingly violent world.

[1340]

We were not alone. Sunday marked the beginning of an international

effort to put the issue of violence against women squarely before us. For 16

days around the world, people from all walks of life will involve

[ Page 9470 ]

themselves in acts of remembrance and initiatives of hope. While the violence

that confronts us on the six o'clock news usually highlights gangs and gun

fights, the fact remains that fully 40 percent of homicides involve individuals

who have an intimate relationship. Many, if not most, of these victims are women

and children. Domestic violence touches everyone because it affects our society

in such a deep and profound way.

The message of the International Day for the Elimination of

Violence Against Women is that each one of us has a role to play in the

solution. Let each of us find that role and work together for a future that is

safer for women and girls.

C. Trevena: I too rise today to mark the International Day

for the Elimination of Violence Against Women. In Canada we usually mark

December 6 as the day to commemorate women victims of violence. That's the sad

anniversary of the day in 1989 when 14 women were killed at l'École

Polytechnique de Montréal — killed because they were women.

The 25th of November was designated by the United Nations as the

international day because that marks the anniversary of the assassination in

1960 of three sisters who were political activists in the Dominican Republic. It

was a killing ordered by the dictator Rafael Trujillo.

Violence against women is not bounded by political ideology. It's

as likely to happen in a democracy as in a dictatorship. At least one out of

every three women around the world has been beaten, coerced into sex or

otherwise abused in her lifetime, with the abuser usually being someone known to

her.

Violence is wrong, and violence against women is an insidious

violation of human rights. It destroys homes and communities. The costs of

violence are huge. In South Africa a study has found that women who are beaten

are 48 percent more likely to be infected with HIV. In the U.S. it's been

estimated that intimate-partner violence costs $5.8 billion a year in medical

care and lost productivity.

UNIFEM, the United Nations development fund for women, has

launched an online petition today, www.saynotoviolence.org. It hopes to collect

hundreds of thousands of signatures from people who say, "Enough," from people

who want to see that our domestic laws are strengthened to stop violence against

women, that services for women such as women's centres are supported and that,

internationally, organizations place violence against women high on the

political agenda.

We should all be willing to state that one attack on one woman is

one attack too many.

CROSSROADS HOSPICE

I. Black: I've risen in this House a few times to pay

tribute to the staff, the board, the volunteers and the community supporters of

Crossroads Hospice located in Port Moody but serving the entire Tri-Cities area.

Friday was their annual Treasures of Christmas gala fundraiser. It

was once again a very elegant affair — and a full house, with about 400 in

attendance. I spoke Friday night and reflected on my personal history with

Crossroads. It was not an easy speech to deliver, as you can imagine, but it's

likely one of the easiest ones I've ever had to write. I got to reflect on my

friends who've received care there and on other friends whose artwork fills its

halls.

Crossroads has evolved into a touchstone of sorts for me, as it

has for so many in the Tri-Cities whose lives it has touched. Crossroads brings

an element of comfort, understanding, support and dignity to all those receiving

care and to the family and friends who are faced with what is often such a sad

journey. It is from those staff members that we learn that we're not alone, that

our fears and our sadness are to be expected, and that they can be overcome.

Part of their fundraising and awareness campaign for this year was

on display on Friday night. It involves a calendar, the photos of which are a

breath of fresh air. Patients, staff and volunteers alike have taken a cheeky

look at life, showing that those who provide and receive hospice care can find

laughter in their days and even be a little provocative.

Mr. Speaker, I'm delighted to advise that each member of this

House will be receiving one from me later today or tomorrow.

In Crossroads Hospice we see some of the best sides of humanity.

As I have every year since being elected, I ask you to once again join me in

paying tribute to the special men and women who work in hospice care all across

British Columbia but particularly at Crossroads Hospice.

[1345]

FARMERS' MARKET NUTRITION

AND COUPON PILOT PROJECT

J. Kwan: I rise today to make members of this House and the

public aware of an exciting new program being coordinated by the B.C.

Association of Farmers Markets. Farmers' markets on Commercial Drive, Trout Lake

and the West End — and, in fact, everywhere in our community — are loved by the

public because they can access local, nutritious food directly from farmers.

The farmers' market nutrition and coupon pilot project is about

promoting the health of B.C. families by providing low-income pregnant women and

low-income families an opportunity to buy fresh B.C.-produced farm products.

This is a program which supports our local farmers. It increases the sale of

fresh B.C.-grown farm products at farmers' markets. It assists coupon-recipient

families to buy directly from B.C. farmers in a family-friendly setting.

This project works closely with local cooking and skill-building

programs to help coupon-recipient families to increase their nutrition,

knowledge and skills in preparing fresh B.C. farm products. All coupon money

stays within B.C. and supports the local economy of our communities.

The program has operated in all five of the regional health

authorities in B.C. — Prince George, Kelowna, Courtenay, Coquitlam and

Vancouver. The project has

[ Page 9471 ]

served a range of populations — most significantly, aboriginal and immigrant

and refugee families. In this time, we've seen families living on limited

incomes access B.C.-grown fruits and vegetables and other nutritious B.C. farm

products while receiving nutrition and cooking-skill education.

A recent evaluation of the project found the following.

Participants are accessing the coupons and using them at local markets. The

program is benefiting low-income families, particularly those with children in

the zero-to-six age group. Farmers are participating and contributing beyond the

basic requirements of the project. Participants are being introduced to new

local foods and are learning how to prepare local foods.

The pilot program has proved to be an overwhelming success and has

shown tangible benefits to low-income families, B.C. farmers and communities at

large. I ask all members of the House to join me in thanking Anna Kirbyson and

the B.C. Association of Farmers Markets for this wonderful initiative.

STEVESTON COMMUNITY CENTRE

J. Yap: I rise today to recognize an important anniversary

in my riding of Richmond-Steveston. On November 3 the Steveston Community Centre

celebrated its 50th anniversary. Since 1957 the centre has been pursuing its

goal of a positive spirit of Steveston by providing a place for cultural, social

and recreational opportunities for all members of the community.

The centre was established by the Steveston Community Society, a

volunteer organization which has been in existence in Richmond in one form or

another since 1891. Today the Steveston Community Centre boasts a wide range of

facilities, including a gymnasium, multipurpose meeting rooms, the

Japanese-Canadian Cultural Centre, a martial arts facility, indoor and outdoor

tennis courts, a lacrosse box, two softball diamonds, a fitness track, a

playground, a picnic area, outdoor basketball courts and a water park.

The centre also hosts programs that make a difference in our

community. For seniors, programs include wellness clinics and recreation. For

youth, there are programs that help encourage leadership and community spirit.

SWAT, or Steveston with Active Teens, is a group of youths who make a difference

by planning events in Steveston supporting important causes and giving back to

the community as part of a team.

The Steveston United Peers group brings together youth with

developmental disabilities in a safe, supervised environment. This program helps

all youth to develop a better understanding of diversity and improved social

skills in an inclusive environment.

And of course, every July 1 the centre comes alive with the Canada

Day salmon festival and parade.

I ask the House to join me in thanking society president Ben

Branscombe and all the staff, directors and volunteers both present and past who

have made the Steveston Community Centre such an excellent hub of activity and

community spirit. We wish them the very best for the next 50 years.

Introductions by Members

Hon. R. Thorpe: I have the pleasure of introducing to the

House Rosalind and Sonya Chapman. Rosalind recently at a charity auction bid to

have lunch with — this is their words — "three of the finest media reporters in

British Columbia: Les Leyne, Vaughn Palmer and Keith Baldrey."

Would the House please make Rosalind and Sonya welcome.

[1350]

Oral Questions

CHILD POVERTY IN B.C.

C. James: For the fourth year in a row, British Columbia is

the province with the worst record on child poverty. B.C. Liberal policies and

inaction are making it harder for families to get by, and the result is that

more and more children are living below the poverty line. It's a shameful and

alarming record, and one this government refuses to address.

My question is to the Minister of Employment and Income

Assistance. At a time when his government is sitting on record surpluses, how

can he justify his government's shameful record on child poverty?

Hon. C. Richmond: We on this side of the House take the

well-being of children very seriously. We are dedicated to improving their

lives. This report uses data from 2005. Since then, we've taken some major

steps. For example, in this year's budget we increased the welfare rates for all

those on assistance.

This opposition, including their leader, voted against it. When

they had a chance, year after year after year, to do something about rates and

increase them, they did nothing. Not only did they not increase rates, but they

drove the economy in the ground so that any of those who wanted to leave income

assistance couldn't find a job.

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

C. James: Well, it's typical — typical of this government

to point fingers everywhere else except looking at their direction, their policy

and their inaction that caused the child poverty stats we see today.

The minister should take some time and actually read the report,

actually pay attention to this issue. It's not simply about families living on

income assistance. The report shows that over half of B.C.'s poor children have

a parent who has a full-time job. These are hard-working British Columbians

trying to make ends meet, and this government is just putting up barriers at

every turn.

Housing is more unaffordable than ever, tuition has never been

more expensive, and families are paying more for the basics. The Premier's own

Progress Board said that the government is failing on this issue, but they've

done nothing to reverse the trends.

[ Page 9472 ]

My question is again to the Minister of Employment and Income

Assistance: what is he going to do today? Not in the future, not way in 2020,

but right now, today — what is he going to do to reverse those numbers and do

something about child poverty?

Hon. C. Richmond: Last month the C.D. Howe Institute came

out with a report on poverty, and I don't remember anyone questioning me about

that report. It was authored by Professor Richards of Simon Fraser University,

and he validated that the best way out of poverty is employment. People are much

better off, including children and families, when they're working.

Since 2001, we have created 370,000 new jobs — coincidentally,

almost the identical number of the people who were on welfare in the '90s. Since

2005, we've put in a major rental assistance program available to all families,

whether they're on income assistance or not, earning $28,000 or less a year, and

this opposition voted against it.

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

C. James: The minister can talk all he wants, but it's very

clear that nothing is making a difference — nothing this government is doing —

except putting more children into poverty.

Some 48 percent of B.C. children living in poverty are raised by

single mothers. This government has done nothing to help them. In fact, it was

this government that cut income assistance rates, that cut child care programs,

that closed women's centres and that refuses to raise the minimum wage.

[1355]

It is very clear that this government's priorities are wrong, and

the result is the report we see. For the fourth year in a row, B.C. is number

one when it comes to child poverty. But what are this government's priorities? A

convention centre that is $400 million over budget and ministry board rooms that

cost over $500,000.

My question is to the Minister of Employment and Income

Assistance. Just how many children could he have helped with the $400 million

overrun that he put into the trade and convention centre?

Hon. C. Richmond: Going by the numbers that I have in front

of me — and they're today's numbers, not from 2003 or 2004 or 2005 — in the

'90s.…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Minister, just….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. C. Richmond: They don't like to hear about that dismal

decade.

Interjection.

