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)

THURSDAY, APRIL 26, 2007

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 19, Number 2

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Page

Introductions by Members

Tributes

Kamloops ambulance dispatch

centre

C. Wyse

Introductions by Members

Introduction and First

Reading of Bills

Homeowner Protection Amendment

Act, 2007 (Bill 34)

Hon. R.

Coleman

Greater Vancouver Transportation

Authority Amendment Act, 2007 (Bill 36)

Hon. K.

Falcon

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment

Act (No. 2), 2007 (Bill 35)

Hon. W.

Oppal

Members' Conflict of Interest

Amendment Act, 2007 (Bill M216)

Horgan

Statements (Standing Order

25 B )

National Day of Mourning

McIntyre

C. James

Community input into Burnaby

affordable housing development

R. Lee

West Coast Express

Sather

B.C. Council for Families

Nuraney

Kiwanis Emergency Youth Shelter

Fleming

Oral Questions

Conflict-of-interest concerns

regarding Ken Dobell and cultural precinct project

C. James

Hon. W.

Oppal

Gentner

Karagianis

L. Krog

Authority of Privacy Commissioner

to investigate conflicts of interest

Ralston

Hon. W.

Oppal

Conflict-of-interest concerns

regarding Ken Dobell and cultural precinct project

J. Kwan

Hon. W.

Oppal

Appointment of Andrew Wilkinson

to TILMA dispute resolution panel

Sather

Hon. C.

Hansen

Kamloops ambulance dispatch

centre relocation

C. Wyse

Hon. G.

Abbott

Ambulance service for rural

British Columbia

C. Wyse

Hon. G.

Abbott

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of

Environment and Minister Responsible for Water Stewardship and

Sustainable Communities (continued)

Simpson

Hon. B.

Penner

Statements

School fire in Cariboo

C. Wyse

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Environment and Minister Responsible for Water Stewardship and Sustainable Communities (continued)

Hon. B. Penner

S. Simpson

Point of Privilege

R. Cantelon

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Energy,

Mines and Petroleum Resources (continued)

Horgan

Hon. R.

Neufeld

A. Dix

Hon. K.

Krueger

Sather

Fraser

Thorne

Trevena

[ Page 7203 ]

THURSDAY, APRIL 26, 2007

The House met at 1:34 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Introductions by Members

B. Ralston: I'd ask the House to welcome two guests from Edmonton, Sandra McClellan and Kirby O'Connor. They are guests of Chris Gainor, who is the director of communications for the NDP caucus.

[1335]

Hon. C. Taylor: I'd like the House to welcome Erin Anderson. She is a fourth-year student at the University of Victoria, but she's been working with us as a co-op student for the last while, in writing, within the public affairs bureau. Today is her last day. I understand she's found this work interesting and challenging, a good look at government and what we do, but not quite as difficult as her previous job where she worked in a steel mill. Erin, thank you for your work, and welcome to the House today.

Tributes

KAMLOOPS AMBULANCE DISPATCH CENTRE

C. Wyse: It is indeed an unusual set of circumstances when I stand up in the House and ask the House to consider recognizing future visitors who may appear in the House as a result of an incident that took place in Kamloops on the weekend.

It was an incident that took place at the dispatch centre for the ambulance in Kamloops. The poison control centre recommended evacuation late Saturday evening. The dispatchers stayed their course of action and held their posts until late Sunday evening, when they then evacuated the quarters. At least two of these dispatchers were sent to the hospital during this period of time.

I would like the House to recognize the fact that these dispatchers maintaining their case — that three-quarters of the province of British Columbia with one-quarter of the population remaining served — increases the chances of people coming to the House for us to recognize them in the future.

Introductions by Members

D. Hayer: I would like to introduce to the House my best friend, my partner, one of my strongest supporters and my great volunteer — my right-hand person. My wife Isabelle Martinez is here. Would the House please make her very welcome.

R. Sultan: In the galleries today are Malcolm and Francis White. Their organization SN Transport is introducing a new project for the transfer of patients and the transportation of those with medical issues — the elderly and the disabled in B.C. Would the House please make them welcome.

Hon. K. Falcon: Many of the legislators here today were generously hosted at a lunch organized by the Cement Association. We have a number of members of the Cement Association joining us here in the gallery. I would like to welcome Derek Townson, the vice-president of the Cement Association of Canada; Tom Gibson, a manager at Lehigh Cement; Larry

Baloun, vice-president of sales and marketing for Lehigh; Michael Ritch,

vice-president, sales and marketing from Lafarge; and Marc Dion, district sales manager for Lafarge. Would the House please join me in making them welcome here today.

I. Black: I want to welcome Caroline Ross, who's a constituent of mine. She's in the precinct today. She's one of our many, many committed teachers in school district 43 in my riding.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

HOMEOWNER PROTECTION

AMENDMENT ACT, 2007

Hon. R. Coleman presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Homeowner Protection Amendment Act, 2007.

Hon. R. Coleman: I move that Bill 34 be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. R. Coleman: I am pleased to introduce Bill 34, the Homeowner Protection Amendment Act, 2007. These amendments strengthen protection for new homebuyers by (1) improving the consistency of homebuilder qualifications and (2) preventing abuse of the owner-builder loophole.

The Homeowner Protection Office will be able to authorize owner-builders who wish to build a home for their own personal long-term use. This bill also provides the registrar of the Homeowner Protection Office with effective enforcement tools, including financial penalties and compliance orders for those who contravene the act. Residential builders and owner-builders will have a process to review or appeal decisions made by the registrar.

[1340]

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

Bill 34, Homeowner Protection Amendment Act, 2007, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

GREATER VANCOUVER TRANSPORTATION

AUTHORITY AMENDMENT ACT, 2007

Hon. K. Falcon presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled

[ Page 7204 ]

Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority Amendment Act, 2007.

Hon. K. Falcon: Mr. Speaker, I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. K. Falcon: Today I'm introducing Bill 36, the Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority Amendment Act, 2007.

In 2006 I appointed an independent panel of three eminent British Columbians to review the governance and funding structure of TransLink, to seek input from stakeholders and the public, and to submit recommendations to me. The major amendments contained in this bill will implement most of the recommendations of the panel and will put in place a new planning framework and governance structure and balanced, sustainable funding measures that will build a solid foundation for an expanded, high-quality public transportation system in the lower mainland.

Major features of this bill include the creation of a mayors' council to maintain accountability of TransLink to taxpayers, and the creation of a professional board of directors, who will have the skills and professional background necessary to oversee the operation of TransLink. It will include the creation of an independent commissioner — who will enhance transparency and due diligence regarding TransLink's plans and initiatives and who will authorize any proposed fare increases — and, finally, the creation of a substantially improved planning process.

The name of the authority is also amended to the South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority to reflect the fact that as our population and economy continue to grow, we will need a transportation authority that services the broader region, not just the Greater Vancouver area.

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

Bill 36, Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority Amendment Act, 2007, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 2007

Hon. W. Oppal presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2007.

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

Motion approved.

Hon. W. Oppal: I'm pleased to introduce Bill 35, the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2007. This bill amends the following statutes: British Columbia Wine Act, Community Charter, Farm Practices Protection Act, Insurance (Vehicle) Act, Land Act, Land Title Act, Land Title and Survey Authority Act, Motor Vehicle Act, Passenger Transportation Act and Wildlife Act.

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

Bill 35, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2007, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

MEMBERS' CONFLICT OF INTEREST

AMENDMENT ACT, 2007

J. Horgan presented a bill intituled Members' Conflict of Interest Amendment Act, 2007 .

J. Horgan: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time.

Motion approved.

J. Horgan: I'm pleased to introduce the Members' Conflict of Interest Amendment Act . This bill establishes clear conflict-of-interest rules for public office holders. It makes two major sets of changes to the existing Members' Conflict of Interest Act — including extending the provisions of the act to deputy ministers and government appointees, including ministerial staff and advisers and those in charge of public sector entities.

These appointees would be prohibited from improperly benefiting from their office, and it would prohibit them from operating a business, taking another job or office, or serving as a consultant while holding a public appointment.

This bill will also oblige members of cabinet, parliamentary secretaries and deputy ministers to place their assets in a blind trust while they hold that position — in place of the existing reporting provisions. This provision arises out of a ruling earlier this year where the Conflict-of-Interest Commissioner suggested that such a change be made into law.

[1345]

This would bring British Columbia legislation in line with conflict legislation at the federal level and will assure British Columbians that office holders in the B.C. government are fully accountable for their actions.

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

Bill M216, Members' Conflict of Interest Amendment Act, 2007, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

[ Page 7205 ]

Statements

(Standing Order 25

B) NATIONAL DAY OF MOURNING

J. McIntyre: I rise today to make a statement on a serious subject. Saturday, April 28, is the annual day of mourning for workers who have lost their lives or have been injured as a result of their work. This is a day of reflection and remembrance throughout not only our province but our nation. On Saturday I will stop to remember the few workers that lost their lives in my riding of West Vancouver–Garibaldi.

One of those workers was Mike Greer, who lost his life in a blasting accident on a road under construction in the Callaghan Valley. Mike was 45 years old and the father of two children. One of his co-workers described him as a gentleman and a very fine person who never backed off a job. Mike had been an expert in blasting for 25 years and had worked as a highway rock scaler as well as a blaster and driller, but something went terribly wrong last June 12.

We remember Mike and the other 159 British Columbians who lost their lives during 2006 as a result of workplace accidents or disease. I would like to express my condolences to the families of these workers. We must remember them. As citizens of British Columbia we must acknowledge that their lives were cut short. We must mourn families that are suddenly without a parent, a spouse or a child.

I call on all the members of our Legislature and all British Columbians today to strive to be more vigilant, to be better trained in workplace safety, to watch out for our co-workers, to follow the rules and to be alert to potential accidents.

Everyone wants their parent, their spouse or their child to return home safely to the family at the end of the working day. One death in the workplace is one too many. Safety is everyone's responsibility, whether we are workers or employers. I am reminded of this regularly when I see the multitude of Peter Kiewit construction signs on the Sea to Sky Highway, reminding us all to never walk away from an unsafe act.

I ask that all members of this chamber rise and join me to observe a moment of silence to remember the workers who tragically lost their lives.

C. James: I also wish to speak on the National Day of Mourning this Saturday. All too often in British Columbia a loved one leaves home for work and doesn't return. Last year 161 British Columbians died on the job. Most of these deaths were preventable, and none should be forgotten. This Saturday, as we recognize the National Day of Mourning, we reflect on the sacrifice made by workers and their families, and as lawmakers in British Columbia, we commit ourselves to do better.

Last year to mark this day, I spoke about the terrible increase in forest worker deaths. This year we also mourn the loss of three farmworkers who died a few weeks ago on their way to the fields. We also remember the four who lost their lives in the Sullivan mine in Kimberley. Like forest workers, these workers work very hard. Their hours are long. The work is physical. It shouldn't also be life-threatening, but far too often it is.

Too often laws are changed that make their work even more dangerous. So on this day of reflection and mourning, let's recommit ourselves to treat every worker with dignity, to restore workplace standards and to restore safety inspections.

