Hansard — Thursday, April 10, 2008 p.m.

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.
The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY


CONTENTS

	Routine Proceedings
		Page


Introductions by Members		11205

Tributes		11205
	Del Laverdure
	Hon. S. Bond

Introductions by Members		11205

Introduction and First Reading of Bills		11206
	Health Professions (Regulatory Reform) Amendment Act, 2008 (Bill 25)
	Hon. G. Abbott
	Public Safety and Solicitor General (Gift Card Certainty) Statutes Amendment Act, 2008 (Bill 17)
	Hon. M. de Jong

Statements (Standing Order 25B)		11207
	Lilo Petermann
	L. Mayencourt
	JET program for disabled persons
	B. Simpson
	Air travel between Prince George and Seattle
	J. Rustad
	Eco-Sense house in Highlands
	J. Horgan
	B.C. athletes at 2008 Olympic Games in Beijing
	D. MacKay
	100th anniversary of Hastings Elementary School
	S. Simpson

Oral Questions		11209
	Investigation into tree farm licence land removals
	B. Ralston
	Hon. R. Coleman
	J. Horgan
	B. Simpson
	S. Simpson
	R. Fleming
	Hon. W. Oppal
	M. Farnworth
	Government support for women and children in Bountiful
	L. Krog
	Hon. W. Oppal
	D. Thorne
	Hon. I. Chong
	N. Simons
	Hon. T. Christensen
	B.C. Place roof replacement
	N. Macdonald
	Hon. S. Hagen
	Disclosure of documents in B.C. Rail court case
	J. Kwan
	Hon. W. Oppal

Petitions		11214
	B. Simpson

Second Reading of Bills		11214
	Greenhouse Gas Reduction (Cap and Trade) Act (Bill 18) (continued)
	On the amendment (continued)
	M. Sather
	N. Macdonald
	G. Robertson
	D. Routley
	B. Simpson
	M. Karagianis
	J. Horgan
	N. Simons
	G. Gentner

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply		11244
	Estimates: Ministry of Employment and Income Assistance
	Hon. C. Richmond
	J. Brar

Hon. S. Bond: I'm delighted to say that joining us in the gallery today are two very special people who have an incredible passion for literacy in British Columbia.

I'm pleased to let the House know that Dale Saip is here. He is a trustee on the Delta board of education. He's also the vice-president of business development for the Vancouver Giants. With Dale today is Kay Thody, and she's a consultant with the Giants.

I've had the opportunity to be a partner in their program called Read to Succeed, which is a program the Vancouver Giants have put in place. It is wildly successful, and I can tell you when those Vancouver Giants step into a classroom in a very classy way and talk about reading and physical activity, it makes an enormous difference for our students.

We're going to talk a little about that program later today. I just want to commend them. Actually, the Vancouver Giants were named the WHL's scholastic team of the year for some of the great work they're doing. I would ask the House to please make them welcome.

Hon. S. Bond: On a far less enthusiastic note, on behalf of my colleagues from Prince George North and Prince George–Omineca, I want to share with the House the fact that there is a great deal of sadness in our community today in Prince George. Someone who we care about enormously, who's had a significant impact on northern British Columbia, died yesterday at Hospice House after an eight-month battle with cancer.

The publisher of the Prince George Citizen, Del Laverdure leaves an incredible legacy including his wife Vicky and his children Laura, 24; Ben, 21; and Amy, 16. Del guided the Prince George Citizen as a publisher for the past nine years. More than that, he guided our community as a father, a friend and a frequent volunteer for decades. Among his many volunteer positions as president of the Spirit of the North Health Care Foundation, Del dedicated his time to improving health care in northern B.C.

We want to send our best thoughts and prayers to Vicky, Laura, Ben and Amy and also to the community, who are grieving today.

D. Chudnovsky: As recently as yesterday, Mr. Speaker, I reminded you that the two very best high schools in the province are in Vancouver-Kensington. Amazingly, for the second day in a row and lucky for us, we have a group of students from Sir Charles Tupper Secondary School in Vancouver-Kensington visiting with us today with their teachers and supervisors. They are a great bunch of kids. We had a chance to chat before. Again, they represent their school wonderfully. Could the House please make them very welcome.

Hon. R. Neufeld: It gives me pleasure today to introduce to the House Danielle Armstrong, the executive director for the Fort St. John division of Big Brothers Big Sisters, an organization that does great work on behalf of all British Columbians — something we're all very proud of. She's here visiting. I had a brief visit with her this morning, and I'd like the House to please make her welcome.

J. Horgan: All members will know that in the course of our business, we meet very interesting people and forge new friendships almost every day. I'd like to acknowledge one of my new friends since I was elected to this place, Larry Fofonof, who joined me for lunch today. He also helps me on Fridays with casework and answers the phone.