Hon. C. Richmond: When you were in cabinet…. When that

member for Yale-Lillooet was in cabinet, one in seven children was in a family

on welfare. The number now is one in 30.

We have the lowest income taxes in Canada for anyone on a low

income. Anyone earning less than $16,000 a year pays no provincial income tax.

We've eliminated MSP premiums for thousands of British Columbians, and since

2001 over 111,000 people have been taken off the welfare rolls and put back to

work.

J. Brar: If you listen to the answers from the minister,

it's very clear that this minister is out of touch with reality. Let's be very

clear that this report by Campaign 2000 came out today, and it is the fourth

year in a row that B.C. has had the highest level of child poverty in the

country.

Last year this minister stood up in the House and said exactly the

same thing that is being said today by this minister. I would like to ask the

question to this minister again. Does this minister believe that only one in 30

children lives in poverty in British Columbia, as he said last year in this

House?

Hon. C. Richmond: I think if any government should be

ashamed of their record in dealing with child poverty, it should be that party

over there when they were in government. We take the welfare of children very

seriously, as I've said, and we still feel that the best way to help children is

to make sure that their parents can find a job.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

J. Brar: It's hard to understand what the minister means by

"taking seriously." Let me add to list of what the minister has said. Since this

government took over, the number of homeless people in the province has doubled.

Since this government took over, the gap between rich and poor has doubled and

is the highest in the country.

[1400]

Too many people in British Columbia are being left behind by the

policies of this government. Clearly, the government policies are not working

when it comes to reducing child poverty in British Columbia.

I would like to ask the minister again: can the minister tell this

House what steps he's going to take specifically to reduce child poverty in

British Columbia?

Hon. C. Richmond: This government spends about $70 million

a year to assist people who are on income assistance get back into the

workforce, and our policies are working. Since 2001, 111,000 people have been

assisted to leave welfare and get back into the workforce.

S. Fraser: By increasing child labour.

Hon. C. Richmond: Oh, listen to him.

[ Page 9473 ]

I will reiterate. In the late '90s one in seven children lived in

families who were on social assistance or income assistance. Now the number is

one in 30. In the late '90s one in every ten British Columbians was on welfare.

N. Simons: The minister's answers are absolutely shocking.

They're not just shocking to the opposition. They're shocking to most British

Columbians, who feel that this government has failed children in this province.

We're six and a half years into his mandate, and he's still

relying on his speech from two years ago in which he said the numbers were

outdated. Well, this minister is outdated. The child poverty situation in this

province is as bad now as it was two years ago when he mentioned that same

statistic.

What is the minister going to do to address the issue today?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. C. Richmond: Earlier this year we increased shelter

and welfare rates for British Columbians.

How did you vote?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. C. Richmond: For those on income assistance wishing to

leave income assistance, our record is pretty good. We have managed to take

111,000 people off, and the average stay of a person expected to work is now

four months.

Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental.

N. Simons: I think that answer was…. I would categorize it

as lame. The minister knows very well that there were a lot of things in that

budget we voted against. There were a lot of things we voted against in that

budget.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Take your seat.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Listen to the question; listen to the

answer.

Continue, Member.

N. Simons: I don't know if the minister opposite knows who

these children are, but it's more than statistics, and it's more than

regurgitated answers from two years ago.

This is a child poverty situation that leads Canada. We are number

one in child poverty — number one. The minister is always proud about everything

else he seems to be making up, but we're number one in child poverty.

I know who those children are. I see those children. They go to

school hungry. They go to school with clothes that aren't the same as their

friends in school, and this minister is thinking about regurgitating old

statistics.

This is a problem today. What is the minister going to do now to

address this serious problem in British Columbia?

[1405]

Hon. C. Richmond: One of the things we did as a government

this year was to make sure that anyone with a low income — under $28,000 a year

— could receive shelter assistance so they could spend more money on their

children.

MINIMUM WAGE

A. Dix: The minister said his plan is working. Tenth,

according to Campaign 2000, in child poverty — our record in Canada. Statistics

Canada says more people per capita are below the poverty line than in any other

province in Canada. The Minister of Finance's own Progress Board says that we're

ninth in Canada in the social condition. How is this plan working? Not very

well, hon. Speaker.

He talks about voting. That minister, the Minister of Employment

and Income Assistance, voted a 54-percent wage increase for the Premier.

Let me ask him this question. Will he as Minister of Employment

and Income Assistance today stand up and support an increase to $10 in the

minimum wage?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. C. Richmond: According to all the latest statistics,

the people that are living below the poverty line — and that's a debatable

line…. It's heading in the….

Interjections.

Hon. C. Richmond: It is.

An Hon. Member: One thing for sure: you're above it.

Hon. C. Richmond: And so are you, Mr. Member, and I intend

to stay above it.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. C. Richmond: The reduction in poverty is headed in the

right direction. It's not going necessarily

[ Page 9474 ]

as fast as we would like it to, but it's going very, very quickly. People are

now able to find work in British Columbia, and even the C.D. Howe Institute

backs up our philosophy that the best thing we can do for children and families

is to make sure they have work.

Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental.

A. Dix: Not making progress. Tenth place, worst in Canada

in child poverty, and the minister talks about not making progress. Let me ask

the minister this, because he voted in this House…. His government voted in this

House to cut the budget of the Ministry of Children and Families by 23 percent.

His government voted in this House to cut income assistance for single mothers.

His government reduced the minimum wage by 25 percent.

Here we are today, 2007. I ask the minister this. Will he support

an increase in the minimum wage today?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. C. Richmond: Let me repeat a quote that came out last

month — not two years or three years ago — from the C.D. Howe Institute from a

professor at Simon Fraser University: "One of the best ways to tackle poverty is

through a strong economy, because we know that people and families are better

off when they're working."

J. Kwan: It was this government that changed the welfare

rules that actually claw back child maintenance for families and children. It

was this government who actually brought forward rules that made it really hard

for low-income people to access support. This government dismantled the social

safety net, and this minister knows it.

[1410]

Today 174,000 children are living in poverty under this

government's watch — the worst record in B.C. One-third of the food bank users

are children, and yet this government has done nothing to assist children who

are in need. They have done nothing to raise the minimum wage and in fact took

the reverse order and brought in the training wage.

My question to the minister is this. Why won't he assist the

working poor today? Why won't he assist children by ensuring that there is a

lift in the minimum wage?

Hon. C. Richmond: Let me remind the member that it was this

government this year that raised welfare rates and that opposition that voted

against it.

A family of four earning $30,000 or less pays $1,364 less in

provincial income tax and MSP premiums than they did previously.

Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental.

J. Kwan: The fact is that the annual income on welfare of a

single parent with a child is $16,282 a year, which works out to be about

$10,541 below the poverty line. The fact is that this government has made it

even more difficult for people to get on income assistance.

We have some 250,000 people making less than $10 an hour. We have

the highest child poverty rate for four consecutive years in British Columbia.

My question to the minister: does he think that it is appropriate

for families to be making less than $10 an hour? If he doesn't think that is

appropriate, will he stand up and tell his government and this Premier that it

is time to raise the minimum wage to $10 an hour?

Hon. C. Richmond: I think it's appropriate for people in

British Columbia to be able to find employment.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Minister, take your seat.

Continue.

Hon. C. Richmond: To that end, we have placed 111,000

people back into the workforce since we took office in 2001. We think that's

important. It's a drop in people on assistance of about 44 percent in the last

six years.

D. Chudnovsky: We all heard, a few minutes ago, this

minister say that he thinks we're doing pretty good — and that's a quote:

"pretty good" — when it comes to child poverty in this province.

So 25 percent of the kids in the province are living in poverty.

We're tenth out of ten for the fourth year in a row, and this minister says that

we're doing pretty good. It's as if he doesn't know and understand that we're

talking about real people. We're talking about real children.

From this minister, we get excuses, we get theory and we get

abstractions. But he can do something very concrete for the people for whom he's

supposed to advocate. That's his job. He can do something very concrete. He can

stand in this House today and say that he supports a $10-an-hour minimum wage

that will do a little bit to improve the lives of the people that he's supposed

to advocate for. Will he say that today?

Hon. C. Richmond: What I said was that we are headed in the

right direction. We are making some progress, which is more than your party did

when you were in government. Your progress was all the other way. In fact, you

had 375,000 people on welfare. You measured your success by the number of people

you had on income assistance.

[1415]

I think that we are headed in the right direction. We are finding

work for people. People now at least have a job that they can go to without

leaving the province, and they have a chance of bettering their lives. To

reiterate what I've said and we've said all along, the best thing

[ Page 9475 ]

we can do for children is make sure that their parents can find a job.

HOUSING STANDARDS FOR

INCOME ASSISTANCE RECIPIENTS

B. Ralston: The minister talks about progress in British

Columbia, but recently the fire commissioner in Surrey shut down a house, a

single-family house, which housed 17 people living in compartments in the

basement, described by health officials as squalor. The mayor of Surrey attacked

this situation as "a human warehouse." In this case, something was a little bit

unusual. All of the rental cheques were provided by the Ministry of Employment

and Income.

What steps is the minister taking to ensure that these people get

the kind of accommodation that every human being deserves?

Hon. C. Richmond: We have a task force in Vancouver and the

lower mainland that does just exactly what the member asked for. We go out and

make sure that clients of our ministry are indeed living in the accommodation

they're supposed to be. We work with the health people and with the police

forces to make sure that bylaws are being adhered to. We've also increased — not

in my ministry — the housing budget by three times since coming to government in

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

B. Ralston: The mayor of Surrey again: "If the goal of the

respective ministries is to protect these people, they're falling short." So the

minister may say that there's some program on the ground, but it's clearly not

working.

What steps is the minister going to take to ensure that these

people enjoy the kind of housing that everyone deserves?

Hon. C. Richmond: We have a very dedicated staff out there

who go to extreme lengths to find suitable housing for our clients. A good

example was lately, when a house was closed in Vancouver. Our staff worked

literally around the clock to house those people. In fact, they even got a

letter of commendation from the city of Vancouver. So we take it very seriously,

whether the opposition thinks we do or not. Our dedicated staff work very, very

hard to see that they have the best accommodation possible for our clients.

MINIMUM WAGE

R. Fleming: The minister has said that dead last, tenth out

of ten, for four years running in Canada is going in the right direction for him

and for his government. Today he doesn't get it. Today, in question after

question, he doesn't understand that we're talking about devastating poverty

rates for children who are in families where the parent has a job. We're talking

about the working poor.

So the question to the minister again…. A $10 minimum wage would

put $4,000 a year more into a single family household. That's food, that's

clothing, and that's a hand up out of poverty. Will he endorse it? Will he ask

the Premier to do it and make this government introduce a $10 minimum wage?

Hon. C. Richmond: The member talks about the working poor.

I don't think he heard what I said when I said that anyone making $28,000 a year

or less is entitled to shelter assistance now in the home they live in so that

they can stay in the place they live, have more money in their pockets, can put

more food on the table for their children and make a better life for their

families. That happens instantaneously, not at some promise down the road.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

[1420]

R. Fleming: This is an income crisis, which is leading

British Columbia to be number 10 — dead last — in child poverty rates in Canada.