Today we mourn the loss of every British Columbian who died on the job, and we should aspire to live up to a higher standard.

[1350]

COMMUNITY INPUT INTO BURNABY

AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT

R. Lee: Over the past several weeks we have received a number of phone calls, e-mails and letters from my constituents who are concerned about the future of two buildings on Alpha Avenue and Beta Avenue in North Burnaby, which will soon house 38 affordable housing units. I just want to emphasize that it has been confirmed to me that these multi-bedroom units will be offered to low-income families. We believe in healthy and safe communities. These units will open doors to low-income families that are in need of affordable housing in a stable living environment.

I just want to reiterate that B.C. Housing does not intend to offer these multi-bedroom units to single individuals. It makes more sense to offer them to families who are in need of a helping hand.

B.C. Housing is in the early stages of its planning process with this project. However, we all have the safety and well-being of our constituents in mind as the planning continues. In addition to this, I will ensure that B.C. Housing seeks input from existing tenants and neighbours while working closely with local groups as they develop plans for these units.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the local Block Watch, neighbourhood association, senior centre and school for raising their concerns. I'm confident that there are opportunities for the community to work together with B.C. Housing, other non-profit organizations and government agencies to continue building a strong community in North Burnaby.

WEST COAST EXPRESS

M. Sather: The West Coast Express is known for punctuality, but the service was a long time in coming. Plans were afoot as early as 1972 to bring a commuter rail service to the northeast sector. Finally, in 1994, B.C. Transit opened a commuter rail project office, and the work began. In only 17 months the service was planned, stations were constructed, track and other infrastructure upgrades were completed, and equipment was ordered.

The West Coast Express has become a popular commuter rail service for the residents of Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows. With stations in Pitt Meadows, Maple Meadows and Port Haney and five trains running

[ Page 7206 ]

at peak periods during the morning and afternoon, commuters are able to enjoy a relaxed and stress-free 50-minute commute to and from Vancouver.

With top-notch cost recovery rates of 82 percent and a ridership of over 9,000 a day, trains are nearing capacity. That's good for commuters, and it's good for everyone else, since it means more than 3,000 fewer cars will be on the roads daily.

West Coast Express, along with GO Transit of Toronto and AMT of Montreal, has been pushing for federal legislation that supports further services expansion. If legislation is enacted, West Coast Express will have the opportunity to increase their capacity to keep up with the demand from Pitt Meadows and to Mission.

Transportation infrastructure, climate change and carbon dioxide emissions are priorities for my constituents, and having a commuter rail service that meets the needs of our growing communities will make it easier for us all to leave our cars at home.

B.C. COUNCIL FOR FAMILIES

J. Nuraney: For many of us, nothing is more important in the world than our families. It is therefore an honour to stand in the House today to celebrate the 30th anniversary of the British Columbia Council for Families.

For the past 30 years the council has worked in partnership with many organizations to help strengthen and support families in British Columbia. The efforts of the council have our full support. We, the members on both sides of the House, understand the true value of this group, and that is why the decision to create the council received all-party support in the Legislature.

The council holds true to its vision of healthy families in a healthy society. It is at the heart of all initiatives and activities held by the council. The award-winning council has made a tremendous contribution to families and communities across British Columbia and Canada. And if that is not enough, the council has even made great contributions to the creation and enhancement of a civil society.

[1355]

To commemorate the 30th anniversary, the council will be kicking off exciting new initiatives such as the new parenting program and furthering work on a provincewide network called the Father Involvement Network — British Columbia.

So let us all applaud the dedication of the council. For the past 30 years and ongoing, the B.C. Council for Families has presented itself as a strong advocate for the preservation of what is at the heart of all British Columbians: family.

KIWANIS EMERGENCY YOUTH SHELTER

R. Fleming: From my constituency of Victoria-Hillside, I'd like to single out for recognition today an extremely valuable non-profit society. I'm referring to the Kiwanis Emergency Youth Shelter, or KEYS as its acronym. KEYS is the only emergency shelter in the city for youth ages 13 to 18. The shelter strives to provide a safe, supportive environment for youth that are in transition due to crisis. The shelter is also a referral centre to other important resources in our community for youth, such as family counselling and housing. The doors are open 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

Last Thursday, April 19, KEYS celebrated their 20th anniversary. Two decades ago, the Victoria Cool Aid Society and the Victoria Kiwanis Club came together and partnered and championed the proposed youth shelter. Until that time, youth were sheltered in the same facilities as adults, and it was counterproductive to the efforts of helping youth and keeping them safe from the harshest elements of street life.

Through 20 years the youth shelter has been run by a number of well-regarded non-profit organizations in my community. In 2002 the Cool Aid Society began focusing on helping adults within the downtown core, and they transitioned their management of the shelter to the Youth Empowerment Society. The Youth Empowerment Society proved to be an ideal choice to run the shelter, because they have a solid track record of supporting at-risk youth in Greater Victoria that goes back many years as well.

Safe and appropriate housing is often an essential first step for youth to progress to a better life situation. KEYS helps fulfil this vital role in our community. In 1986 the Victoria Kiwanis Club identified a youth shelter as something of great need in our city, and ever since, they've generously provided the house and its upkeep and maintenance.

Keeping everything else going with a meagre budget remains a challenge. KEYS has gone without any funding increase since 2002, even though youth accessing the shelter increased by 23 percent. In addition, the youth showing up at the door these days are dealing with more mental health and addiction issues than ever before.

The staff do an amazing job working with these youth. It is a difficult, emotional and stressful job that they do for our community every day, and I invite all members of the House to join me in thanking the staff and volunteers and congratulating them on this milestone anniversary.

Oral Questions

CONFLICT-OF-INTEREST CONCERNS

REGARDING KEN DOBELL AND

CULTURAL PRECINCT PROJECT

C. James: The opposition has learned that Ken Dobell began work on the cultural precincts initiative when he was still Deputy Minister to the Premier. Mr. Dobell met with the city of Vancouver regarding funds for the project one full year before he received his lobbying contract. He was working out of the Premier's office, securing the money for the very same project that then funded his lobbyist activities. It appears that he set up his own contract.

My question is to the Attorney General. Does he condone this type of activity, and will he investigate Mr. Dobell?

[ Page 7207 ]

Hon. W. Oppal: The circumstances relating to Mr. Dobell are now before the Privacy Commissioner. Why don't we just wait for the results of that investigation? We don't have the luxury of making these findings and conclusions without hearing all of the evidence, and I'm sure that the review that's now being conducted by the Privacy Commissioner is something that we should all wait for.

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

[1400]

C. James: One day it's the court case, and the next it's the Privacy Commissioner. Soon they'll run out of excuses to hide behind.

Today's new information suggests that this scandal goes much deeper than when Mr. Dobell registered as a lobbyist. His actions as deputy minister must be investigated. The development of the cultural precinct project was initiated through the city of Vancouver Civic Theatres Board. Mr. Dobell was involved from the beginning.

The April 14, 2005, minutes from that board state: "In a meeting with Ken Dobell, provincial deputy minister, he suggested funds might be available from budget surpluses between January and March."

Again, to the Attorney General. Mr. Dobell was working as deputy minister to set up a fund that then paid for his lobbying contract. Does the Attorney General agree with the Premier's assertion that Dobell was not in a conflict of interest?

Hon. W. Oppal: I assume that the Leader of the Opposition has provided this evidence to the Privacy Commissioner.

Interjections.

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

C. James: Well, once again the government will look absolutely everywhere to avoid answering questions and to avoid investigating what needs to be looked at.

Perhaps the Attorney General would like some more information. He might ask his colleague the Solicitor General, or he might ask the member for Vancouver-Burrard, because they were both at one of these meetings.

Minutes from the February 17 meeting of the Vancouver Civic Theatres Board show that the board met with the Minister of Small Business and Economic Development, who is now the Solicitor General, and the member for Vancouver-Burrard.

The minister, at that meeting, advised the board that the cultural envelope was capped at $2 million for the entire province. That's when they set up a meeting with Mr. Dobell. He then told the board the funding might be available in the provincial surplus. Sure enough, one year later $5 million flowed from the province to the city, and Ken Dobell got his contract.

Again, to the Attorney General….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

C. James: Again, to the Attorney General: will he ensure that Ken Dobell's actions as deputy minister are fully investigated and get to the bottom of this conflict?

Hon. W. Oppal: You know, posturing aside, there's a process underway. The process is a fair process. There's a review taking place. I assume that both sides will have an opportunity to be heard.

You know, it might interest the Leader of the Opposition that when allegations are levelled against any particular person in our society, we give that person an opportunity to be heard. We give that person an opportunity to defend himself or herself. That might be a novel concept on that side of the House. We don't convict people without a trial.

G. Gentner: Let's look at the facts. On February 17, '05, the current Solicitor General sets up a meeting between the Vancouver theatre board and Ken Dobell. On March 4, '05, Ken Dobell, as deputy minister, tells the city that funds may be available in the surplus.

One year later, on March 9, '06, Ken Dobell meets with the Premier and city manager Judy Rogers. On March 21, '06, the province finds the money in surplus and passes along $5 million to the city. On April 5, '06, the Premier announces the funding while his chief confidant Ken Dobell officially registers as a lobbyist, and he goes on to win a lucrative contract for the city.

[1405]

My question is: considering the growing cloud hovering over the Premier's office, with appearances of impropriety that could undermine trust itself, why is the Attorney General reluctant to do the right thing and clear the air?

Hon. W. Oppal: If those facts are as damning and as inculpatory as the speaker alleges, why doesn't he go before the Privacy Commissioner and tell him that? He has every opportunity to do that.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Hon. W. Oppal: I have news for the people yelping on the other side. I don't conduct the investigations. I'll say it again. I do not conduct the investigations.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. W. Oppal: Well, we got another clever remark from the member for Yale-Lillooet. We've grown to expect those over the years.

Look, there are laws in place. There's a process in place. Why don't we wait for the results of the review?

[ Page 7208 ]

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

G. Gentner: The Privacy Commissioner has been asked to look only at the time line as it pertains to the lobbyist registry. What we are asking for is a wider investigation into the Premier's office. It is clear from the city theatres board minutes that Mr. Dobell was involved as deputy minister a full year before assuming his lobbyist activities. He set it up.

The Attorney General doesn't seem to be comfortable, so to the Minister of Tourism, Sport and the Arts: could the minister tell this House what government-related meetings did Mr. Dobell participate in that are related to the funding of this project?

Hon. W. Oppal: The question is the same. There is a….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. W. Oppal: You know, I'm amazed, hon. Speaker, how people can play reckless and footloose and fancy-free with the facts and come to certain conclusions — the allegations. Look, there is now a review being conducted by the Privacy Commissioner. The appropriate and decent thing to do in the interest of fairness is wait for the results of that fact-finding.

M. Karagianis: Well, unless the Attorney General has expanded the terms of reference of the fact-finding mission, it is only about the lobbyist registry violations. In fact, this goes far beyond that at this point. Mr. Dobell was intimately involved in funding a project that one year later funded his own contract. He helped set up funding from the Premier's office and then later got the contract to lobby the Premier's office.