We all have volunteers in our communities like Larry. Would the House please welcome him and maybe pay a tribute to all the people who help us do our work every day.

D. MacKay: It's not every day I get a chance to introduce somebody from Bulkley Valley–Stikine. Looking up in the gallery, I happen to notice that we have the chair of the Bulkley-Nechako regional district as well as the chair of the North Central Municipal Association. I'd like the House to welcome Eileen Benedict to the House.

R. Austin: Today it's a pleasure to introduce Ron Craig, who's visiting the Legislature. Ron is a public health officer with the Northern Health Authority specializing in making sure that we all have safe drinking water in northwest B.C. I ask that the House join me in making him most welcome.

Hon. I. Chong: Yesterday I had the honour and privilege of introducing a number of representatives from the Union of B.C. Municipalities executive. Some were able to join us yesterday, and others have joined us today.

I would like to introduce some of the returning members who are here again for a second day watching question period, as well as others. We have today Councillor Sharon Gaetz. She's a director at large, and she represents the city of Chilliwack.

I believe Director Susie Gimse, who is the president of UBCM from the Squamish-Lillooet regional district, is here or about to arrive. Mayor Terry Lake, third vice-president from the city of Kamloops, is here.

Director Heath Slee, AKBLG representative from East Kootenay regional district, was here yesterday, I think, as well as Mayor Joe Snopek, director at large representing the town of Creston, and Councillor Barbara Steele, Metro Vancouver rep from the city of Surrey.

D. Routley: I'd like the House to help me make welcome 37 grade 7 students from Crofton Elementary, who join us in the precinct today. They're joined by ten parents and their teacher Geoff Sutcliffe from Crofton Elementary.

Also, my friend Joy Sheldon-Maxwell is a former teacher in this province, with 25 years teaching the young people of B.C. She joins us here today.

J. Yap: I would also like to ask the House to join me in welcoming to the precincts a group of 52 grades 6 and 7 students from R.M. Grauer Elementary School in my riding. They're here with seven chaperones, including the vice-principal Ms. Catherine Ludwig.

This is a really enthusiastic group of grades 6 and 7 school children. When I met them, I was told that they were looking at me as a celebrity for some reason, and there were all kinds of camera flashes going off. They asked great questions. It was a great meeting.

I ask the House to join me in offering a warm welcome to this group of our future, the students from R.M. Grauer Elementary School.

H. Bloy: It's a privilege to stand up and introduce someone today on behalf of my colleagues from the Tri-Cities. We have someone who has worked tirelessly for all of the Tri-Cities to make it a better place to live for everybody. That's Joanne Granek, executive director of SHARE Family and Community Services.

Hon. G. Abbott: Today in the gallery we're joined by my correspondence and information officer, Laura Hope. She is here with her friend Kevin Romanin. Although Laura enjoys very much the legislative proceedings, somehow she has been able to reconcile in her mind the thought of leaving here and having an adventure in South America. I can't personally understand how someone could do that.

Nevertheless, I'd ask the House to make them welcome and wish them happy adventures in South America.

Hon. G. Abbott presented a message from his Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Health Professions (Regulatory Reform) Amendment Act, 2008.

Hon. G. Abbott: I move that Bill 25, the Health Professions (Regulatory Reform) Amendment Act, be introduced and read for a first time now.

Hon. G. Abbott: I'm pleased to deliver one of government's major commitments in this year's throne speech. During the Conversation on Health, British Columbians told us that one of the ways to address the sustainability challenge in our health care system was to maximize the skills of health care workers. We can widen the scope of practice of nurses, for example, so they can perform some roles presently provided by physicians. We can have pharmacists provide routine prescription renewals instead of requiring a physician's visit.

People want to move to British Columbia, and we want health professionals to move here to practise their skills. With this legislation, qualified health care workers in other provinces will have their qualifications recognized. Internationally trained and qualified physicians will be able to work in British Columbia in their specific areas of expertise with a restricted licence. Qualified Canadian citizens trained abroad will benefit from a new framework to ensure they can work in the health care field for which they are trained.

If we can attract more physicians to B.C. and have them enter general practice, more people will have access to a doctor to manage chronic disease issues before they become acute and end up requiring costly interventions in our hospitals — again, another example of how we can address the sustainability challenge we face.

Transparency and accountability are values we heard in the Conversation on Health. We're taking action today by establishing a health professions review board to review individual registrations by health professionals that were not approved by professional colleges.

We can also establish health profession advisory panels that will provide advice on systemwide issues such as entry-to-practice requirements and scope-of-practice expansion requests. We'll be taking action on increasing the transparency of professional colleges when it comes to disciplinary actions regarding their members.

With this legislation, the colleges will now be required to publicly disclose the outcomes of disciplinary proceedings, advise the complainant of the outcome as well as fund counselling programs for victims of professional misconduct by one of its members.