We're not the poorest province, mind you, but we have the highest incidence of

child poverty in the country. It's shameful.

Will the minister support income policy that will put more money

into the hands of the families and the children in British Columbia that are

living in poverty today?

Hon. C. Richmond: I've already told the opposition several

times. We put a program in place to put more money in the hands of people, and

you voted against it.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. C. Richmond: There is one item that the people of the

province remember very vividly — of being number 10 in the province. We started

out number 1 in 1990, and we ended up number 10 in 2001.

[End of question period.]

D. Routley: I'd like to present a petition.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

Petitions

D. Routley: This is a petition from 280 of my constituents

who are calling on the government to restore protections for manufactured home

owners.

D. MacKay: I have a petition signed by 76 people from 24

communities throughout British Columbia asking the government to reactivate the

Select Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs following the implications of

the key issues arising from the Tsawwassen and Maa-nulth treaties.

[ Page 9476 ]

D. Thorne: I am pleased to rise to table petitions signed

by almost 6,000 residents throughout British Columbia requesting that the

Riverview lands in Coquitlam be reserved for mental health and community

purposes and not be sold for market housing.

M. Farnworth: I too have a petition signed by over 5,000

names, which brings the total to over 11,000 names, on a petition to protect the

Riverview lands in the Tri-Cities area.

D. Routley: I present a petition. This is signed by over

120 parents from my riding who are calling on the government to restore full

funding to the child care resource and referral services in British Columbia.

Tabling Documents

Hon. W. Oppal: I have the honour to present two reports:

the Crown Proceeding Act report for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2007, and

the British Columbia Utilities Commission 2006-07 Annual Report .

Point of Privilege

(continued)

D. Routley: I rise today in response to the matter of

privilege raised by the Minister of Health on Thursday morning regarding my

constituent Karen Haarala and her 89-year-old mother.

The minister was refuting concerns expressed by my constituent

about the level of care her mother was receiving at the Lodge on 4th in

Ladysmith by reading a letter from the CEO of the Vancouver Island Health

Authority. The facts that I brought to the House have been confirmed in writing

by my constituent Ms. Haarala.

In response to the point of privilege raised by the minister, I am

now going to lay out the dispute in facts and therefore establish that the

minister's comments were, in fact, not a matter of privilege. Second, I wish to

express my disappointment that the minister would raise this matter and dismiss

my constituent's concerns without ever talking to a member of the family in

question.

Mr. Speaker, I am about to read from a letter sent to me yesterday

from Ms. Haarala. She starts the letter by describing her mother's condition and

the 24-hour care she requires. She writes:

"Recently I have felt very tired and overwhelmed at times

caring for my mother's needs so she could be home and cared for instead of being

in an institution. I just needed a break, and home care nurses arranged for my

mother to have a two-week respite stay at the Lodge on 4th."

[1425]

In her letter she provides a time line that includes:

"October 19. Arrival at the lodge. I unpacked my mom's

clothes and arranged them on hangers in the wardrobe in her room. I brought a

schedule recording all her inhaler medications and times when it was

administered. There were also other medications she needed, and of course,

oxygen had to be provided.

"When I returned, I visited my mom and found her

wearing a hospital gown, diapers, and she had bedsores. The most critical one

was located at the base of her spine. It was large, open and bleeding. She

complained of pain in her buttocks. The staff, who I found to be very caring and

hard-working, said they didn't have enough time to do all they were required to

do. I spoke to LPNs and care workers of my concerns of her not being mobilized,

and of our family doctor saying that she needed to be turned every two hours and

have physiotherapy.

"When I asked, 'How often does physio come in?'

nobody had the answer. There seemed to me to be a breakdown in communications.

Only LPNs are allowed to give out medications and seem to be always rushing

around to accomplish their goals. The staff are wonderful and hard-working. The

problem is: there are simply not enough of them.

"I voiced my opinions one day, and Sue Abermann,

the director, noticed I was very distressed. She apologized to me for my mother

having suffered because of their newness. She stated there was enough staff. I

disagreed."

She goes on to say that on November 19 she went to

administration offices on the second floor at 9:10 a.m. She says:

"I asked the receptionist to make me an appointment with

the head of patient care, Joan Roberts. The receptionist said that she didn't

make appointments, that she was not in and that she did not know her schedule. I

asked the receptionist to make me an appointment with the director, Sue

Abermann. The response was again the same. I asked the receptionist to make me

an appointment with the social worker. Once again, I was given the same

response. I asked the receptionist: 'Is there anyone that I can speak to?' The

receptionist replied that there was a payroll person in. I left very frustrated.

"An appointment was finally made later that day by

Ms. Roberts and myself. The appointment was to be at 10 a.m. the following day,

November 20. On November 20 I arrived at 9:51 a.m. I was told that Ms. Roberts

had just left the building, and the receptionist seemed surprised when I told

her I had an appointment at ten.

"The receptionist tried to call Ms. Roberts on her

cell, but there was no response. The receptionist did not know when she would be

back. In all fairness to Ms. Roberts, she did leave an apologetic message on my

answering machine later in the day."

She goes on to say:

"We are now going into the sixth week, and I have great

fears concerning my mother. She is very frail. My hope is that she can come home

soon. I still maintain that the problem at the Lodge on 4th is a staffing

problem. I commend the staff there, who are working in an impossible situation.

They really deserve to have an addition to their shifts. I often have seen them

run right off their feet. It is not their fault. If my mother's needs couldn't

be met, then I should have been informed.

"I am sure that there are others in the same

situation. What happens when there are more acute residents? What about safety?"

Mr. Speaker, I'll table this letter, and I urge the

Minister of Health to read it. I also urge the minister to speak with family

members before rising in this chamber to cast doubt on their experiences. I

invite the minister to hear from family members at a public forum taking place

in Ladysmith on December 1.

I will send him details — and I believe my office did about a

month ago — and I hope to see him there, so he can hear in person from families

that are directly

[ Page 9477 ]

impacted by the government's failure to resource seniors homes properly.

If there was an independent representative for seniors, these

kinds of disputes and facts would not have to come before the Legislature. I

submit for your perusal the full statement from the family, and I trust that you

will indeed find that the point of privilege that the minister raised is just a

dispute in facts.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you, Member. I'll take both submissions

under advisement.

[1430]

Standing Order 81.1

ADOPTION OF GOVERNMENT BUSINESS

SCHEDULE

Hon. M. de Jong: I rise to advise the House that the

government and the opposition, via the Opposition House Leader, have come to an

agreement pursuant to Standing Order 81.1(1) with respect to the completion of

the following bills for debate: Bill 44, the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Targets

Act; Bill 45, the Maa-nulth First Nations Final Agreement Act; and Bill 46, the

First Nations Education Act — and for debate through all of the various stages

on those bills to conclude by the end of the day on Thursday, November 29, 2007.

However, an agreement was not reached between the Opposition House

Leader and me with respect to several pieces of legislation pursuant to Standing

Order 81.1. Those bills, to specify: Bill 39, the Electoral Boundaries

Commission Amendment Act, 2007, and Bill 43, the Greater Vancouver

Transportation Authority Amendment Act, 2007.

I therefore move the following motion pursuant to Standing Order

81.1(2), and that motion is as follows:

[Pursuant to Standing Order 81.1 (2), on or before November 29,

2007 at 6:00 p.m. all remaining stages on Bill ( No. 43) intituled Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority Amendment Act, 2007 shall be

completed and disposed of. At 4:00 p.m. on the date mentioned, the

Speaker and the Chair of Committee of the Whole will forthwith put all necessary

questions for the disposal of all remaining stages of the said Bill without

amendment or debate. Any divisions called on the second or third reading of such

Bill may be taken in accordance with Standing Order 16 and all other divisions

will be covered by Practice Recommendation No. 1. Proceedings under this motion

shall not be subject to the provisions of Standing Order 81 or the Standing or

Sessional Orders relating to times and days of sitting of the House.]

I have a copy of that motion for the Opposition House Leader as well.

[1435]

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 39

Falcon

Reid

Coell

Ilich

Christensen

Les

Richmond

Bell

Krueger

Roddick

Hayer

Jarvis

Nuraney

Whittred

Cantelon

Thorpe

Hagen

Oppal

de Jong

Taylor

Bond

Hansen

Abbott

Penner

Neufeld

Coleman

Hogg

Sultan

Bennett

Lekstrom

Mayencourt

Polak

Hawes

Yap

Bloy

MacKay

Black

McIntyre

Rustad

NAYS — 31

Brar

S. Simpson

Fleming

Farnworth

James

Kwan

Ralston

Cubberley

Hammell

Coons

Thorne

Simons

Gentner

Routley

Fraser

Horgan

Lali

Dix

Trevena

Bains

Robertson

Karagianis

Evans

Krog

Austin

Chudnovsky

Chouhan

Wyse

Sather

Macdonald

Conroy

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: I call committee stage debate of Bill 44,

the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Targets Act.

Committee of the Whole House

GREENHOUSE GAS REDUCTION

TARGETS ACT

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 44; K.

Whittred in the chair.

The committee met at 2:40 p.m.

D. Routley: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

D. Routley: It is my privilege to introduce a friend of

mine, longtime Duncan city councillor Sharon Jackson, who has served the

community of Duncan with dedicated devotion to duty and firm commitment to the

principles of fairness and equity.

I would ask the members to please help me make her welcome in our

House — her House.

[ Page 9478 ]

Debate Continued

Section 1 approved.

section 2.

S. Simpson: This is

part 1, the "BC Greenhouse Gas Emission

Targets,"

section

Section 2 lists the targets to be established for 2020 and

2050. It says: "The following targets are established for the purpose of

reducing BC greenhouse gas emissions: (

a) by 2020 and for each subsequent

calendar year, BC greenhouse gas emissions will be at least 33% less than the

level of those emissions in 2007."

Could the minister tell us what analysis was done to come to the

number of 33 percent?

Hon. B. Penner: The member will remember that we spent a

considerable amount of time during estimates debate this spring on this very

issue. I can pull out the Hansard transcript from that debate if he'd

like. In fact, I'll ask my staff to send that in to me now. The answer will be

the same.

S. Simpson: I appreciate that the minister may want to

reread Hansard . This isn't about estimates now. This is about a piece of

legislation and the creation of a law.

Maybe the minister could tell us how that number was arrived at

and what analysis was done in order to get to that number.

Hon. B. Penner: The debate that we had around the estimates

process this spring is completely germane to this legislation, because this

legislation puts into law what we already committed to in the throne speech. The

member spent a considerable amount of time in the Legislative Assembly in the

spring asking about how those targets that were contained in the speech from the

throne were arrived at.

What we've done with Bill 44 is put those throne speech

commitments into law. I think that's the appropriate thing for us to have done.