So my question to the Attorney General is: does he believe that it is appropriate for a deputy minister to establish contractual opportunities that they then leave office and go and cash in on? Does he think that is appropriate?

Hon. W. Oppal: My belief is irrelevant. That's not the point. The point here is that there's an investigation, a review being conducted. So in the interests of fairness, we wait for the results of that review.

Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental.

M. Karagianis: In fact, at the centre of this scandal is the application of ethical standards in the Premier's office. This matter is not before the courts, and so we think that the Attorney General should be able to give us an answer for a change, but apparently not.

I will ask this to the Attorney General. After everything that he has heard, does he agree that there may be a real or perceived conflict of interest here? And will he investigate? If not, what is preventing him from clearing up this matter right now?

[1410]

Hon. W. Oppal: You know, if there is a conflict of interest and if there is a violation of the Lobbyists Registration Act, that is surely something that the fact-finding review will tell us. If there's a violation of the act, the member opposite knows what to do.

L. Krog: It's too bad the Attorney General can't listen as carefully to the questions as we listen to his answers. A few minutes ago it was a review. Then it was an investigation, and now it's a review again.

My question to the Attorney General is very simple. All Mr. Loukidelis is doing is a fact-finding review. It is not an investigation. Will the Attorney General confirm whether or not that fact-finding investigation includes the conflict of interest that has been raised so carefully by question after question in this House?

Hon. W. Oppal: Obviously, the facts are clear. There's a fact-finding review now being conducted by the Privacy Commissioner. I don't understand why that member, who is a lawyer, can't understand that there might well be two sides to the story. Why don't we wait for the results of the investigation in the interests of fairness and the interests of decency?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members. We're not continuing until there's silence.

The member has a supplemental.

L. Krog: With the greatest respect to the Attorney General, who sat on the Court of Appeal, there is a difference between a review and an investigation. The toothless tiger that is the Lobbyists Registration Act proves to everyone in this province that, in fact, nothing is going to come of that.

The fact is that the Attorney General has heard enough information in this House to warrant a genuine investigation. Will he today commit to an investigation that will clear the air and remove the cloud over this whole nasty affair?

Hon. W. Oppal: That was somewhat dismissive of the Privacy Commissioner, who's doing his job and conducting a review of this case. Why don't we just wait?

AUTHORITY OF PRIVACY COMMISSIONER

TO INVESTIGATE

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

B. Ralston: Will the Attorney General advise the House under what authority the Privacy Commissioner acts to investigate conflicts of interest?

Hon. W. Oppal: The Privacy Commissioner has agreed to conduct a fact-finding review. We had a conversation with him, and he agreed to do that. If there is a violation of the act, the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin is well familiar with the circumstances and the avenues in order to report that.

[ Page 7209 ]

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

B. Ralston: The Information and Privacy Commissioner has responsibility for the Lobbyists Registration Act. My question is: what is the specific legal authority for him to investigate a conflict of interest?

[1415]

Hon. W. Oppal: If there is a violation of the act, we have the Offence Act. The Offence Act sets out the parameters pursuant to which an action can be launched. The member knows that.

CONFLICT-OF-INTEREST CONCERNS

REGARDING KEN DOBELL AND

CULTURAL PRECINCT PROJECT

J. Kwan: The Attorney General wants us to wait for the Privacy Commissioner's review, but that won't look at the conflict-of-interest issues. We already know that Ken Dobell has failed to register as a lobbyist, and now we know that he was lobbying hard. The opposition has also obtained more information that Ken Dobell was lobbying before he registered on October 28, 2006.

On August 10, 2006, the Deputy Minister of Tourism met with Sue Harvey. She is the Vancouver managing director of cultural services and also co-authored the October 31 council report outlining the cultural precincts with Mr. Dobell.

You know who else was at that meeting, Mr. Speaker? Ken Dobell himself, the city's lobbyist for the cultural precinct project. But he wasn't there alone. Jim Moodie, another one-time adviser, campaign worker and aide to the Premier, was also there. It sure is getting kind of crowded.

To the Minister of Tourism and Sport: how many meetings did his officials have with Ken Dobell before he got around to registering as a lobbyist?

Hon. W. Oppal: You know, if there are allegations to be made, the allegations should be made in the proper place. Now, I know we have a 30-minute question period that has to be filled, but you know….

Interjection.

Hon. W. Oppal: And you're not doing a very good job of filling it, I might add.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Continue, Attorney.

Hon. W. Oppal: You know, the allegations are getting wilder and wilder. They're coming out of here, and they're coming out of there and other meetings, I think….

Look, if there is wrongdoing and if there has been a breach of the law — if there's been a breach of any regulation — there's a proper place to go. The member for Esquimalt-Metchosin has already gone to the criminal justice branch in order to get some advice, so why don't they go there?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members of both sides.

Member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has the floor.

J. Kwan: I know that these questions are uncomfortable for the government side. There are more and more clouds and darker and darker clouds hanging over the Premier's office and his friend and adviser Ken Dobell.

Will the minister commit today to submitting all of the information related to how many meetings Ken Dobell had with provincial government officials relating to the cultural precincts project as part of the evidence?

Hon. W. Oppal: You know, I think the understanding of the process, the procedure and the law is best summarized by the member for Yale-Lillooet when he said that it was my job to investigate. I have news for that member. He should look at the Crown Counsel Act, and he'll understand whose job it is to follow through with the procedures when there is a wrongdoing.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

APPOINTMENT OF ANDREW WILKINSON

TO TILMA DISPUTE RESOLUTION PANEL

M. Sather: Ken Dobell is not the only friend and insider of this government to get cushy deals. Andrew Wilkinson was recently appointed to the trade, investment and labour mobility agreement dispute resolution panel. Mr. Wilkinson is a former president of the B.C. Liberal Party — yes, another friend and insider. More friends and insiders.

[1420]

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Member, continue.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

M. Sather: I guess, Mr. Speaker, the friends and insiders are so common amongst this government that they'll clap at almost any of them, because they're all over the place.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

[ Page 7210 ]

M. Sather: I want to know how the Minister of Economic Development justifies this payoff to another B.C. friend and insider.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. C. Hansen: I'll tell you where the payoff is from TILMA. The payoff is actually to the residents of British Columbia and Alberta.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. C. Hansen: The report done by the Conference Board of Canada indicates that it's going to result in a net increase of about $4.8 billion in economic activity in British Columbia. We're proud of the kind of cooperation and economic dynamism that you see between B.C. and Alberta. In yesterday's news media there was a report that B.C. and Alberta are the two provinces that are leading Canada in terms of economic growth. That's great news for all of us.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

M. Sather: Sadly, the beneficiary is going to be Mr. Wilkinson. I don't know if he's getting paid as much as Mr. Dobell, but he's getting paid substantially — $800 a day, as a matter of fact.

Mr. Wilkinson is also a lobbyist, like Mr. Dobell, to this government. I'd like to know how many other lobbyists are getting perks and payoffs from this government.

Hon. C. Hansen: Mr. Wilkinson is a Rhodes scholar….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Minister, just take your seat.

Continue.

Hon. C. Hansen: Mr. Wilkinson is a Rhodes scholar. He is a medical doctor. He is a very prominent lawyer and a former Deputy Minister of Economic Development in this province. Unlike the members opposite, Mr. Wilkinson actually has read and understands the TILMA agreement and the great benefits it will produce for British Columbia.

KAMLOOPS AMBULANCE

DISPATCH CENTRE RELOCATION

C. Wyse: The B.C. Ambulance Service Kamloops dispatch centre experienced the effect of a backed-up toilet starting on April 21. It took from Saturday morning until Tuesday evening to make a decision to evacuate, then locate a temporary site and re-establish full radio coverage for the area serviced out of Kamloops. This dispatch station covers three-quarters of the province of British Columbia, with one-quarter of its population.

[1425]

As of yesterday the B.C. ambulance system still considers this is a seamless transition. My question: will the minister advise the House when he expects the smooth and efficient transition from the present temporary location to the permanent location in Kamloops to be completed? In the tradition of this House, I will accept a range of time.

Hon. G. Abbott: What I see is an enormous range in hypocrisy. This member starts out an introduction by saluting the efforts of all those who were involved in the very difficult circumstances in Kamloops on the weekend. He salutes all of those involved in the very difficult transition that was made, and then he turns around and condemns them in question period. I can't imagine that. I can't imagine the range of hypocrisy that would be involved in someone formulating an answer like that.

As a matter of fact, this was much more than a backed-up toilet. The member knows that full well. He insults everyone involved by making an idiotic comment like that.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

I just want to remind the minister to be careful in how he phrases things. Continue.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. G. Abbott: I withdraw the comment, Mr. Speaker, with respect to "idiotic." It was a most unfortunate and inappropriate way of characterizing a very difficult situation.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members. Member for Cariboo South has the floor for a supplemental.

AMBULANCE SERVICE FOR

RURAL BRITISH COLUMBIA

C. Wyse: Mr. Speaker, I do appreciate your ensuring that we stay on track on the business that we have at hand and don't follow the detractors.

Three-quarters of B.C. was served by a compromised dispatch system for several days. Clearly, a backup plan was lacking in the event of a dispatch station being taken out of service. It remains uncertain when a permanent station will be re-established.

[ Page 7211 ]

I got no answer for my last question. Once more the minister has been dismissive of issues affecting the ambulance service provided to rural British Columbians. My question, once more: will the minister tell the House when adequate ambulance services will be provided to all rural British Columbians?

Hon. G. Abbott: Adequate ambulance services — in fact, exceptional ambulance services — are being provided today. They are being provided on the weekend. They are being provided every day of the year by the B.C. Ambulance Service and the very capable paramedics who work in it.

I want to take the opportunity to salute the dispatchers, the paramedics and the BCAS managers who worked in a professional, capable, calm manner to have a seamless transition over the weekend under remarkably difficult circumstances. There is no evidence of a single dropped call. There is no evidence of a single case where patient care was in any way compromised. That was because despite the very difficult situation, B.C. Ambulance did a great job, and the people who work for them did a great job.

[End of question period.]

Interjections.

[1430]

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members from both sides, the bell ends question period.

Introductions by Members

C. Trevena: I've got great pleasure in introducing today a group of grades 6, 7 and 8 students from Linnaea School on Cortes Island. They're here today with their teacher Conrad Dombrowski and their principal Donna Bracewell as well as one of the parents, Sabina Leader-Mens.

For anyone who knows Cortes Island, they know that Linnaea is more than a school. It's part of the Linnaea Farm Society and is the centre for great growth for the island.

I hope the House will make them welcome. They've clearly seen what's happening here.

S. Simpson: Leave to make an introduction?

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

S. Simpson: I am pleased to introduce 30 grade 10 students who are here from Templeton Mini School with their teacher Mr. Gary Kunis. I hope they enjoyed the last 30 minutes, and maybe it was instructive for them. Will the House please make them welcome.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: I call Committee of Supply. For the information of members, in Committee A we'll be discussing the estimates of the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, and in this chamber, the estimates of the Ministry of Environment.