S. Simpson: As the minister will know, hon. Chair, one of

our biggest criticisms about this is the total and absolute lack of any

discussion with the people of British Columbia about the government's climate

change plans and climate change initiatives. The people of British Columbia,

those people who would be interested in the government's move on climate change

in this law that's coming forward….

Is the minister suggesting, then, that he's going to ask those

people to all go back…? Or maybe the minister for the people of British Columbia

would like to explain and answer the question for the people of British Columbia

who might be interested in Bill 44.

[1445]

Hon. B. Penner: As the member will recall from our

extensive debate around this in spring — and we used up a fair bit of time at

the Legislature at that time — the government was wanting to be a leader in

North America in terms of addressing the causes of human-caused climate change.

So we took a look at what a number of other jurisdictions have committed to in

North America.

We also worked with ministry staff and consulted with people

outside of government, as well, on some of the ideas they had in terms of what

they thought was not just achievable but also economically viable.

We settled on the 33-percent target over the 2007 baseline. As

time has gone forward in terms of the inventory of data that's collected by the

federal government on greenhouse gas emissions — and as the member knows, the

federal government does that work on behalf of all provinces — the data has

become more and more precise. That is the reason why we chose 2007 for the

baseline and 33 percent as our reduction target for 2020.

S. Simpson: Maybe I'll just lay out the challenge I see. In

this legislation — and we'll talk a little bit about this — and in the

consequent work that went with it…. The Premier announced the climate action

team — the panel of people, including a number of recognized experts who will be

working from now through to the end of July to talk about 2012 and 2016 emission

targets that are referenced in the bill and will be providing some guidance to

government on that.

Then the government could take another six months to ponder the

recommendations of that team as to whether those are recommendations that the

government wants to step up and accept. We also know, and the minister has

talked about, the work of the secretariat and the cabinet committee and some

170-plus meetings that have been held by that body, either the secretariat or

the cabinet committee combined, to talk about these things.

The challenge here is this. We're providing about a year or more

to figure out 2012 and 2016 targets and how to get there, and that's fine. The

question I have is: how did we get to targets in a month or two, before any of

those personnel were in place, at 33 percent, when today we're going to take

more than a year to decide 2012 and 2016?

I'm trying to have confidence in the 33 percent when I see how

much work is going into 2012 and 2016. Could the minister explain the thinking

here so that we can have confidence in this number?

[1450]

Hon. B. Penner: I just want to correct something, an

impression that the member might have left for people who are paying attention

to this debate. The climate action team's role is not simply to come up with

interim targets for 2012 and 2016.

If the member refers to the third paragraph of the news release

that was issued on November 20 when we announced the appointment of the climate

action team, it says that their job is to help the government identify interim

targets for 2012 and 2016, and also to "identify

[ Page 9479 ]

further actions in the short and medium term to reduce emissions and meet the

2020 targets."

As well, they are to provide advice on the provincial government's

commitment to become carbon-neutral by 2010. They have three distinct different

roles that they are being asked to play, so they're being given some time to do

that. Their assignment is due at the end of July 2008.

The member will also recall that we said in the throne speech that

2007 would be a planning year. We would be working with various sectors across

the economy in British Columbia — from the volunteer sector to individuals,

industry, academia and others, including first nations — to help us set the 2012

and 2016 targets and to identify additional policy actions that the government

will undertake to get us to our 2020 targets.

S. Simpson: As to what the climate action team will do and

what advice they'll provide, I accept the minister's comments that they will

provide advice on a number of things. I would note, though, as the minister will

know, that under subsection 2(2) it says in the law that by December 31, 2008,

the minister must, by order, establish those targets.

Presumably, the reason for that is because it's going to take

pretty much to that time. It's the government's estimate at this time that it

will take another year or so in order to be in a position to be able to make

those commitments, or presumably the number would be a different number. I'm

talking about what's in the law that the minister wants to get passed here. The

committee will make its contributions to that as it sees fit.

The question still is this. It's fine with me if the minister

wants to get up and say: "The Premier read a few books. The four or five people

who worked on climate change in the government before the secretariat was put in

place provided some numbers that said, 'Here's what half a dozen places in the

world are doing; pick one of these.' The Premier picked it, and now we're going

to work to figure out how to make it happen."

If that's what happened, I'm happy to have the minister say that,

and we'll deal with that. The problem is this. If there's any substantive

evidence — empirical evidence, reports and analysis — to support the 33 percent,

release the information. Tell us what it is, and then people of British Columbia

will know how we got there.

As the minister will know, there's an ongoing public debate going

on in different sectors in British Columbia. Some are saying it's too

aggressive. Some are saying it's just right. Some are saying it would be easy to

accomplish. There's a whole array of views, and I accept all of those views from

different interests.

[1455]

But what does the government say to those people who say it's too

tough or just right or too easy, in terms of how they got to the 33 percent? I

would just like the minister to tell us where that number came from, in terms of

any evidence to support it — real evidence, on paper, that we can get access to.

Hon. B. Penner: I'd like to start by correcting the member

again, and this time for his comments about the staff that we have working in

the Ministry of Environment. It's not appropriate to disparage the work they do

and the importance that this government places upon the work they do.

He said, I think, that there are three or four people that work in

the Ministry of Environment on climate change. In fact, we've had a six-person

climate change division within the Ministry of Environment, and they've been

working on those issues for a long time.

In fact, in 2004 this government put out B.C.'s first-ever climate

change plan, and we've been working that plan ever since — the 40 separate items

that were identified in that plan. Clearly, we've gone to the next step,

including the setting of a 33-percent reduction target by 2020.

The member may need to be reminded that he himself has said on

numerous occasions that he supports the 33-percent reduction targets. In fact,

he said: "If that's achieved, it will be great." He said that on a former radio

program known as Nightline B.C. back on February 13, 2007. He's also

said, "It is very aggressive," and later: "I think everybody needs to be happy

that the government has recognized the importance of targets."

I take it from the member's previous comments that he is committed

to and supports the 33-percent reduction target.

S. Simpson: Hon. Chair, the minister is right. I don't

question whether it's a good number or a bad number. If we get to 33 percent,

that's fine. I have no problem. I just wanted to know how we get there. That

would be the question.

The minister talks about the staff. I'm not disparaging staff. But

as the minister will know, there weren't very many people working on this file

before we got to the appointment of the secretariat.

I would note that the minister might want to learn his facts a

little bit. There was a significant climate change plan and report produced by

the last government, which was torn up about the time that this government

abolished the Ministry of Environment.

The government abolished the Ministry of Environment because it

didn't believe in environment. It didn't believe in environment so it abolished

that ministry and created Water, Land and Air Protection. It put the resources

in. It put the dollars in.

Interjections.

The Chair: Order. Order.

Interjections.

S. Simpson: Unfortunately, though, this government, as we

know….

The Chair: Member, would you take your seat, please.

Members, we're in committee stage debate, and each member deserves

the right to ask a question and to hear the answer of the minister.

[ Page 9480 ]

Continue, Member.

S. Simpson: As we know, that plan was in place, but

unfortunately this government chose to tear up that plan when they abolished the

Ministry of Environment back in 2001.

I will accept and I will take it that there was no analysis done

before February on the 33 percent, and that number was drawn sort of out of the

air. That's okay. I'll accept that. I think that most British Columbians kind of

know…. That's pretty common wisdom now among people who look at this issue, so I

accept that.

My question now would be this. Since February, since the throne

speech has been written and presented in this House — and there has certainly

been more work done, a secretariat put in place and a cabinet committee put in

place — I'm assuming there has been significantly more work done on getting to

the 33 percent.

Could the minister, then, tell us what detailed work has been done

to confirm the 33-percent number now?

[1500]

Hon. B. Penner: I certainly don't recall ever seeing any

kind of a climate change plan put forward by the previous NDP government.

However, if I had, I would have looked at it with some interest, because it

resulted in a 24-percent increase in greenhouse gas emissions while the NDP was

in office. In fact, the single biggest year-to-year increase in greenhouse gas

emissions in British Columbia occurred in the late 1990s, while the NDP was in

office and our economy was flatlining.

That's not really the kind of record our government is seeking to

replicate. We're trying to find economic opportunities while dealing with the

pressing and incredibly important challenge of reducing greenhouse gas

emissions.

Our climate change staff in the ministry has been busy and remains

busy following 2001. They have worked to address a number of things — looking at

economic impacts and at identifying those options and actions that were doable.

That did result in a 40-point climate change plan that this government released

in 2004. It also resulted in the additional work that went ahead and a

33-percent target.

The member has asked what additional work we have been doing on

that 33-percent target for 2020. Let me make it very clear. We are committed to

that target. We are not revisiting whether or not we're going to work to achieve

that target. The legislation we're debating today encapsulates that target. We

are sticking with the 2020 target, which is a 33-percent reduction from 2007

levels.

S. Simpson: I'll remind the minister. Maybe the minister

was so engaged in revisionist history about the 1990s that he didn't hear the

question. Since the throne speech in February and since the budget in February,

when an additional $4 million was provided in order to ramp up the secretariat,

we've had six or seven months — whatever that number of months is — till we got

to today.

We know there have been a vast number of meetings. The minister

has talked about the 170-plus meetings. We know there's been a slide show from

the secretariat that's been trooped around a little bit in some communities. We

know that Mr. Whitmarsh has spoken to some groups, as presumably have the

minister and the Premier and others.

The question, then, is: what work has been done since that time in

order to validate the 33-percent number to ensure that we can get to that

number?

Hon. B. Penner: The member just asked a slightly different

question. He asked: what work are we doing to get us to the 2020 targets? His

previous question was: what work have we done in terms of the 2020 targets and

the 33-percent reduction? We are keeping to that 33-percent reduction target,

and that's why we've brought forward this legislation here today.

In terms of the action items or the work that's required to get us

to those objectives of a 33-percent reduction by 2020, the Speech from the

Throne did commit to a number of new, additional action items that have not been

implemented by any previous government in British Columbia, including a

requirement for zero routine flaring at producing wells and production

facilities in the oil and gas sector, a commitment to get greenhouse gas

emissions from the oil and gas sector in British Columbia down to 2000 levels by

2016 and a requirement that at least 90 percent of electricity on a go-forward

basis come from clean and renewable sources.

I note that under the previous government, the commitment was a

measly 10 percent. We've increased that to 90 percent.

[1505]

Effective immediately, British Columbia requires that if anyone

wants to bring forward an application for a coal-fired electricity plant, they

have to do so with carbon sequestration technology in mind. That puts us in the

lead in North America and, I think, the world in terms of the first jurisdiction

to have that policy requirement.

If you take a look at some other action items, we've been building

in this province a significant number of clean, 100-percent renewable

zero-emission run-of-the-river hydro projects. We're the first government in the

history of British Columbia to approve wind power projects. I think we've now

approved five of them. The list goes on.