[1435]

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

ENVIRONMENT AND MINISTER

RESPONSIBLE FOR WATER STEWARDSHIP

AND SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section B); S. Hammell in the chair.

The committee met at 2:37 p.m.

On Vote 29: ministry operations, $186,557,000 (continued).

S. Simpson: The key policy in the throne speech in relation to climate change would be the 33-percent reduction by 2020. Did the ministry staff play a role in the development of that number?

Hon. B. Penner: Yes.

S. Simpson: I am pleased to hear that. Could the minister tell us how that number was arrived at?

Hon. B. Penner: Our ministry worked with other ministries across government to determine what we felt was not just an aggressive target but also a doable and achievable target. We recognize that it is ambitious. It is a stretch goal, but it's one that, based on analysis and consultations between various ministries, we felt was achievable by 2020.

S. Simpson: Could the minister give us some idea about what that analysis was that was done? Exactly what analysis was done? I would agree that it is a significant number — 33 percent by 2020.

[1440]

Achieving that number…. There will be challenges to achieve that number, and we're going to get an opportunity to discuss some of those challenges as we go along this afternoon. Hopefully it's not a number, and I would assume it's not a number, that got picked out of the air. There was serious work that went into determining why it would be 33 percent below 1990 levels by 2020.

I would like to know what analysis was done to accomplish that.

Hon. B. Penner: As I indicated, we looked at what we felt was achievable and also at what was necessary. The science has been pretty compelling that human activity is contributing to climate change through CO 2 and other emissions. The science that's out there does say that aggressive and bold targets are required, and we need to get those reductions.

[ Page 7212 ]

Different jurisdictions have gone about it differently. They're setting 2050 targets. We haven't set the hard number for that yet. That's something we're going to do, working with a variety of groups and others to establish 2050 in the long-term goal. Taking a look at other jurisdictions and what information we had within government, we felt that a 33-percent reduction from current levels by 2020 was achievable.

S. Simpson: That still hasn't answered the question. The question is a pretty straightforward one. I'll maybe try to ask it in a more clear fashion here, in case it wasn't clear enough for the minister. The minister told us a few minutes ago that there was analysis done, cross-ministries and cross-government, that his climate change staff played a significant role in that, and I am pleased to hear that.

What I'm looking for is what that analysis was. I'm not looking for a: "We thought some other jurisdictions did this or that." If all the government did was make a couple of phone calls to get the number, then tell us that. If there's real analysis, then tell us what the real analysis was.

Hon. B. Penner: The member may want to cast aspersions upon our targets, and he's free to do so. I can understand why politically he would be tempted to do so, given their own sorely lacking record in terms of addressing climate change in a meaningful way. So it comes as no surprise to me.

Other commentators have commented — in fact even he has commented in the past — on the quality of the work we did and the goals we set for ourselves in the throne speech. He seemed to salute it then. Maybe he's suggesting something different now, that maybe we shouldn't be moving to a 33-percent reduction by 2020. If that's his position, he should simply say so.

I also take some offence to him casting aspersions upon the work done by the people working in the Ministry of Environment that took place over a number of months. To simply characterize it as a few phone calls is simply unfair and untrue.

[1445]

S. Simpson: This minister continues. We've been through a day and a half without a serious answer, so we'll continue on. The question isn't to cast an aspersion. The 33-percent reduction by 2020…. I don't have a problem with that number. That's a number, and it's a solid number.

The minister told us in this House, just minutes ago, that that number was developed through analysis. There was months of work that went on, I believe was his comment, by his staff and presumably by others in government to get to that 33 percent by 2020.

I'm simply asking the minister: what was that work that was done? In some detail, what was that work that was done prior to the throne speech to come up with the number of 33 percent by 2020?

Hon. B. Penner: It's exactly the work he just described in his question. He should listen to his own question.

We also have the advantage of having information that's collected by Statistics Canada in terms of inventories of greenhouse gas emissions. That clearly also played a role in terms of setting baselines and knowing where the emissions are from various sectors, and then working with government officials in the ministry and elsewhere to determine what we thought were achievable targets to get to a 33-percent reduction by 2020.

Again, the member seems to be skating around the fact of whether or not he's going to support that objective. I think I heard him say that he does, but then on the other hand, he wants to try and put some questions around that. I guess that's his right to do so.

Our government is committed to climate change in a way that the previous government never was. We have already implemented numerous policies. I've listed a number of them here today already. I can list a few more in the throne speech around methane gas capture from landfills. We're going to be embarking on a new initiative around that, because we think we can get significant reductions there from greenhouse gas emissions.

As I've already said, we're the first jurisdiction in North America to require hybrid vehicles in terms of the government's passenger vehicle fleet. We are requiring, if there is going to be any coal-fired generation built in British Columbia for electricity, that it would have to use carbon capture and storage technology. That's leading in North America and, in fact, the world.

In addition to that, since 2001 all new electricity projects built in British Columbia have been green energy projects. The NDP opposition has opposed every single one. They haven't supported a single one. And if they have, please stand up and say so. But they haven't.

S. Simpson: I certainly will put the environmental record up of this party against that party any day of the week. This is the party…. This is the Premier who stood up with Ralph Klein and condemned Kyoto and condemned the federal Liberals. This is the Premier of this government who said: "Oh, British Columbia emissions are so low, they don't matter." Quite frankly, this Premier is only concerned about this issue today for political reasons. I've got to believe he wrote this on the back of a napkin on the beach in Maui, and that's what we're trying to get to.

The question here is: if the minister is going to tell us that he did work more than what I think was a couple of phone calls out of the Premier's office, will he produce any reports or memos or…? Maybe first we'll start with this question. Did the minister receive any reports, memos or briefing notes on this 33-percent reduction by 2020 prior to the throne speech being released?

[1450]

Hon. B. Penner: I know the member gets panicked a little bit when I point out the NDP's lack of leadership on climate change. I'm reluctant to do that, but it does bear noting that the single biggest year-over-year increase in greenhouse gas emissions that has been recorded in British Columbia occurred between the

[ Page 7213 ]

years 1995 and 1996 — a 7.5-percent increase in one year in greenhouse gas emissions.

It is truly remarkable because they did virtually the impossible: managed to increase greenhouse gas emissions while they put B.C.'s economy on its back. We went from having the best economy in the country to being number ten. Hardly an admirable record but truly remarkable nonetheless.

We are working hard. We know that greenhouse gas emissions are a challenge. That's why we have done the work, not only through the energy plan, but also preparing a plan to deal with greenhouse gas emissions.

I mentioned earlier about the importance of getting baseline data and knowing which sectors are contributing certain amounts to greenhouse gas emissions generally from the province of British Columbia.

[1455]

For the member's benefit I'll walk him through the breakdown by source. The latest stats that are publicly available are for 2004. I'll start with the largest single sector: transportation at 39 percent; fossil fuel production, 18 percent; electricity at just 3 percent; waste at 9 percent — and that includes landfills; agriculture, 4 percent; residential and commercial, 11 percent; and other industry at 16 percent.

Now the member will know that last fall, as well, we were engaged in an update to the energy plan, and that produced a significant amount of information, as the member would well expect. That information, of course, was shared with the Ministry of Environment, and we had a role to play in the development of the energy plan.

The member is more than welcome to make whatever requests he wishes to make through the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act, which does apply to government activities.

S. Simpson: Did the minister receive any reports, memos or briefing notes regarding how the government was going to achieve the 33-percent reduction by 2020 before the throne speech was released?

Hon. B. Penner: Yes.

S. Simpson: Would the minister identify what those reports, memos or briefing notes were?

Hon. B. Penner: Briefing notes and memos — and I forget the other thing the member mentioned — come my way on a regular basis on a whole variety of issues. Of course, climate change is one of them. Also, I did mention earlier that the energy plan has been in development for a considerable period of time, and I have worked very closely with my colleague the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources in the development of our energy plan, which is leading, as well, in terms of its environmental components.

I can mention a few additional things. I mentioned earlier the baseline figures for greenhouse gas emissions by sector and some of the initiatives that we've developed to address those, from tailpipe emission standards for a 30-percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from the tailpipe by 2016, to fuel content objectives of a 10-percent reduction in carbon content.

In terms of waste identified, that is a challenge around landfills, and we think there's more we can do around methane capture. It's worth noting that since 2001 methane gas is now being captured from the Hartland Landfill, north of Victoria, as well as in the GVRD's landfill in the Delta area.

That methane gas, rather than simply escaping into the atmosphere and contributing to global warming and climate change, is actually being put to productive use, generating electricity that we certainly need in British Columbia with our growing economy and helping to displace the imports that we have become dependent on due to a lack of investment in new generational facilities that took place here in the 1990s.

We have also announced initiatives around getting to zero greenhouse gas emissions for electricity development by 2016 and an end to routine flaring from the oil and gas sector. These are all leading initiatives that will address the greenhouse gas portfolio that I mentioned.

We are working on additional measures, and that is a work in progress. We are ramping up our resources to do that. We are hiring, as the member talked about late yesterday and earlier this morning. We've got ads in the newspaper. We're seeking the brightest and the best to help us with this challenge.

The member has acknowledged that it is a challenge, and he's right about that. It's something that we're committed to, and we're going to keep working on.

S. Simpson: Once again, could the minister identify what those briefing notes, memos or reports were that he received prior to the throne speech that addressed achieving the reduction of 33 percent by 2020?

[1500]

Hon. B. Penner: I have received and continue to receive a variety of information from a variety of sources pertaining to climate change, alternative energy potential and options, and any manner of other things, including waste heat capture, potential for wind generation, tidal power, ocean energy and solar energy opportunities in British Columbia. The list is extremely long. Virtually, something lands on my desk just about every day.

S. Simpson: I'm sure the minister does. I receive reams and reams of that information on my desk every day too — I suspect not as much as the minister, but I do.

There is a difference between the vast array of information that hits my desk from a variety of sources, and the briefing notes, memos or reports I might receive — should I be sitting in the minister's chair — from the Premier's office or from government officials saying: "Here's the information that supports the reductions in greenhouse gas emissions that we're going to put in our throne speech and that we're going to build our whole climate change argument around."

I might find those particular reports, memos or briefing notes a little bit more important and worthy of

[ Page 7214 ]

a little bit more of my attention than simply the stack of stuff I get from every other source. I know the minister's a pretty diligent guy, so I suspect that he would pay a certain amount more attention to those things, particularly if they were coming from the office over on the west side.

Could the minister tell me if he received reports that pertain to that reduction — the 33-percent reduction by 2020 — that ended up, in fact, as the centrepiece of this year's throne speech and as the significant initiative by this government around climate change? If he got reports, memos or policy analysis on that matter, we'd like to know. If he didn't get any, then tell us that he didn't get any.

[1505]

Hon. B. Penner: Yes, I have received a variety of information, including from the ministry, pertaining to climate change, energy, energy options, measures to deal with energy, to reduce emissions, etc.

S. Simpson: Were those memos, reports or briefing notes that specifically pertained to the work that led to the decision that 33 percent by 2020 was the appropriate number to put in the throne speech?