I know the members of the opposition are prepared to sacrifice

those green power projects on the altar of their ideology and bias in favour of

government-owned projects, but our government thinks it's important that we

engage the private sector, as well, in helping us produce cleaner energy and

helping us meet our ambitious targets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 33

percent by 2020.

S. Simpson: What this side of the House doesn't want to do

is be able to address the problem by 2016 by

[ Page 9481 ]

paying too much for power and then lose that power altogether by 2030, when

those power purchase agreements expire, because British Columbians no longer own

the power in British Columbia — they're owned privately — and it all of a sudden

becomes a better deal to sell that power into California. We end up in a worse

situation than we would be in under other circumstances. That's why we'd be much

happier if the power that was produced by British Columbia resources was owned

by British Columbians instead of by private interests.

We'll move on a little bit here. Maybe I want to elaborate on

this. I heard this, I believe it was, back at the time of the throne speech. The

government spoke initially of saying…. They used both the numbers 2007 and 1990

in that speech. They talked about it being 33 percent under 2007 or 10 percent

under 1990, depending on which level you used.

I'm just wondering what the rationale was for deciding to use 2007

as the baseline to move forward, particularly since, as we'll learn under

section 3, the government hasn't yet determined what the 2007 baseline number

would be, what the level would be. It hasn't yet been determined. It will be.

The question I have is: why was it decided to use an indeterminate

number at this point, rather than, say, to pick a number like 1990, where in

fact the government would know where the starting point was now?

Hon. B. Penner: As I indicated in a previous answer a few

moments ago, the methodology for calculating the GHG inventory across Canada has

been improved over the last number of years, certainly from what it was in the

early 1990s. So as that analysis and that methodology have been refined and

improved, we have greater reliance on and confidence in the numbers that have

been provided to us by Statistics Canada.

In addition, we wanted to highlight the incremental steps, the

additional steps that the province will need to take as a whole over the next 13

years to get us to our 2020 targets. Therefore, we thought it made sense to

start from the year which we're in on a go-forward basis in setting 2007 as the

baseline year. I note that the opposition has done the same for some of the

documents that they've put out for their plan.

S. Simpson: Hon. Chair, I'd like to propose an amendment to

the bill.

Section 2 (1):

(

b) By striking out "2007" and

substituting "1990"]

On the amendment.

[1510]

The Chair: Member, speaking on the amendment.

S. Simpson: I've moved this amendment at this time because

it is our belief that 1990, particularly around the 2050 number, is a better

place to start from. I know that it does make a difference. I will pre-empt the

minister a little bit here, I'm sure, in his comments on the amendment. I know

that the minister is going to talk about percentages between 1990 and 2007, and

I've had a very interesting discussion with Professor Weaver about this in the

last few days.

I think the result of this is that, at the end of the day, if we

use the 1990 number, if the program is successful, we will be emitting about ten

million tonnes of emissions annually come 2050. If we use the 2007 number, we

will be emitting about 14 million tonnes annually come 2050. So it is about a

40-percent greater amount of emissions at the end result and the culmination in

2050. It's our belief that that number should be the stronger number.

Also, there are many — and I would agree with this — who would say

that there is going to be much that we're going to learn between now and the

next 43 years and that we may even do much better than that as our technologies

improve.

There are many who will tell us that zero-emission vehicles will

be the standard by the time we get to 2050, that technologies around building

construction will be such that buildings will no longer be emitting emissions,

and that technology around energy sources…. We will have passed peak oil many,

many years prior to that and will be using alternate energy sources — maybe

energy sources that we haven't even contemplated yet, considering how fast

technology moves and what the next 43-odd years are likely to provide for us.

The government has talked at numerous times about wanting to be

bold in its actions. We believe the boldest place for the government to land is

to land at 2050, with an 80-percent reduction by 1990. We would encourage the

government to make that change.

Hon. B. Penner: It does appear that the opposition is being

somewhat hypocritical, since their own documents put out in February 2007 talk

about a baseline year being 2007. We believe that it makes sense, for the sake

of consistency and public understanding, that we keep a consistent time line. So

we've set a 33-percent reduction target for 2020 based on 2007 levels, and we

believe it makes sense from a public perspective that we maintain that for when

we're talking about 2050 targets.

Climate change is a complicated topic. It can be confusing for the

public to follow along, and we're trying to make it as easy as possible to

understand exactly what it is the government is hoping to achieve and what we

expect.

Now, the member just referenced a conversation he had with Dr.

Andrew Weaver. For people who are not intimately familiar with Mr. Weaver's

background, let me just provide it to members here.

Dr. Andrew Weaver is a professor and Canada Research Chair in

atmospheric science in the school of earth and ocean sciences at the University

of Victoria. His contribution to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

jointly won him the Nobel peace prize just a few weeks ago. He shared that,

along with the other scientists, with Al Gore, the former U.S. Vice-President.

[ Page 9482 ]

He has written over 120 peer-reviewed papers in climate,

meteorology, oceanography, earth science, policy and education journals. He was

involved as a lead author in the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on

Climate Change second and third scientific assessments of climate change, and

presently serves on the UN's World Climate Research Program working group on

coupled modelling and the United States' National Academy of Sciences climate

research committee as well as on the NAS panel on climate feedbacks. He's

co-chair of the UNWCRP Intersection Panel and is an editor of the Journal of

Climate .

Now, my understanding is that Dr. Weaver supports the targets as

laid out in this legislation. I'm far more inclined to take advice from a

professional scientist than from others, because this is an area that is very

complex field when we're talking about atmospheric science and the like.

[1515]

I'll just refer to an exchange that the member suggested he knew

was coming. I'll share it with members here on the record. This is from November

21, 2007 on CKNW — last week. He was asked about some criticism about the

baseline year and why we're setting it at 2007 — Dr. Andrew Weaver.

The Environment critic for the opposition did a release and argued

that B.C. was actually projecting only 58-percent reductions relative to 1990

levels.

"I think he actually made a simple arithmetic error in his

calculations, because that's not correct. The reality is that if you take

80-percent cuts at 2007, that translates to 74 percent cuts relative to 1990.

"Frankly, whether it's 70, 80 or 90, the fact is that if you've got to push it above the threshold for existing technologies so

that they have to be replaced, then either 70, 80 or 90 does it. It's a moot

question. It's the type of political partisanship that needs to get away from

this climate portfolio."

This is a bold target. The bold target needs to be met, and it needs

to be met through bipartisan efforts.

As I indicated earlier as well, the data from Stats Canada and

Environment Canada going back to the 1990 reference point is not as robust as

the information that we have available today, due to improved methodologies and

improved accounting. That's why we feel comfortable with the 2007 baseline year.

It's a number we can have more confidence in.

G. Robertson: I'm just rising in favour of this amendment

as proposed by the member for Vancouver-Hastings.

So 1990 is the base year that has been substantiated as the

international standard. Many of the European Union countries and American states

have chosen 1990 as the baseline standard. It's a little peculiar, and I think

there's a political objective here on behalf of this government in choosing

2007. It sounds more dramatic when, in fact, it's the opposite.

It's more important for this government to match what has been

laid down as the international standard, particularly as B.C. becomes more and

more visible as an international leader on climate change. If this government

does back up these intentions in this legislation with actions that don't

contradict the objective of achieving these targets…. Currently most of the

actions of this government, in fact, are exacerbating our greenhouse gas

emissions, and billions of dollars are being directly invested in increasing

emissions.

We have a massive hypocrisy here. For us to be international

leaders on climate change, our actions have to match our words, our intentions.

Certainly, by not sticking to what is the established international standard as

a reference year, which is 1990, the entire Kyoto protocol, which this

government has spoken vigorously against from the year that they were first

elected into government…. They obviously have issues with the international

standards, the Kyoto protocol and all international efforts to lay down 1990 as

a base year and achieve reductions from there.

Many of the countries in Europe that made those commitments to

Kyoto have, in fact, made significant changes in government policy and

regulation and direct investments in achieving the greenhouse gas emission

targets. They are achieving targets and succeeding along the lines of the Kyoto

protocol.

Again, I think it's this government's choice to continue to avoid

the work that's been done internationally to establish 1990 as the target year.

I'll just remind the minister that when the opposition proposed 2007 as a

baseline, that proposal was tied to an emissions cap in 2007 so that the

baseline worked downward from a cap.

That commitment to an emissions cap has not been met by this

government. They are showing no signs of wanting to deal with capping greenhouse

gas emissions immediately, taking urgent action. Instead, we're looking 13 years

down the line before there is any significant achievement here.

[1520]

It is true, again, that many of B.C.'s experts, including Dr.

Andrew Weaver and Dr. David Suzuki, have called for 80- to 90-percent reductions

from 1990 levels. While it is in their interests to support the government

taking this action to legislate targets…. By comparison to the actions that this

government has taken in the years to date in power, it's a remarkable change of

pace.

I think it's important, in particular for the environmental

organizations that have fought so hard to bring the issue of climate change

forward, to push and push this government into setting targets. The fact that

targets are in front of us deserves some recognition, and I think that's what

we're hearing from many of those, particularly those who've worked on the

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. They have every reason to extend

support for the fact that we do have targets.

Now that we do have targets, the opposition wants to make sure

they are robust, that they stand up to international standards. There's no

reason to back away from this. In terms of boldness, let's be real with this.

Let's match what's out there and what the best science and scientists working on

this issue and winning Nobel prizes for doing so are establishing as a standard.

Instead of fiddling with the dates and going with a number…. We don't even know

what it is yet; 2007 hasn't been established.

[ Page 9483 ]

You can say that the math will be rigorous, that the emissions are

more measurable than they were in 1990, but the rest of the world isn't working

off of 1990. I will just close by saying that I strongly support setting these

targets based on 1990, making them relevant to the rest of the world and making

them as strong as possible.

Hon. B. Penner: To add a couple more comments just to

underscore again that the data for the 2007 year is going to be much more robust

and accurate than the data from 1990. In large measure what StatsCan has done is

gone back and tried to reconstruct what the actual emissions were from those

earlier years. Back in the early '90s it was not something that was measured on

a go-forward basis, so they've had to go back to reconstruct that data. Again,

we can have greater confidence in the reliability of the more modern dates.

However, I should also try and dispel some ideas that the

opposition is trying to create in people's minds that there's some kind of

uniform approach to the setting of numbers. In fact, there is a range of

different approaches in different jurisdictions.

The members should be familiar with a report released last year,

the Stern Review Report on the Economics of Climate Change , published in

the United Kingdom by Sir Nicholas Stern. It has received widespread acclaim

internationally. In that document, they use 2006 as the baseline. They say that

for the objective to stabilize at 450 parts per million CO2 without

overshooting, global emissions would need to be 70 percent below current levels

by 2050. That's over a baseline year of 2006.

In addition, the western climate initiative is using 2005 as a

baseline year, again out of concern around whether or not there's sufficient

accuracy with some of the earlier numbers, particularly for different

jurisdictions. So 2005 is the baseline for the western climate initiative.

Then, in terms of what the actual individual targets are for

reductions, those also vary by jurisdiction. For example, in the United Kingdom,

which is led by a Labour Party government, they've got a piece of legislation

before the House of Commons at Westminster right now that calls for a 60-percent

reduction below 1990 levels, which would amount to a smaller reduction than what

we're proposing in our legislation here today.

Germany has legislation requiring a 45- to 60-percent reduction

over 1990 levels. And just a few steps — or I guess a few strokes, if you're

swimming — to the south of us Washington State has an objective for a 50-percent

reduction. Our goals are very aggressive and extremely competitive with any

other jurisdiction, and they are what the scientists are telling us is

necessary.

The member may want to take issue with what Professor Weaver has

indicated about our act. Certainly, in the conversations that our officials have

had with him, he's indicated his support for Bill 44 and the targets which it

contains.

[1525]

I think I should just point out, for members and for people who

are listening who may not have the benefit of the legislation in front of them,

that what we're talking about here is a subsection that says that the B.C.

greenhouse gas emissions will be "at least 80% less than the level of those

emissions in 2007." So the legislation does contemplate that we may go further

than 80 percent as the science and technology evolves.

The legislation doesn't say that that's a maximum reduction. It

says "at least" an 80-percent reduction. Again, that is consistent with the

advice that we've received from the scientific community.

[1530]

The Chair: Members, I'm going to call the question on the

amendment. Members, the amendment on Bill 44,

section 2(1)(

b) reads: "By

striking out '2007' and substituting '1990.'"

Interjections.

The Chair: Order, Members. Order. Order.

Please be seated, Members.

Interjections.

The Chair: Members, you are using up valuable debating

time.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 31

Brar

S. Simpson

Fleming

Farnworth

James

Kwan

Ralston

Cubberley

Hammell

Coons

Thorne

Simons

Gentner

Routley

Fraser

Horgan

Lali

Dix

Trevena

Bains

Robertson

Karagianis

Evans

Krog

Austin

Chudnovsky

Chouhan

Wyse

Sather

Macdonald

Conroy

NAYS — 39

Falcon

Reid

Coell

Ilich

Christensen

Les

Richmond

Bell

Krueger

Roddick

Hayer

Lee

Jarvis

Nuraney

Cantelon

Thorpe

Hagen

Oppal

de Jong

Taylor

Bond

Hansen

Abbott

Penner

Neufeld

Coleman

Hogg

Sultan

Bennett

Lekstrom

Mayencourt

Polak

Hawes

Yap

Bloy

MacKay

Black

McIntyre

Rustad

[ Page 9484 ]

The Chair: Members, at the discretion of the Chair, I am

calling a four-minute health break.

The committee recessed from 3:34 p.m. to 3:39 p.m.

[H. Bloy in the chair.]

section 2 (continued) .

S. Simpson: I'm going to ask a couple of questions about

2(2) just before I bounce back a little on this.

Under

section 2(2), hon. Chair, it says: "By December 31, 2008,

the minister must, by order, establish…greenhouse gas emissions targets for 2012

and 2016." Could the minister tell us what he anticipates happening by 2008?

I know that the action team will provide their advice by the end

of July. Could the minister tell us what else he anticipates going on over that

period of a year in order to be able to get to those targets?

It does seem, quite frankly, like a significant period of time to

establish targets. It may be an appropriate period of time to establish all of

the ways to address those targets, to reduce them. It might make sense that it

will take some significant time, but to set the targets, that seems like a long

time.

[1540]

As we know, the government didn't have a problem setting the 2020

target of 33 percent without knowing how it was going to get there. It is

figuring that out now, which is fine, and presumably will do the same thing on

these targets.

So my question is: how come more than a year to set those targets,

when it doesn't say set them and necessarily put a plan forward?

Hon. B. Penner: As we acknowledged last week when we

established the climate action team…. I should pause here to note that I'm very

pleased at the calibre of people who have stepped forward to volunteer their

services for that purpose. The climate action team has until the end of July to

bring forward their recommendations in terms of the interim targets as well as

additional action steps that they believe the government should consider. That

takes us into August.

We are planning to allow public input on those recommendations and

to follow the normal Ministry of Environment public consultation process that is

used for other Ministry of Environment initiatives. In order to allow time for

public feedback on that, that brings us into the month of September and possibly

even October.

Then we'll want to take a look at where we go from that in terms

of the public input and the ideas that get brought forward. We may be in a

position to move as quickly as November 2008 to set the specific requirements,

but this gives us a bit of extra leeway into the month of December, if that

should be required.

S. Simpson: I'm going to follow up on that because the

minister made an interesting comment. He talked about public feedback or public

comment, and that's a good thing. I'm glad to hear the minister talking about

that. We know that there certainly was no public feedback or public comment

around the 33 percent by 2020. We know that a number of people, including, I

think, a number of the minister's colleagues and — who knows? — maybe the

minister himself, were surprised by that number when it was established.

But we're now talking about public input into 2012 and 2016, and

I'm supportive of that. Maybe the minister could tell us: what kind of public

feedback or public comment and engagement does the minister envision between now

and December 31 in this discussion around the 2012-2016 targets?

Hon. B. Penner: As I already indicated in my previous

answer, we would anticipate putting out the recommendations for public comment

as we do with other public comment processes through the Ministry of

Environment. As the member may or may not know, that's a 45-day public comment

period. People will be invited to provide their feedback.

S. Simpson: I'm not sure that this particular public

comment process is necessarily statutory in the way that, say, environmental

assessment processes are, unless the minister is going to find a way that we

haven't seen yet to tie this into the environment assessment process.

Maybe then, since we've talked a lot about the climate action team

and the work they will do, and the minister has talked a lot about that team….

What kind of public process does the minister envision the climate action team

going through between now and the end of July as it does its work to formulate

its recommendations for government?

Hon. B. Penner: The first meeting for the climate action

team, I believe, has now been set for sometime in early December. I will leave

it up to the climate action team to decide how they want to conduct themselves.

I know they have a number of meetings they'll be engaged in.

[1545]

They have a tall order to address. It's a challenging job they've

volunteered for. I'm very pleased at the calibre of people who have stepped

forward to help British Columbians and people outside of our borders, too, to

show the kind of leadership that is possible by setting your mind to a target

such as the one we've set.

S. Simpson: Maybe a quick bit of a two-part question here

so that we can deal with both pieces. The first is…. The minister has just said

that he would leave it up to the climate action team to decide. So am I to

assume from that, then, that it will be up to the team to decide how public its

process will be and whether, in fact, its meetings will be open or closed or

some combination of the two?

I'll just ask the second part of that question. It relates to the

comment of the minister around the 45 days. As the minister will know, sometimes

those processes involve public meetings and public hearings, and sometimes they

involve written submissions. Is it the

[ Page 9485 ]

expectation of the minister that there will be a series of public meetings

where the public can come and talk about those targets, or is it the expectation

of the minister that it will be written submissions only?

Hon. B. Penner: In establishing the climate action team,

we've deliberately not put many constraints on how they go about conducting

their business. We did, as I mentioned, give them three specific jobs, which

they're expected to complete by the end of July 2008. These are making

recommendations for 2012 and 2016 targets, identifying further actions for the

short- and medium-term to reduce emissions and meet the 2020 targets, as well as

providing advice on meeting the provincial government's commitment to become

carbon-neutral by 2010. Those are three specific jobs they've been given to do.

Aside from that, we have not been particularly prescriptive about

how they go about that task. In terms of the 45-day public comment period, as I

indicated, we expect that that report will be put out for public comment

following the usual Ministry of Environment public consultation process, which

includes 45 days.

S. Simpson: To maybe just get a little clarification on the

answers, does that mean that it will be exclusively up to the climate action

team to decide what kind of public process and how transparent their process

will be to the public?

[1550]

It will be their choice to make that without any guidance or

direction from the government. If they want to be totally open and have public

meetings, if they want some combination of public and private sessions that that

will be their call as a committee, as an action team, as to what they do? If

they want to release the information that they produce, they can do that? Or

will they be restricted by government and by the direction of the cabinet

committee?

The second thing is the 45 days. I understand the 45 days. Will

those 45 days include public meetings, or will there only be written

submissions?

Hon. B. Penner: As I've said, we've tried to be very

non-prescriptive in terms of how the climate action team goes about its work. It

will be up to the climate action team to decide exactly how they want to go

about their tasks of assisting us with the 2012 and 2016 targets, identifying

additional action items to get us to our 33-percent reduction target in 2020 as

well as advising us on our carbon-neutrality objective for the provincial

government for 2010.

We're letting them set their own course in terms of how they get

to those objectives. In terms of the member's question, again, we will be

following the standard Ministry of Environment process when we're consulting on

initiatives that the Ministry of Environment has undertaken.

S. Simpson: Will the environment process…? As I've said

before, it is different things at different times. Will there be public meetings

in those 45 days — yes or no?

Hon. B. Penner: I just realized why the member is asking

the question again. He's obviously not aware of what the standard Ministry of

Environment public consultation process is.

It calls for web-based feedback. We'll post something equivalent

to an intentions paper on the Ministry of Environment website, which is the

usual public consultation or feedback process that the Ministry of Environment

uses. Members of the public and interested parties will have 45 days to provide

input or feedback. Then the ministry will take time to review the feedback and

will provide a

summary and advice to government following that.

S. Simpson: Well, that's unbelievable. The government is

saying: "No public meetings" — again, no possibility for the public to be

engaged in this process. It is remarkable.

The secrecy around this is incredible. I suspect it's the way it

is because if the people in those meetings answer questions with the depth of

knowledge that the minister is answering questions today, the frustration levels

will go through the roof with the public. I understand that now.

We're going to have no public meetings, and I would note that in

the vague answer that the minister gave around the committee, he didn't answer

the question around whether, in fact, there will be any direction to the

committee. So we'll try that one, one more time, since we now know that the

ministry and the minister will not have public meetings and don't want to talk

to the people of British Columbia about climate change.

The question then is around the climate action team. If they

choose to hold public meetings, if they choose to hold their sessions in public,

if they choose to release the information they produce on their own timetable,

can they do that — yes or no?

Hon. B. Penner: Just to reiterate, the climate action team,

as we announced last week, will be making the report public after they've

completed their work. They will get to set their own course, as I've indicated.

Usually I would expect the opposition to be upset if we were

fettering an advisory body of this nature, but the Premier has already made

commitments around holding public forums. In fact, one's already been held

around the topic of climate change — in Kamloops, just a few weeks ago, for the

agricultural sector.

[1555]

I would anticipate additional public forums being held relating to

a variety of topics, including mining, forestry, energy and waste. Those

meetings will be taking place over the next year. In addition, the legislative

committee on Finance received many submissions as we were preparing the budget,

and many people who did present submissions to the Standing Committee on Finance

of the Legislature made comments regarding climate change initiatives or

policies, whether it be on the tax side or the spending side — what additional

actions could be done.