Hon. B. Penner: We have received, as I said, and continue to receive information from the Ministry of Environment and elsewhere about all kinds of matters pertaining to climate change. Directly to the member's question, we did receive a range of information from the Ministry of Environment, staff who work in the climate change section, about what a range of possibilities would look like and what it would take to accomplish those objectives — to give government an idea of what the realm of possibility is and how we would get there.

There's obviously additional detail work that needs to be done as we go to set our interim targets for 2012 and 2016. That's why we will be working with academics, first nations, community groups and industry to make sure that we reach targets that are aggressive but also doable and that don't unduly burden the economy but do help achieve our objective of reaching a 33-percent reduction by 2020.

S. Simpson: That specific information that relates to the 33-percent reduction by 2020 that is in the throne speech…. The minister now has said that he received from his staff a variety of information, I believe was his comment. I don't want to put words into his mouth. I think he said "a variety of information" that related to that and related to what some of the options and considerations were and how that might be accomplished. Will the minister make that information available to the House?

Hon. B. Penner: The member is welcome to make an application under the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act for any and all information that he seeks.

S. Simpson: Well, that's true, and we'll get to talk about some more of this.

Here's my problem, hon. Chair. I have a letter here dated March 20, 2007, that is addressed back to one of our research staff from a Miss Burnham in the information, privacy and records department for the ministry. It's in regard to a request for information.

[1510]

The request for information was in regard to copies of any and all records in any format whatsoever, including but not limited to all briefing materials, correspondence, preliminary reports and studies that support comments made by the Minister of Environment regarding the impact of the Gateway program and its components on air quality and greenhouse gas emissions.

As the minister will know, the Gateway program is referenced in the throne speech as one of the good things that the government is doing in regard to climate change. Well, the response to that request was that the Ministry of Environment, the Ministry of Transportation and staff within the public affairs bureau have no records that respond to that request.

We asked for that data, and what freedom-of-information came back and told us in a response to that request is that it doesn't exist. So maybe the minister could tell us: if the information doesn't exist for freedom-of-information, exactly what information is he talking about having that he might be able to make available?

Hon. B. Penner: Just to clarify, was the member now referring to the Gateway project as opposed to the climate change plan?

S. Simpson: What I was referring to was copies of all…. It was in reference to comments made by the minister as they relate to the Gateway program. As the minister will know, the Gateway program is explicitly spoken about in the throne speech as an aspect of the climate change plan, as part of what was going to help us get to this reduction.

So it's one small piece. If need be, we will submit all kinds of requests for the other information, but I suspect that it goes like this.

If we ask for copies of any and all records in any format whatsoever, including but not limited to all briefing materials, correspondence, preliminary reports and studies that support comments made by the Minister of Environment regarding the impact of the Gateway program and its components on air quality and greenhouse gas emissions, and if the response is that the Ministry of Environment, Ministry of Transportation and staff within the public affairs bureau have no records that respond to that request….

I'm pretty hard-pressed to believe there's not one piece of paper involved in this that could be made available at a time when the minister has just talked about all the analysis that he had before the throne speech.

B. Ralston: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

[ Page 7215 ]

Introductions by Members

B. Ralston: I hope the chamber will join me in welcoming ten parents and students from Bridgeview Elementary School in my riding. The teachers are Mr. Swistak and Mrs. Pelzer. The parents are Mrs. Chandra, Mrs. Bains, Mrs. Fisher, Mrs. Sondi, Mrs. Tran, Mrs. McIntyre, Mrs. Croaker, Mrs. Bort and Mr. Campos. I hope the House will make them welcome.

D. Chudnovsky: I, too, seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

D. Chudnovsky: It is a great pleasure for me, having been a teacher at Bridgeview Community School, as it then was between 1978 and 1987, to make a special welcome to the folks who are here visiting from Bridgeview.

[1515]

Debate Continued

Hon. B. Penner: I am advised by the executive director of the environmental assessment office that the Port Mann twinning project is in the preapplication stage. We expect the formal process to begin shortly. Greenhouse gas emissions will be a factor that is considered by the environmental assessment office as part of their review.

S. Simpson: We weren't specifically talking about what the environmental review process is for the Gateway project. We will get a chance to talk about that maybe in a little while, but we aren't talking about that right now.

I'm coming back to the issue here about these briefing notes. Apparently, on the question of the Gateway, which is transportation-related…. It is about the cars. The minister spoke here about tailpipe emissions. The minister spoke about reducing transportation emissions. Clearly, the Gateway program is a focal point of where tailpipe emissions will potentially come from, around that corridor currently and after the project goes ahead, should it proceed.

What we know is that the minister has been a proponent of that plan, and I accept that. That's his prerogative. What we asked for was copies of any and all records in any form whatsoever, including but not limited to all briefing notes, correspondence, preliminary reports and studies that support the minister's comments and deal with the issues around air quality and greenhouse gas emissions.

We've been told they don't exist. They're not FOI-able, so I'm assuming they don't exist. That being the point, it comes back to the question I asked earlier. I asked if the minister had received any documentation prior to the throne speech related to the 33-percent reduction by 2020.

The minister alluded to having received some reports from his staff after numerous questions and said I could FOI those reports. My question, then, to the minister is: is the minister telling me — while he received absolutely nothing from his staff or from anybody else, apparently, in relation to the question of Gateway and transportation; presumably they would be linked — that he did receive things on other matters that were different and distinct from that?

[1520]

Hon. B. Penner: I would expect that when the environmental assessment process regarding Gateway and the twinning of the Port Mann Bridge gets underway and then is completed, there certainly will be documents that would be accessible by the opposition through FOI.

At this point, as I indicated, the formal review process has not yet started for the Gateway twinning project. It's in the preapplication stage. The executive director of the environmental assessment office advises me that the project is getting closer to starting the formal review process, but that formal process has not yet started.

S. Simpson: The freedom-of-information request didn't ask for any reports related to the environmental assessment. They asked for reports that support the comments made by the Minister of Environment regarding the impact of the Gateway program and its components on air quality and greenhouse gas emissions. Am I to believe, since nothing existed here, that the comments of the minister supporting Gateway, suggesting that it would reduce greenhouse gas emissions, was a figment of his imagination that had no evidence to support it?

[1525]

Hon. B. Penner: I remember canvassing this issue last year with the member at some length around the preliminary information or assessment that the Ministry of Transportation had done, looking at the twinning of the Port Mann Bridge project and that proposal — which, by the way, the NDP opposition has failed to take a position on. We still haven't heard from the Leader of the Opposition whether or not she, in fact, supports that project. I assume that that's only because the other side is divided on this issue. They can't come to a conclusion about whether or not they support it.

Nevertheless, I know the critic sent out a newsletter just a few weeks ago, including a photograph of an artist's rendering of what the twinned Port Mann Bridge would look like and promoting a rally against the project in his riding. I'd have to assume, then, that at least that member is against the project. I'm not sure if the NDP members from Surrey would agree with him on that. I suppose that's why we haven't heard the leader of his party take a position yet on issues related to the Port Mann Bridge.

We did canvass this issue last year. The project will have to go through an environmental assessment, and the environmental assessment office will be taking a look at the greenhouse gas implications of that project, combined with tolling. It's my understanding that that project, at present, is not anticipated to have a signifi-

[ Page 7216 ]

cant increase in greenhouse gas emissions, but that doesn't mean that we don't take emissions from transportation seriously. In fact, we do.

That's why our throne speech did call for a 30-percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from tailpipes by 2016, adopting the California standard. Also, we're looking at what we can do about carbon content in gasoline to meet additional reductions. We also have the $2,000 provincial sales tax credit that's applied to the purchase of hybrid electric vehicles in British Columbia. As I've mentioned a couple of times already today, that's why British Columbia, I think, still remains the only governing jurisdiction in North America where, as of this year, all passenger vehicles acquired for the B.C. government fleet, through lease or purchase, have to be hybrid electric vehicles.

S. Simpson: Since we know from this freedom-of-information request that…. Certainly, the indication here is that the minister received no background information, no materials and no support that would support his position, which would allow him to have a knowledgable and informed position on this issue. Clearly, he didn't seem to get any materials that would have allowed him to have an informed position, as we're not able to get any of those materials.

My question to the minister would be this. The minister has suggested that we FOI on the question that I raised earlier, which is that the throne speech lays out as its keynote piece a 33-percent reduction below 1990 levels by 2020. The question that I'd asked is: what analysis had been done and, most specifically, what information, memos, briefing notes or other data and reports had the minister received to support that number in its development, prior to the throne speech?

The minister has said that he did receive data and that we could FOI that. So my question to the minister would be this: if I put that FOI request in tomorrow, am I going to get anything more than a letter that says the Ministry of Environment and staff and the public affairs bureau have no records that respond to that request?

Hon. B. Penner: I suspect the answer is yes, but in the meantime it would be interesting to hear from the critic whether or not their party does support the Gateway project. If not, why not? Or if they can't make a decision, when can we expect to get one from the opposition?

[1530]

S. Simpson: Maybe after 2009 when we're sitting there — should this minister then be a good opposition member — he can ask those questions in estimates when it's his turn.

What we know now is that the minister has received no data or information of substance on the 33-percent reduction before 2020, or if he has, he refuses to acknowledge and make that information available. He's said he won't make it available.

After asking the question Lord knows how many times, I have to assume…. "It's another answer that I don't want to give, so we will evade the answer as best we can, and that's what we've done here." So we'll try something a little bit different, and we will get to talk about Gateway in a minute.

Could the minister tell us: prior to the throne speech, in the development of the 33-percent reduction by 2020, what consultation did ministry staff who are responsible for climate change do with experts — like Professor Weaver, for example — outside of government in determining that that was the correct number?

Hon. B. Penner: I have met with numerous individuals, groups, representatives from different organizations and members of the Legislature, in fact, since I've been appointed minister. Many of those meetings have pertained to climate change and the need for action and the challenge about what we can do to try and curtail and limit and reduce greenhouse-gas-causing emissions for British Columbia — the opportunity that British Columbia has to play a leadership role.

There were also numerous meetings, I know, that my colleague the Minister of Energy had in the development of the energy plan, which will play a very significant

part in us meeting our objectives around reaching a 33-percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2020. I have already canvassed what many of those objectives are. They are to develop zero-greenhouse-gas-emission-causing electricity sources by 2016.

Already we are well on our way to doing that, because 100 percent of the new projects that we have developed since we took office in 2001 in British Columbia have had zero emissions. They've been mostly run-of-the-river hydro projects but also methane capture projects from landfills — north of Victoria in the Hartland landfill and also in the GVRD at their landfill near Delta. Yet I haven't heard the opposition member support a single project that we've put forward — not one.

[1535]

Instead, they have an ideological aversion to including the private sector in helping meet this challenge of reducing greenhouse gas emissions while still providing the energy that we need in British Columbia. That is something we're working on, and we continue to do that. It would be helpful to hear something constructive once in a while when we're developing these clean energy projects in British Columbia, generating jobs in the process as well as reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

S. Simpson: Up until the report, I think — and I'm sure that the minister will correct me if I have the date wrong — the province has had…. As a matter of fact, it still has a climate change plan on the books. I think that was dated 2004; it might have been 2003-2004.