[ Page 9486 ]

There is lots of opportunity for public feedback and input. I'm

getting it through my e-mail inbox on a regular basis. People have taken

advantage of the public hearings that the legislative committee on Finance has

undertaken. The Ministry of Finance, I know, was reviewing the report that was

tabled here in this Legislature just a week ago.

The Premier has also committed to a number of sectoral forums. One

has already been held in Kamloops. I understand it was very well attended, with

a number of very interesting ideas that were brought forward about how we can

capture CO2 or methane gases, which contribute to climate change, while actually

providing additional economic opportunities for the agricultural sector.

That underscores all of our objectives as a government when it

comes to dealing with climate change. We know that it is a daunting task, and it

is going to be challenging to get to our targets, but we never want to lose

sight of what the economic opportunities are. We believe that the economic

opportunities are significant. So these sectoral forums will be held around the

province, looking for people's concerns and ideas as we work to reduce emissions

across various sectors in British Columbia.

S. Simpson: It's pretty remarkable that the minister is

saying that we are going to adopt the same process to engage the people of

British Columbia in, arguably, the biggest single issue that will be dealt with

in this place in the next, maybe, decades — the question of climate change.

We're going to use the same process there — 45 days — as we would use on a

localized environmental question that went before environmental assessment.

It seems the minister has no sense of scope or scale. He has no

sense that this is a provincewide initiative. It's not a local initiative.

Instead, what the minister is telling us is: "If you want to consult, send me an

e-mail, or check the website." That's not the way that consultation and

engagement work.

We certainly know that the people of British Columbia that are

talking to us — many of them quite supportive of the broader picture that is

being put forward — are anxious because nobody is talking to them. They don't

know what it means. They don't know what the expectations are. They don't know

how this is going to work. They're not part of the discussion. What we're

hearing today is that there is nothing in this bill that lets them be any more

part of the discussion than they have been, other than somewhere, six or eight

months from now, being able to consult a website.

The minister talks about these sectoral meetings. Well, the last

time that I checked those meetings, there wasn't an open invitation for the

public to go to those meetings. They were industry-sectoral meetings or other

sectoral meetings where they were by invitation. Fair enough. I don't have a

problem with those happening. But it is disingenuous for the minister to suggest

that those in any way are a public consultation with the people of British

Columbia. They're not.

Having said that, hon. Chair, I'm going to propose and move

another amendment.

Section 2 (1):

By adding the following subsection:

(

c) by 2008 and for each subsequent calendar year, BC greenhouse gas

emissions will be capped at the level of those emissions in 2007.]

[1600]

On the amendment.

S. Simpson: I've moved this amendment, and this reflects

work that we in the opposition did earlier this year. What we had said earlier

this year is that there is a need for action. What we know is that British

Columbians want action on climate change.

We know — as the minister has said, as we've heard from the

Premier and as we've seen from the time line that is put forward in this bill —

that a number of things are going to take some significant time to put in place.

We understand that, and we understand that those challenges will need to be put

in place.

What we've done here is said: "Okay, our ability to reduce

emissions in the short term may be somewhat limited because, in fact, it's going

to take time to put plans in place — at least a year or so that we know of." So

what we've suggested — and this was in propositions that we made last year — is

that we make the decision to cap at 2007 levels. We can look at how that works,

whether it's a reduction of emissions in areas, credits or offsets — a

combination of things.

What it is saying, though, is that our commitment is immediate —

now — to deal with the question of emissions; that we will halt the increase in

emissions now; and that then we will work to begin the reductions over time, as

they are laid out in the bill and in what we can expect in the subsequent work

of the government.

It is our belief that if we're serious about that, if we're going

to be action-oriented, if we're going to do what the people of British Columbia

want — they want action now — let's cap now at 2007 levels, as we see those

arise in the next year and know what they are, and then begin to take levels

down from there. That would be action. That would be immediate. That would be

dealing with what British Columbians want to see now. We think that this

amendment brings immediate action to what is otherwise something that puts us

far out past the next election and into the future.

If we were to cap at the 2007 levels and to make that commitment

in the next year, the government could demonstrate real action on climate change

between now and May of 2009. The people of British Columbia then could make a

determination, based on the success of this government to accomplish that cap —

not a reduction, the cap — and decide whether in fact they had confidence that

the government had what it takes to make these reductions work.

If the government is up to that challenge, I would encourage them

to support us on this amendment. Take action now. Put it in place. Let's move

forward.

Hon. B. Penner: Hon. Chair, the member may forget what some

of the reaction was when the NDP

[ Page 9487 ]

talked about putting caps in place for a year for which they don't yet know

what the emission levels are. That was their so-called plan, which they put out

in February.

You'll remember that just two weeks before that, their leader had

said it would take them two years before they were in a position to put forward

any kind of ideas around climate change, to put forward a plan. When that didn't

receive very good response from the media and stakeholders, they cobbled

together six points on a piece of paper, called it a plan and rushed it out the

door. In doing so, they said that they would freeze emissions in British

Columbia at 2007 levels, even though they didn't know what they were yet.

The member is kind of arguing against this amendment when he says

it will take some time, as he says it, "to put measures in place." He's

absolutely right. It does take time, not just to put measures in place but for

them to begin to bite and to have an effect. I would argue that those kinds of

policy measures are what are required.

I've already listed off a number of the things that we've

committed to. I didn't get to a requirement for a 30-percent reduction in

tailpipe emissions by adopting California tailpipe standards. The policy

commitment that we've made will be reflected in the legislation that we bring

forward in the next session, but it's not in place today. It's not in place

today to help us with capping emissions at 2007 levels.

The only way you would be capping emissions with any certainty at

2007 levels is if you told every single person who was planning to move to

British Columbia, "You cannot," and told anyone who wanted to open a new

facility today in British Columbia: "You cannot." You couldn't have any

incremental growth in the economy at all. In other words, they'd be calling for

a complete freeze on economic activity in British Columbia if they were going to

try and stop emissions at today's level. They don't have that information with

them today.

[1605]

Let me just refer to one person, Guy Dauncey from the B.C.

Sustainable Energy Association. Here's what Mr. Dauncey had to say: "You can't

put an immediate cap on emissions, because every car is producing emissions, and

you can't legislate an immediate cap. It just can't be done, because people are

moving to B.C., our population is growing, and we're buying new appliances.

You've got to phase this stuff. It's meaningless to put an immediate cap on it,

because you'd break it within a day."

That's what Guy Dauncey, the president of the B.C. Sustainable

Energy Association, said on February 13, 2007, in response to the NDP's

suggestions. His further comments about the NDP's so-called plan were, "The NDP

has made such a very weak showing of climate change that there are no

competitors in the field. They could have. They could do whatever they want at

the moment — this government — because the NDP has not stepped up to the plate

with anything remotely near this" — referring to what we've committed to in the

Speech from the Throne.

It might sound good — what the NDP is proposing — but they clearly

haven't thought through the implications. I don't know how they would stop

people from moving to British Columbia. They don't know what the emissions are

today. In fact, we won't know what today's emission levels are, for 2007, for

probably about 18 months. So I have no idea exactly how they would work to

accomplish this objective they're proposing to put into law, and I would submit

to you that they have no idea either, because we haven't heard any policies

articulated from them that would get us to this objective.

We have been doing a lot of work over the last year to identify

additional policy actions — not just setting a legal cap but policy actions — to

support that, but all economists, all environmentalists, all scientists

acknowledge that it's going to take time for new policy actions put in place

today to start to bite to get the outcomes that you're looking for. That's why

we have set a 33-percent reduction by 2020. It gives us 13 years from today to

get those measures into place and to start to drive down the emissions, and

we're going to be working to set interim targets for 2012 and 2016.

Don't just take it from me. Take if from somebody like Guy

Dauncey, the president of the B.C. Sustainable Energy Association, who says,

"You can't put an immediate cap on emissions," and then goes on to give the

explanation why.

G. Robertson: I just want to stand up strongly in favour of

this amendment as moved. We don't have 13 years to wait around. We don't have

the luxury of years and years to do further measurements and take our time to

eventually legislate, regulate or set policy. These actions need to take place

now.

The urgency around climate change has been met by many other

countries, many other jurisdictions around the world. The minister might

remember something called the Kyoto protocol. Again, 2008 to 2012 is the period

in question there. This government is refusing to do anything significant in

terms of action before 2012, and even then, the targets fall well short of

anything envisioned within the Kyoto protocol.

I don't understand why there isn't a significant commitment to

take action now. Of course it's going to take time to measure the emissions from

2007. Of course the actual assessment of where we are on an emissions cap is

going to take a little bit of time. That doesn't preclude the government from

legislating a cap for 2007, which then forces this government to take action on

regulation, on policy. You don't have to wait for legislation that you might

move in the spring.

As we've seen so far, the pace this government introduces

legislation at is very sluggish. It has taken you six and a half years to bring

this legislation forward for targets, while other countries and other

jurisdictions have been making good progress on this — a long, long time.

We can't wait. My kids can't wait. You need to take action on this

now. Let's legislate a cap on our emissions. Let's walk our talk here in B.C.

Let's get it together.

[ Page 9488 ]

Let's have something. Let's make a statement on this, people.

If you really care about climate change, why not make a definitive

statement and cap the emissions this year? Why are you talking 2020, 2050? A lot

of us won't be alive in 2050. Let's do something here. We're alive today. Let's

cap the emissions now and take the actions necessary to address climate change.

Hon. B. Penner: I note that the member who just spoke made

no attempt to refute or rebut what somebody like Guy Dauncey had to say about

the NDP's idea around a cap and his comment. "It just can't be done, because

people are moving to B.C., our population is growing, and we're buying new

appliances. You've got to phase this stuff. It's meaningless to put an immediate

cap on it, because you'd break it within a day."

[1610]

The member says: "Well, we'll send a signal." Well, we've already

done that with this legislation. The person who said that we'd be sending the

signal is the member for Vancouver-Hastings, the Environment critic. If we were

to bring into legislation the 33-percent reduction target by 2020, he said: "I

think the government could deliver a very strong message by in fact legislating

that 33-percent reduction. That would deliver a very clear message about how

serious this government is." His words, not mine. Your opposition critic's

words, not mine.

By your own standards, the legislation we're debating here today

sends a very strong message to all people in British Columbia that we're serious

about our reduction targets. We, however, want them to be doable. They must be

accomplished, and so we have implemented a whole range of policies, unlike the

previous government, which allowed greenhouse gas emissions to increase by 24

percent, built the largest single natural gas–fired plant, or IPP, in British

Columbia on Vancouver Island — a 240-megawatt gas plant.

It didn't build enough renewable sources of electricity, so today

we're a net importer. Even today the Environment critic says it's preferable to

import cheap coal power than to spend more on renewables in British Columbia in

order to keep our lights on. That's an interesting comment — for an Environment

critic to suggest that we shouldn't pay more for clean sources but should take

advantage of cheaper power on the spot market. Even if it's coming from Montana

or Alberta, we should buy it anyway and not consider the social or externality

cost associated with that dirty, coal-fired power from Montana or Alberta.

We have a very different vision. We have upped B.C. Hydro's

requirements to 90 percent clean electricity on a go-forward basis, not 10

percent as it was under the NDP — a measly, paltry 10 percent. Instead of

building a 240-megawatt gas-fired plant on Vancouver Island, we're building

clean, renewable energy. We're actually approving five wind farms in British

Columbia, something the NDP never did — not once. They didn't ever think to do

that.

We do have a different range of policies, and I can rattle off a

few more of them. I've already mentioned an end to routine flaring in the oil

and gas sector, a requirement for carbon sequestration if you want to build

coal-fired electricity.

I know the opposition has got a different approach. They're

against investment in the IPP sector. They're also against innovation. Their

approach — and I heard his leader say it even just last week here in the House —

is just no to coal. It wasn't no to the CO2 emissions from coal. It was no to

coal in B.C., instead of saying: "You can use coal if you can put your

ingenuity, creativity and, frankly, your dollars behind a new technology that

can deal with what the concerns are about coal." A very different approach.

We would like to challenge people to use their minds, to use their

resources to find solutions. Instead of just saying, "No, we're not going to

allow innovation in British Columbia. We're not going to give you the

opportunity to pursue that," we are challenging all people in British Columbia —

whether it be the private sector, industry, academia or even government and

individuals — to do things differently.

To bring this back down to something we can all relate to, I know

the member for Vancouver-Fairview travels frequently by helijet between

Vancouver and Victoria to get here. I see him stepping off the helijet. That

helijet burns fossil fuel.

In order to put an immediate cap on today, we'd have to know

exactly how many trips he's making in 2007 and not allow that individual, him,

to make a single additional trip in 2008 if we're going to have some certainty

that the emissions are not going to increase when he gets on that fossil

fuel–burning helicopter and flies back and forth between Vancouver and Victoria.

That's very challenging to do. That's one choice.

Guy Dauncey, the president of the Sustainable Energy Association,

says that that's not the right way to go and that the NDP's plan is flawed. I

think Mr. Dauncey is correct. Our approach is to set targets for 2020, which the

NDP has already said would be aggressive and bold.

In fact, the opposition member, the Environment critic, said: "It

is very aggressive." Later on in the same interview he said: "If that's

achieved, it will be great." Finally, he said — this was on CBC radio: "I think

everybody needs to be happy that the government has recognized the importance of

targets." That's exactly what this legislation does. It allows us to set interim

targets for 2012 and 2016.

[1615]

You may want to posture and grandstand in a way that doesn't give

actual results. That will not help the climate. It will not help the climate

merely to put forward yet another political document. Instead, we're trying to

get on with real actions and policy objectives, and we're implementing those on

this side of the House.

The Chair: I'll call the question on the proposed amendment

to Bill 44, to amend it as follows: "Section 2 (1): By adding the following

subsection: (

c) by 2008 and for each subsequent calendar year, BC

greenhouse gas

[ Page 9489 ]

emissions will be capped at the level of those emissions in 2007."

[1620]

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 29

Brar

Fleming

Farnworth

James

Kwan

Ralston

Cubberley

Hammell

Coons

Thorne

Simons

Gentner

Routley

Fraser

Horgan

Dix

Trevena

Bains

Robertson

Karagianis

Evans

Krog

Austin

Chudnovsky

Chouhan

Wyse

Sather

Macdonald

Conroy

NAYS — 38

Falcon

Reid

Coell

Ilich

Christensen

Les

Richmond

Bell

Krueger

Roddick

Hayer

Jarvis

Nuraney

Whittred

Cantelon

Thorpe

Hagen

Oppal

de Jong

Taylor

Bond

Hansen

Abbott

Penner

Neufeld

Coleman

Hogg

Sultan

Bennett

Lekstrom

Mayencourt

Polak

Hawes

Yap

MacKay

Black

McIntyre

Rustad

Section 2 approved.

section 3.

G. Robertson: In

section 3 there's a reference to

"reasonably practicable" as the nearest possible time for the determination of

2007 baseline levels of greenhouse gas emissions. Can the minister clarify what

"as soon as reasonably practicable" means in terms of dates?

[1625]

Hon. B. Penner: As I noted during debate on the

opposition's last proposed amendment, we won't know for some time what the 2007

greenhouse gas emission levels actually are in British Columbia. The phrase "As

soon as reasonably practicable" is used because these levels will take some time

to calculate using information from outside sources, primarily federal

government reports issued in accordance with the United Nations framework

convention on climate change.

The 2007 level for the province cannot be calculated until Canada

completes its UNFCCC report for this year. That's what that

section refers to.

G. Robertson: Can the minister give the people of B.C. a

rough estimate of when he expects we will have that data and when we'll know

what the baseline is for 2007?

Hon. B. Penner: Perhaps the member wasn't listening when I

was addressing the amendment that we were just debating. As I indicated, we

won't know for some time what the 2007 levels are for British Columbia. It takes

StatsCan and Environment Canada time to tabulate those numbers and put them

together.

For example, in May of this year StatsCan and Environment Canada

released the information for 2005. That should give the member some indication.

G. Robertson: I'm extrapolating this in my head, because

the minister won't go there. Since 2005 just came in, we're looking at least at

two more years before we have 2007 established.

It would be helpful, I think, for everyone to have some idea, some

ballpark of what we're looking at — whether it's perhaps in the context of the

next provincial election. Will it be before that happens?

Hon. B. Penner: The exact month that StatsCan puts out that

information varies. I believe the member at least purports to follow greenhouse

gas issues closely. I don't know if that's true, but if he does, he will know

that Environment Canada and StatsCan put out those figures sometime in the

spring, usually more than one year after the end of the calendar year.

I'm told by StatsCan and Environment Canada people that they do

that so they have time to verify the numbers before they're released. Different

verification processes or audits are done on those statistics so that they can

have some reliance on them.

That is one reason, however, why we have joined something called

the climate registry in the United States. We have an interest in obtaining more

timely data and information so that we can know sooner and with greater

certainty what the actual emissions are in British Columbia. The agreement with

the climate registry is to make sure that we're adopting the best possible

methodologies and standards for obtaining greenhouse gas emission information

and statistics, because it is a frustration to wait for the federal numbers to

be released every year.

J. Horgan: I'm curious. Perhaps the minister, if he's not

prepared to wait for Canadian data, can tell me how this registry in the United

States is going to be providing data on B.C.'s figures. Are they collecting data

now on B.C. emissions?

[1630]

Hon. B. Penner: The climate registry is an initiative that

is working to support the western climate initiative. The western climate

initiative, if you've read those agreements,

[ Page 9490 ]

relies on the climate registry to provide a common framework or baseline of

greenhouse gas emissions so that we're comparing apples to apples.

Different jurisdictions have used different methodologies for

collecting greenhouse gas emission information. So the U.S. has had a different

approach than Canada, or at least some jurisdictions within the U.S. have had

different numbers.

The drive behind the climate registry is to make sure we're

getting consistency. That's important for the western climate initiative so that

the member jurisdictions know they're comparing apples to apples amongst each

other.

Also, British Columbia is very interested in making sure that

information is available as soon as possible. One of the differences between the

StatsCan approach versus the climate registry is that StatsCan typically looks

to gather information that is site specific — to particular industrial

facilities, for example —

whereas the climate registry looks at an entity, an

organization, and the whole range of different industrial plants or facilities

that particular entity or company would be operating.

They do come at it in a different way. I think, ultimately, that

will serve British Columbians well, because we'll have different cuts at the

information — the StatsCan approach as well as the climate registry approach.

Under the agreement that was signed, I believe the work on that starts in

January 2008.

J. Horgan: So the minister is saying that the climate

registry, which is part and parcel of the western climate initiative…. I

understand that its primary focus — based on the briefing that I had — was

establishing a marketplace for trading — cap-and-trade emissions and so on. If I

heard the minister correctly, the climate registry is going to begin collecting

data in 2008, and they're going to be collecting on the entire entity. Can the

minister explain what that entity is? Is it all industrial activity? Does it

include industrial activity and transportation? Is the electricity sector

involved in that?

How is an American organization going to collect that data? Is it

voluntary for sectors to participate, or is the government going to force

industrial activity to participate in this registry?

[S. Hammell in the chair.]

Hon. B. Penner: Just to go back to elaborate a bit further,

there are five working groups with the western climate initiative. One of them

is working on the scope that will be applied by the climate registry in terms of

just exactly what the thresholds are for the reporting that flows into the

climate registry for emissions by entity. That work is ongoing. B.C. has some

people at the table there, and that's part of five working groups with the

western climate initiative.

[1635]

I should also state a clarification. I referred a couple times to

Environment Canada providing information to StatsCan. It's actually NRCan,

Natural Resources Canada, that gathers the data across the country. Then somehow

it gets verified — I guess by Statistics Canada. They have the expert

mathematicians or statisticians for crunching the numbers. So it's Natural

Resources Canada that provides the data into StatsCan.

I am advised that, compared to some jurisdictions, the data that

we collect in Canada through that particular process is actually pretty good.

But as I've said earlier, we think that it would be nice to have it a bit

quicker, if that could happen without undermining the integrity or accuracy of

that data.

I understand, as I've pushed officials to see if we can't get the

information quicker, that they don't want to see a trade-off happen at the

federal level where the data is less reliable because it's done more quickly.

Still, I would hope that there's some opportunity to turn that around quicker.

In the meantime we will be using the best available information that we have for

our reporting and will continue to work with our partners on the climate

registry.

J. Horgan: I thank the minister for that, but it hasn't

cleared it up in my mind. When the minister talks about the WCI and one of the

five tables being the scope, I'm still not clear. My last question was: how are

emitters in British Columbia responsible to this entity? Who will compel them to

provide data? Are they going to be compelled to provide data? Or is the data

going to come from some other body like Natural Resources Canada, Stats Canada,

B.C. Stats?

I'm not clear on why a foreign body like the climate registry

would be more valuable to us if they're going to begin their work in 2008, if we

already have this work being done on an annual basis with reporting out 18

months or 16 months after the end of the calendar year. Why would we want to

duplicate that work?

Hon. B. Penner: I am advised — again, by officials who are

trying to put this in layman's terms…. The StatsCan, NRCan and, to some extent,

Environment Canada approach — apparently all three entities are involved to some

extent in gathering this information — is more like a top-down approach in terms

of gathering the greenhouse gas emissions data across the country,

whereas the

climate registry concept is more of a bottom-up approach, gathering up

individual entities and adding up the numbers as you go.

Ultimately, I think the objective should be to have a North

American–wide standard for the collection of data so that we have a common set

of data or information. To that extent, we're encouraged that already there are,

I think, 46 different jurisdictions — states, provinces and tribes — who have

signed on to the climate registry.

As an i