I understand that there will be a new climate change plan sometime in the coming weeks or months, but there is a plan on the books. It hasn't been totally rescinded yet, at least not in any formal way.

Of course, it's not legislation either, so you don't have to rescind that — much like the emission target that the minister doesn't seem to be inclined to want to entrench. They won't have to rescind that one either. The problem is this: we have a plan, and — as the min-

[ Page 7217 ]

ister will know because he defended that plan in this House on numerous occasions — it's a plan that has no targets in it, that talks about relativity. That was the plan that existed up until 2004. In fact, that was the plan that existed and was enthusiastically supported by this government until the most recent throne speech.

[H. Bloy in the chair.]

The question I have around consultation…. I'm sure that the minister talks to lots of people about these issues; I talk to lots of people about these issues. My question is more specific. The question is: who, if anybody, did the minister — or his staff or the climate change officials within his ministry — consult with to get advice leading towards the recommendations that led to the 33-percent reduction by 2020 in the throne speech?

Hon. B. Penner: As I've mentioned, we have had numerous meetings — not just me but my colleagues in government — with all kinds of individuals. Some are more expert than others in issues dealing with climate change and energy and things we can do around alternative energy and reducing greenhouse gas emissions, while trying to maintain a standard of living here in British Columbia that can help us pay for things like health care and education and all of the other social benefits that we have come to expect and enjoy in the province.

We have had those conversations, discussions and meetings going on for years. Since 2001 there has been a lot of work done in different circles, different groups. All of that information has come into government, and we have benefited from all of that as we developed the targets for the climate change initiative and the throne speech. That work was done within government, and we have set that target of 33 percent by 2020.

[1540]

This is what people have said since then. Prof. Andrew Weaver from the University of Victoria, I think, was one of the lead authors of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report that came out in February or late January of this year. It caused significant shock waves around the world because of how strong the science is around climate change.

What Professor Weaver had to say is: "It is the most progressive plan that I've seen anywhere in North America, for a start, and one of the best in the world. This is the way to go. This is great leadership. It really is super."

I've already talked about what David Keith, the Canada Research Chair in energy and environment at the University of Calgary said. He says: "I think it's right on."

Guy Dauncey, from the Sustainable Energy Association, after we announced what our targets were, said: "Finally, after years when all governments in B.C. have been asleep at the switch, we have leadership. This is something to celebrate."

Hon. Chair, we know that the work is ongoing. We have much more to do, and we plan to do that over the weeks, months and years ahead.

S. Simpson: I think we have a pattern here, and it's good. We know that we're not getting answers, so we'll just move on to the next area and see what we don't get out of this.

There's a 33-percent reduction overall by 2020 anticipated…. That is the government's policy. That is the position that the government says it will achieve. Could the minister tell us, hon. Chair, where he anticipates receiving that on a sectoral basis?

We know transportation has about 40-odd percent of our emissions; oil and gas, another 20 percent to 25 percent; energy, another percentage; homes and land use issues, another percentage. Those are all there. I believe that the minister earlier, in answer to another question, talked about the work that the ministry had done on a sectoral basis in preparing the 33-percent reduction by 2020.

I'm going to assume for the moment that there was some analysis at a sectoral level on how to accomplish a 33-percent reduction. Could the minister tell us what the anticipated reductions are by sector to accomplish that 33 percent by 2020?

Hon. B. Penner: As the member knows, we have set the 33-percent reduction target by 2020, and that is a stretch goal. It's something we're working towards. We have some idea about where we think we can get those reductions.

For example, I've already mentioned that in the electricity sector we think we can eliminate greenhouse gas emissions entirely by around 2016. That's something that's laid out in the energy plan. The Energy Minister can fill you in more about that, because his estimates are taking place just down the hallway as we speak here.

We will be engaging in consultation with academics, industry leaders, first nations and community groups over the next year as we work to set specific reduction targets by sector, but all of this is geared towards reaching our overall objective, which is a 33-percent reduction by 2020 in greenhouse gas emissions from British Columbia.

[1545]

S. Simpson: Just so that I'm clear here, the government has set the 33-percent-by-2020 target, and at this point the government does not have an assessment of what those reductions may be by sector. It doesn't have a firm handle on that yet. That's not necessarily a bad thing. But it doesn't have a firm handle yet that it's prepared to put out there. Would that be fair comment?

Hon. B. Penner: As I said, we will be working with industry, stakeholders, community groups, first nations, academics, scientists and others to help us set those specific sectoral targets that the member refers to.

We're not alone in this at the moment. The member may be aware that California has embarked on something similar. They have set their overall goal for reductions but are still working towards setting their sectoral targets — that's my understanding — and they hope to have that work done by next year.

[ Page 7218 ]

S. Simpson: We'll come back to this in a different way in a bit, hon. Chair, but I want to go to another question. I had the opportunity to raise some questions with the Minister of Transportation in regard to some transportation matters in his estimates. We were talking about climate change issues as related to transportation and about how his ministry would deal with those things.

His response — and I paraphrase — was something like this. The Ministry of Environment will be responsible for setting the standards around emission reductions and for tracking those standards, and we as the Ministry of Transportation will have to then go out and meet those standards that are set for us by Environment. That will be our job as Transportation. Environment's job will be to set the standard and monitor or track it to make sure that it's being achieved.

Would that be the minister's view of that division of responsibility?

[1550]

Hon. B. Penner: When it comes to things like mandatory tailpipe production standards for greenhouse gas emissions for automobiles, the Ministry of Environment will be leading on that front. But obviously we'll be counting on getting support from other agencies in government, including the Ministry of Transportation.

I should note that currently, within Canada, greenhouse gas emissions are tracked and compiled by Statistics Canada. They keep a national inventory. I think the most recent statistics available are for 2004.

British Columbia is exploring the potential for joining a regional greenhouse gas emissions registry with a number of states south of the border. That was one of the topics of discussion when I was down in California recently with the Premier. That's something that the province is interested in exploring.

It's important to have timely and consistent information so that we know what steps we need to take and can track our progress as we work towards our 33-percent overall reduction for the province by 2020.

S. Simpson: I'm sure that the minister has been busy and hasn't seen this, but I do have a press release from April 24 that says B.C. has joined the western regional climate action initiative.

Interjections.

S. Simpson: Oh, because I don't know. I just noticed that they'd joined, and the Premier had signed his name onto all of these commitments that came with it, which is good.

[1555]

The Ministry of Environment, if I understand the minister correctly, will be responsible for emissions related to transportation — vehicle emissions. What about responsibility for setting emission standards and tracking those in the case of the oil and gas sector or in the case of other emitters of greenhouse gases? Where will the other responsibility be for those sectors in terms of setting emission standards and tracking those standards if it's not with the Ministry of Environment?

C. Wyse: I would seek leave from the House in order to make a report about an incident that has just occurred back in Cariboo South and North.

The Chair: It is not normally within the mandate of this committee to hear a report, but if unanimous leave of the House is granted, then….

Leave granted.

Statements

SCHOOL FIRE IN CARIBOO

C. Wyse: Thank you, Mr. Chair. On behalf of the House I really want to extend my appreciation for this extraordinary privilege that has been extended to me.

I'd like to report to the House that an elementary school that exists in Cariboo South has just burned to the ground. I would like everyone here to know that there were no injuries and that everything went well. To the best of our knowledge, things are fine, and they will pick up from there. I wanted the House to be aware that everything had gone well.

Debate Continued

Hon. B. Penner: I thank the member for that update. I'm pleased to hear that no harm has come to any individuals. That's a relief.

To address the critic's former question, we will be working with the Ministry of Energy and Mines as they set their sectoral targets for the oil and gas sector. As I said, we will be consulting over the next number of months. As we do that, what comes from that consultation — and what ultimate targets get set for that sector — remains to be seen, but it will be in the context of our overall objective of a 33-percent reduction by 2020.

Depending on what those consultations develop and what targets are set, it is possible that new regulations or legislative initiatives could be forthcoming for the oil and gas sector. If that is so, it could well be the Minister of Energy and Mines who stands up to introduce that legislation or puts forward that proposed regulation in cabinet through an OIC process, but that would all be consistent with their overall framework and mandate of a 33-percent reduction by 2020.

I just want to add some clarity to what the member was referring to earlier around a registry for greenhouse gas emissions. The member is correct. We have already announced and signed up with the western regional climate action initiative. That's a group that includes the states of New Mexico, Arizona, California, Oregon and Washington.

[1600]

What we're committed to doing under that memorandum of understanding is working to now establish a common registry for tracking greenhouse gas emis-

[ Page 7219 ]

sions. That work is ongoing, and I think it's proceeding well.

It's something we want to do in collaboration with our partners in this western regional climate change initiative. The Premier has made it very clear that he thinks there are tremendous benefits to British Columbia being involved with a west coast collaborative, because of the synergies, the economic activity and also, of course, the ability to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in a tangible and substantial way. So we are doing that, and we will be working towards participation in a cross-border greenhouse gas registry.

But currently, as it stands today, it is Statistics Canada in our country, across all provinces, that gathers the information around greenhouse gas emissions. That's the system that is in effect as of today.

S. Simpson: The throne speech spoke about the 33-percent reduction. It then spoke about sectoral targets for 2012 and 2016, and the minister has made reference to that on a couple of occasions. When can we expect to see those sectoral targets for 2012 and 2016?

[S. Hammell in the chair.]

Hon. B. Penner: As stated in the throne speech, we will be establishing a climate action team that will assist us in working with first nations, industry, the stakeholders, communities, academics and scientists in helping set those targets for 2012 and 2016. In addition, I would anticipate that during the course of this year, we will be working towards our objective of setting sectoral targets so that all industries, all sectors of the province's economy know what's going to be expected of them as we move towards our global target of a 33-percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2020.

S. Simpson: We know that once those targets are set, it will potentially take some time to achieve them, and we'll talk a little bit about carbon credit programs in a minute. The minister talked about the end of the year. Certainly correct me if I'm wrong, but was the minister saying that by the end of the calendar or the fiscal year — and maybe he can tell us — we will have sectoral targets in place as relates to 2012 and 2016? Or did I misunderstand what he was saying about those sectoral targets?

[1605]

Hon. B. Penner: It's entirely possible. I don't want to prejudge how long it will take certain groups to do that work, but it would be my hope that next year at this time we'll be debating what those specific sectoral targets are.

S. Simpson: I'm interested in knowing whether it would be the intention or the expectation of the minister that a complete monitoring program will be put in place so that at the time when we begin to move — hopefully sooner rather than later — towards accomplishing the reductions that the minister has spoken about and that the Minister of Energy speaks about in his energy plan, there will be a monitoring program in place that will allow the public to have relatively frequent information on how those reductions are going? Would that be an expectation in terms of transparency?

Hon. B. Penner: As I mentioned a little bit earlier, within Canada, across the country, Statistics Canada currently serves the function of gathering greenhouse gas emissions data and making it publicly available. The most recent statistics we have for the whole country and for every province is 2004. I'm told that new numbers are imminent. That is, the data for 2005 should be forthcoming relatively soon, but that lag time does concern me because now it's 2007.

That is one of the reasons why the Premier and I are interested in this idea of the climate action registry. That is something we are actively exploring to find a way that we could get more timely data about what the real situation is here in British Columbia, so that if there are trends or lags, we can adjust our plans accordingly and take timely action.

S. Simpson: I'm going to come back a little bit — I appreciate that — and get a little better sense of what we're doing here to some degree. I want to come back, though, to the targets a little bit and at the point where the interim targets are put in place as well.

The minister will know this, I'm sure, because he was copied on this letter. It's a February 16, 2007, letter that was addressed to the Premier and was copied to the minister. It was sent on behalf of West Coast Environmental Law, the environmental law centre at the University of Victoria, and Sierra Legal. In it they acknowledge the work that was done in the throne speech, and they certainly acknowledge that if those goals are accomplished, as noted in the throne speech, that would be a very positive thing — to do that.

They go on to say, though…. I want to read two paragraphs from the letter and then ask the minister for his view in regard to this. The letter goes on to say:

"The key to converting your vision to reality is, of course, to enshrine your stated goals and targets in law. As noted in the throne speech, voluntary targets do not work. In a matter as vital and urgent as global warming there can be no equivocating, delays or compromise. British Columbians are demanding nothing less than legislation that will clearly embed mandatory emission targets in the laws of the province."

[1610]

I wonder if the minister could tell us…. This letter is sent on behalf of those organizations by staff counsel at West Coast Environmental Law. I'd be interested in knowing how the minister responds to this request by these eminent environmental and legal organizations.

Hon. B. Penner: This is an issue that I think we already canvassed at some length, either before or after lunch. I can't remember which. I certainly said that that is a possibility. That is the potential outcome after we engage in consultations with stakeholders, academics,

[ Page 7220 ]

industry groups, first nations and others. I know that some groups have already made their various positions known, and that's great. Nevertheless, we'll still be doing some consultation around that. Like I said, there may well be a role for legislation and regulation in meeting various objectives.

However, I do seem to recall hearing the critic himself on CKNW just a few nights ago, where he said to the effect: "You can have all the regulations you want, but…." And I think what he was implying was that you need to have the public behind you, and you need to have everyone express and show their own will and commitment to get the job done. I would tend to agree with that. It doesn't mean that we won't bring in legislation or regulations. It's something that we will talk to a number of stakeholders, industry, academic and community groups about, and we will be engaging in that work in the months ahead.

[1615]

S. Simpson: I wouldn't want the minister to have misunderstood what I said on the radio. The minister might know that I was commenting about the story around the cabinet committee and the decision to put this issue in the hands of the cabinet committee and then to remove that committee from its ability to be FOI'd. What I was saying in the media that the minister has talked about was that I thought that was a most unfortunate direction to take and that it was concerning to many people. You'll know that an awful lot of people have expressed serious concern about that decision by the Premier and his colleagues on executive council to go that direction.

The concern they've raised, since the minister brought the topic up…. What I said in regard to regulation is that this is an issue where you can have all of the regulations you should have, but ultimately it's an issue that…. From the point of view of individual responsibility up through local governments, community interests, to provincial and national governments and global concerns, all have to make their contribution to resolving this issue of climate change and to changing their own behaviour or changing the way they do business in order to ensure they are achieving that.

What I said is that it's very important that people take ownership of this issue at a personal level and a local level, if we're going to accomplish that.

My view would be that by having this go on in a cabinet committee, with the secrecy that evolves around cabinet committees…. We all know there are a handful of those committees, and we certainly don't have any idea what they're doing. What revolves around those committees does not enhance the ability to have that kind of local and community ownership.

The point I made around that was that we on this side had proposed a legislative committee to go out and develop those plans and those proposals — to be able to go out into the community, meet with interests in the community, build that ownership and that public awareness around the issues and bring that back to this House, where it appropriately belongs.

That doesn't take away from the ability to do things in camera, to do things in confidence when it's appropriate to do that, but it certainly ensures that the vast majority of the work related to this, as it should be, is a public process. This issue is not a cabinet issue; it's an issue for all British Columbians, for everybody in our society. Everybody in our society should be engaged in that process. That would be the comment I was making on the radio the other night that the minister was talking about.

The issue I raised in regard to the letter and to these comments in the letter…. I would be the first one to say that I believe the government, and the minister has referenced a number of organizations or groups that made very positive comments post–throne speech. I think that's very true, and I would be the first one to acknowledge that. This letter talks about the goodwill that was created by the throne speech and by the decision of the government to reverse its position around targets and to set a firm target that many people said was a positive target.

It was sort of in that range of what many people believe needs to be accomplished on our way to success. People acknowledged that, and I think they rightly should. What the letter goes on to say is that the goodwill is created by the words but that it will be the actions that will determine whether people continue to feel positive about the work of this government on climate change.

The very first thing on this letter — which interestingly is written by three sets of lawyers: West Coast Environmental Law, the Environmental Law Centre and Sierra Legal, all lawyers with expertise in environmental law — is that you need to entrench those goals, those targets, in law in order to ensure that we accomplish them. As the minister will know, at some point governments change, ministers change, and Premiers change over time. We're going to 2020. The best guess is that few, if any, of us that are here today will be in this place in 2020. A few, if any, of us — I guess we'll see. Maybe I'll see you there, but we'll talk about it when the time comes.

[1620]

The reality is that many a majority of our seats will be held by different individuals representing our communities. The point I make here is that those people may bring different perspectives about their obligation to continue the work that the government says it wants to do today around climate change. It is long-term work; it's not short term. It certainly needs to have short-term objectives, but it is long-term work.

The question I have around that is really that…. We need to ensure that those commitments that the government has made — the significant commitment of 33 percent by 2020 — are put in law where they can't be changed unless somebody wants to bring them back to this place and debate them. That's why I think those groups have a big interest in having these entrenched in law.

I will say unequivocally today that the position of the official opposition is that firm targets need to be

[ Page 7221 ]

put in place. They need to be legislated, and they need to be law. We will support the legislating of firm targets. That is our position.

Having said that, I'm going to move from this. But I'm going to ask one further question on this — certainly, one further question now. God knows where we'll go later. Will the minister tell us: if the option is not legislation, then what other options are available to the government that would ensure the long-term commitment to meeting these objectives, which legislation obviously provides? What other options are available to ensure the commitment that these objectives will be accomplished, which obviously legislation affords us?

Hon. B. Penner: I don't think we really have a disagreement here. At least, I haven't quite picked up on one. Maybe I'm missing it. What I have said is that we're certainly open to the idea of legislation around the 2020 targets. That's something we're going to be consulting about in the months ahead.

I'm also mindful of the fact that — as the member did say and has acknowledged — regulations alone won't do everything. We need to get individual actions to change. To do that, there may be specific regulations and legislation about particular industry sectors that need to be undertaken.

[1625]

The throne speech has already identified quite a number of individual specific actions — whether it's tailpipe reductions for greenhouse gas emissions by 2016, with a reduction there of 30 percent; looking at a carbon content change for fuel; changes to landfills so that we can do better at capturing the methane gas that escapes and contributes to climate change; or changes in the oil and gas sector around routine flaring and other things that take place in that sector as a matter of practice.

There are a number of opportunities where specific individual actions taken together will lead us to our ultimate objective of a 33-percent reduction. That 33-percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2020…. The member raises a good question about how many of us will be here. I was tempted to say that I've been here for 11 years already. What's another 13? I shudder at the thought.

Interjection.

Hon. B. Penner: Of course, the member for Chilliwack-Sumas was querying: "What is the record for the number of years of service in this esteemed House?" I'm not quite sure. Maybe one of the learned Clerks can inform us shortly what the record is in terms of years of service in the Legislature. I wonder if it was Alex Macdonald, perhaps, but I don't know.

Interjections.

Hon. B. Penner: Frank Calder? No, I don't think so. Anyway, we'll get that information shortly for those that are following this debate and want to add it to their trivia pursuit repertoire.

Individual actions will be required and, collectively, reductions — whether it's from agriculture, transportation, oil and gas, forestry — will be required to bring us to that cumulative total of a 33-percent reduction by 2020.

S. Simpson: That's a good segue, because I want to talk now about specific sectors and some of the plans.

I'm sure that we'll have an answer momentarily here. I have a suspicion that the Clerk has the answer.

Interjections.

S. Simpson: Well, he may be.

The energy plan. We'll just talk for a moment about energy issues, hon. Chair. Back when the throne speech first was released, we made comments at that point because the Minister of Finance, shortly after the throne speech, said publicly that there would be little in the budget in this year other than….

What we saw was the $4 million that was put into the budget to fund the climate action secretariat and some of the initial activities, I take it. She said that we would expect significant funding to come in subsequent years. I believe that was her comment.

When those of us on this side of the House raised some questions about why there wasn't greater discussion in that budget, why the service plans — probably with the noted exception, potentially, of the Environment Minister's service plan — had little or no references to climate change, we made a point of reading through them.

I did note that the date on the letter of accountability for the Environment Minister is about four or five days later than everybody else's letter. I don't know if that means anything.

Interjection.

S. Simpson: There you go.

I do know that it was the only statement of accountability by a minister that reflected on this issue in any significant way among many of the ministries that obviously are important to this, including the ministries that now have ministers represented on the committee.

One of the other things, though, that we were told at that time was that we should be waiting for two documents in order to get a better sense of what the future government's initiatives around climate change were. We were told to wait for the climate change plan, which I anticipate we'll see some time in the not-too-distant future — the next version of the climate change plan — and for the energy plan. Of course, we all received the energy plan back a little while ago with some fanfare around its initiatives. So I want to talk a little bit about energy.

[1630]

Maybe we'll start with: can the minister tell us what the role of the Ministry of Environment is around the green or environmental initiatives related to the energy plan? What role does his ministry have in terms of

[ Page 7222 ]

assessing or accomplishing some of the green objectives in this plan?

Hon. B. Penner: The Ministry of Environment was involved, over an extensive period of time working with the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, in the update to the energy plan. The member is quite correct. It was an update to the energy plan that was first released, I think, in November 2002.

A month or two ago we had an update to that plan, and it was released with pretty positive reviews across the board. In fact, I think the energy critic for the opposition gave it a B grade. When I was in high school, I was certainly happy to get a B, and I was absolutely over the moon if I got a B when I was in law school. That wasn't always the case, though.

In terms of ongoing activities, there is a range of areas. We're just enumerating some of them now, but off the top of my head, I can think of us playing a referral role, for example, in the siting of wind power projects since August of 2006. The environmental assessment office has reviewed, and the Minister of Energy and myself have approved, some sizeable wind power projects in the northeast part of British Columbia.

We've also, of course, played a permitting role and an approval role in proposals for other IPPs, the run-of-river projects that members of the opposition are opposed to. I think since August, when you combine the wind power projects and run-of-river projects that have come through the environmental assessment office process, we have approved just about 700 megawatts of clean, green, 100-percent renewable, zero-emission electricity projects in the province, representing hundreds of millions of dollars of new investment to British Columbia — actually, probably exceeding a billion dollars, I would surmise.

Those are some of the roles that the Ministry of Environment plays and will continue to play in the implementation of the new and updated energy plan.

S. Simpson: Does the minister know — in terms of all of the areas that are covered in this plan, in terms of responsibilities or areas categorized under the energy plan — essentially what kind of tonnage or megatonnes of emissions are created out of that sector?

[1635]

Hon. B. Penner: For 2004, according to Statistics Canada data, the upstream oil and gas sector in British Columbia accounted for 12 million tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions. Keep in mind that we're going to get some updated figures here — I'm told relatively soon — for 2005. But the most recent information I have is indicating 12 million tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions for the upstream oil and gas sector in the year 2004.

S. Simpson: The energy plan does a few things. It does talk about eliminating flaring at oil and gas. It talks about establishing policies and measures to reduce air emissions in coordination with the Ministry of Environment. Actually, my colleague the Minister of Energy gave a B for what was the very first of the

summary of policy actions, which was to set an ambitious conservation target to acquire a 50-percent reduction in use through conservation strategies by 2020.

That was the particular item he gave the B to. A 50-percent reduction would be very positive. I assume that if the government knows this, the Environment Ministry might know it. Since the government developed this plan, and clearly, a fair amount of work must have gone into it, I'm sure, over a period of time, has the government determined…? If this plan is successfully implemented, with all of the initiatives that are identified in the plan, what will it reduce emissions by in British Columbia?

Hon. B. Penner: Relating specifically to electricity, it is our objective to reduce all greenhouse gas emissions on a net basis from the production of electricity. I believe that's set for 2016.

[1640]

The member may want to refer some questions to the Energy Minister about that specific portfolio, but that is an area where we think we can, under this energy plan, achieve some very measurable and meaningful reductions.

It does mean we have to do something in British Columbia. We can't simply sit back and think these reductions will happen by magic. It's going to take work. Actually, it's going to take projects, and it's going to take projects that some people will be opposed to. I've already said the opposition has found it suitable to them not to support the projects we're doing. I guess that's their choice, but on our side of the House we feel there are projects that have to get built if we're going to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, particularly from the electricity sector.

We cannot just decrease our reliance on imported electricity, much of which comes from fossil fuel generation outside of the province. Goodness knows, greenhouse gas emissions know no boundaries when it comes to their effect on the climate. Also, within British Columbia we do have a number of facilities that generate electricity from the consumption of fossil fuels.

Our goal by 2016 is to try to displace that electricity with a cleaner source of energy for British Columbians. Since 2001 something like 35 to 39 contracts have been signed for new power production in British Columbia. I believe there are plans to move ahead with expansion within the existing B.C. Hydro system on some existing facilities to add new capacity. Those are major undertakings related to Revelstoke and possibly Mica and others.

Again, I defer to the Minister of Energy to elaborate on all that is contemplated there. Those are significant initiatives that are going to be undertaken, but not without some opposition. That's just, I guess, how things go. We will do our best, as we move forward, to work with community groups and to make sure that first nations, for example, are involved. That's why I'm pleased that in many projects that we've seen, particularly with run-of-river projects, first nations are actively supporting them.

[ Page 7223 ]

The Ashlu Creek project comes to mind, where I had a chance to visit recently. I got to meet with some of the Squamish First Nation leaders and people working on that project, who have been waiting for years, frankly, for that project to take place. They've been working on it since the 1990s. Today it's actually under construction, and members of the Squamish First Nation are working there. That's an example of a win-win. It doesn't mean that there aren't still people opposed to it. There are.

We think that those kinds of projects, wind projects and others are going to be absolutely essential if we are going to get those kinds of reductions we're looking for in terms of greenhouse gas emissions.

S. Simpson: We will have the opportunity to talk about some of those projects in some more detail — some of the specific projects, probably — next week.

For right now, just staying on energy, what I'm particularly interested in…. Maybe what we'll do is talk a little bit about some of those private power projects that the minister has talked about. I know this is a matter primarily for the Minister of Energy, and I'm sure that that discussion's going on right now.

In terms of accomplishing those reductions in emissions, I believe the government's objective is efficiency by 2016. We can talk about whether we have a problem around our efficiency in the other House, where energy is the main topic.

Let me put a question to the minister and see if the minister has any concern with this. The minister will know that in order to have green power here, these particular private power contracts, most of them, have probably 20- or 30-year contracts for power purchase from B.C. Hydro. The run-of-the-river projects, and presumably the other projects, will as well.

They have 20- to 30-year contracts for power purchase. At the end of those contracts for power purchase, the proponents, the owners of those projects, will be free to put their energy on the market in any way they see fit and to sell it to whoever they like, including our friends in California, should they so choose. We may or may not be able to retain that power, depending on what markets look like, and we may end up seeing prices set largely outside of British Columbia.

[1645]

The other concern, I guess, that's quite an apparent and immediate concern around this, is that we've seen, at the beginning of March, the California utilities board give $14 million to Pacific Gas and Electric to help support and offset their costs for a piece of work. What that piece of work is to do is develop a transmission system from the U.S. border to California, outside of British Columbia, and to look at the purchase and acquisition of green power companies in British Columbia.

The order that does this — and it's available on the website from the California utilities board — clearly states that they have an objective around achieving a certain degree of percentage of green power by 2020. They are not so sure they're going to do it, so they'd be much happier to buy ours and just redirect it at some point to California.

If that's the case and that's what's going to occur, my question really is: does the minister have any concern about our ability — not to achieve efficiency by 2016 — to hang on to that green power post those power purchase agreements if in fact California, through Pacific Gas and Electric and others, is actively up here trying to acquire that power to meet their own green initiatives?

Hon. B. Penner: As we keep noting, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources is having this debate down the hall, but I can comment on those issues that relate to water licensing and/or permitting around wind projects, for example.

I actually remain pretty optimistic about the potential for wind power in British Columbia. A number of significant projects have been approved by the environmental assessment office reviews and signed off by the Minister of Energy and myself in the last number of months. The Dokie and Wartenbe projects have all received approval, and those number in 300 megawatts or more of potential.

My understanding is that those proponents are now out in the market getting financing and looking to secure turbines. So I think there is actually a great future for wind energy in British Columbia. Obviously, they have to be sited appropriately when it comes to concerns around wildlife and birds and so forth, but I believe that those challenges can be met. That was demonstrated, I think, through the environmental assessment process that looked at studies around that.

Nevertheless, there are people opposed to them. I've had letters from people saying: "Don't build them, because cattle will stop breeding if you do." I've actually had those letters sent to our office. I think that's spurious, but it does demonstrate the lengths to which people will be creative when looking for a reason to oppose something that might be inconvenient for them — or might in their minds be inconvenient for them — because it represents a change, and maybe it's something they have to look at that they didn't used to have to see.

As I said earlier, if we're really going to reach our targets, which on our side of the House we want to do by 2020, and have a 33-percent reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, we're going to have to make some changes in British Columbia. Part of that change is more renewable energy so we can wean ourselves off of imports, which are coming from the United States as well as Alberta at significant cost, including to the environment. We want to be self-sufficient and help displace that dirtier power.

On the run-of-the-river side, we've been joined by our comptroller of water rights, who will tell you that up until, I think it was, 2003, if IPPs were getting water licences to produce electricity in British Columbia, as was the case under the NDP in the early 1990s, those licences tended to be for an indefinite term. What we have done instead is shorten that up, so it's now a

[ Page 7224 ]

maximum 40-year term. When that water licence expires, additional conditions and terms can be required as part of the renewal process for that water licence.

Conceivably, the comptroller of water rights in 40 years' time…. Goodness knows it might still be Mr. Mattison, and British Columbians should be so lucky to have his skill and expertise for all that time.

[1650]

I'm not sure his wife would agree, but that would be a good thing. He'd still be working for us.

That's the kind of the fearmongering that goes on — that somehow California's going to take it all. Well, if that were the case, why hasn't a single IPP signed a contract with California today? There's nothing legally stopping them. The answer is: because we have a market for it right here in British Columbia.

I rather suspect that 30, 40 years from now, unless there is a technological breakthrough that I can't even imagine, we'll still be using electricity in British Columbia to keep the lights on and to carry these very informative debates across the airwaves to people everywhere. I would expect that there'll continue to be a vibrant market for electricity here in British Columbia. If not, as I said, there will still be the potential through the renewal of the water licence to add some conditions.

Those are not the only conditions or levers, though, that government has. Maybe the member is not aware of it, but the majority of these run-of-the-river projects are built on Crown land and therefore require Crown land tenures. Those tenures are also for a certain set length of time. In the renewal process, one can contemplate that additional conditions could be applied. But that's a matter for the Minister of Agriculture and Lands to debate, if the members want to take that up with him. Certainly, from the water licensing side, there is plenty of opportunity 30 or 40 years from now, when those water licences come up for renewal, to add some conditions to that.

I think the strongest answer to that fear that the opposition has is that it hasn't happened today, and California needs electricity today. They are importers of electricity too, and yet not a single run-of-the-river project signed a contract. Why? I think because they find B.C. Hydro to be a pretty good customer.

B.C. Hydro is interested in purchasing that electricity, because the alternative is importing it from the United States. That's the situation we got to, frankly, after about 15 years in this province where we weren't building enough. The last major project by B.C. Hydro was 1984 at Revelstoke. For a number of years we enjoyed significant surpluses in electricity, but as the population grew and no new, large sources of supply came on line, we gradually saw that margin decrease. Today we're net importers.

We have set a target to be self-sufficient by 2016, and that's a target that we're working towards. Again, it's also going to take some vision, some leadership and some courage. There will be naysayers that say: "Sure, we agree with the general idea, but just don't have it affect me, and just don't do it here." They'll think of some other reason not to have a project go ahead, like maybe it'll scare our cattle so that they don't breed anymore. But we are committed to that goal, and we know that with our energy plan, we will achieve it.

S. Simpson: Well, it's my sense that one of the things that happened with those agreements, of course, is that Hydro…. It was a two-step process. The water licences were got; the utility commission efforts were made. At that point Hydro offered up power purchase agreements that were money in the bank, essentially, for those companies to be able to come forward and garner all kinds of capital to be able to build those projects.

We know, for example, just as one of those…. I believe it's Plutonic, which was a company here — not an overly large company — that was able to acquire about 25 or 26 of those water licences and get power purchase agreements put in place. What we know is that it didn't take long for General Electric to come along and say: "You could use a partner, and here's $100 million for 49 percent of your company." Now General Electric is a significant owner of British Columbia power, as are other companies coming along and doing that. We're starting to figure out who owns this power now, and it isn't mom-and-pop operations in British Columbia who own this power.

[1655]

Two matters. One, I want to take the question to discuss the issue of the water licence itself, since you have your staff here to deal with the water licence. In terms of the fee that we get for water licences for run of the river, could the minister explain how that fee structure works and what fees we garner for run of the river?

[1700-1705]

[J. Nuraney in the chair.]

Hon. B. Penner: Mr. Chair, it's good to see you in the chair. Sorry for the delay. We're just trying to get some information here.

The comptroller of water rights advises me that water rental rates are prescribed in something called the water regulation, wh