In conclusion, the Health Professions (Regulatory Reform) Act will open doors for health professionals and all British Columbians. This legislation also puts in place a new standard of transparency and accountability in college registration, inquiry and discipline processes.

I move that Bill 25 be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 25, Health Professions (Regulatory Reform) Amendment Act, 2008, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

PUBLIC SAFETY AND SOLICITOR GENERAL
(GIFT CARD CERTAINTY) STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT, 2008

Hon. M. de Jong presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Public Safety and Solicitor General (Gift Card Certainty) Statutes Amendment Act, 2008.

Hon. M. de Jong: Mr. Speaker, I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Hon. M. de Jong: I'm pleased, on behalf of the Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General, to introduce Bill 17. This bill amends the Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act, Civil Forfeiture Act, Commercial Transport Act, Liquor Control and Licensing Act and Motor Vehicle Act.

Amendments to the Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act provide for the regulation of gift cards and gift certificates. In particular, amendments address expiry dates and fees, and require disclosure of relevant terms and conditions to the purchaser. This legislation ensures that consumers get full value for their money when they use gift cards, while allowing for certain provisions where warranted.

The Civil Forfeiture Act authorizes the forfeiture of property gained by or used for unlawful activity. Amendments respond to guidance provided by the judiciary and the legal counsel in the course of the court proceedings in the two years that the legislation has been in force.

The Commercial Transport Act is amended to align legislation with longstanding policies and procedures on trailer licensing and permits.

Finally, amendments to the Liquor Control and Licensing Act will allow temporary licences for Olympic/Paralympic Winter Games–related facilities and services. The new temporary licence category is limited to the period surrounding the games and restricted to facilities that are directly tied to the games and for which existing licence categories are not suitable.

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

Bill 17, Public Safety and Solicitor General (Gift Card Certainty) Statutes Amendment Act, 2008, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

L. Mayencourt: This afternoon I had the pleasure of being in the rotunda with the Minister of Employment and Income Assistance and the Minister of Education for an announcement around people with disabilities, which was really very significant.

There were a couple of guys who spoke and told what it meant to them, and I thought to myself: what a cool job we have here as MLAs. We get to meet the nicest, most interesting people that are making a huge difference in our communities. All we have to do is be here, and we meet them. It's so spectacular to do that.

One of the ways that we help our communities grow is by recognizing people who do that kind of thing, where they do something fantastic in the community. We have the B.C. Community Achievement Awards that happen every year. This year Vancouver-Burrard, my riding, is being especially honoured because of a person that we are honouring as a community achiever.

Her name is Lilo Petermann, and she is 90 years old. Her first achievement is that she looks like she's under 60. The other one is that for the past 25 years, she's been teaching seniors how to do yoga in our community, down at the West End Seniors Network, at the community centre and so on. She is just an amazing lady.

She came to visit me a couple of years ago and brought her whole yoga class with her. We had cookies and coffee and tea and all that sort of stuff. Then she presented me with a book she had written — a book on yoga that talks about every friend she had in her lifetime. It was so amazing to see that.

When we have people like that, we've got to celebrate them. So I'm going to be very excited to see Lilo Petermann receive the B.C. Community Achievement Award on April 23 at Government House. We have some great people in this province, and it's so nice to be able to be in this House to celebrate, with all of my colleagues on both sides, the kind of people that we really want British Columbia to know about.

B. Simpson: The provincial government has an explicit goal to increase the number of people with disabilities in the workplace. It's a program called 10 by 10 — 10 percent increase by 2010.

In Quesnel the College of New Caledonia offers a program called the JET program. They've been offering that program for quite some time now — the job education and training program. It offers job orientation to adults with disabilities, assertiveness and interpersonal skills — the assertiveness skills are to ensure that they protect their own space and their own rights in the workplace — and interview skills.

An interesting component is job maintenance skills — not only their ability to keep the job that they get but career pathing and succession, and to be aggressive in pursuing their career objectives when they do get work. Then of course, when they wrap up all of that, they do a job search program. Many of these adults with disabilities get placement. They have a very strong track record. They do a very, very good job.

In fact, I was talking to one of the instructors, Dougal Hines, a longtime friend of mine, who told me that just the other day he had a young woman come in who they had assisted to get enough self-esteem and skills to challenge for her driver's licence. She got her driver's licence. Now she has her driver's licence, she has a job, she's excited about life, and her future looks very bright.

Dougal Hines and Jan Gamble, the other instructor, have put their heart and soul into this program, into the people that it serves. Many adults with disabilities have benefited from this, and so has the community — the business community in particular.

Unfortunately, the program will end this year for reasons that we have canvassed in this House. The program will cease to continue, and we have a community group that's come together to try to figure out how we continue to provide services to adults with disabilities so they can be integrated into our workforce.

I would like the House to recognize Dougal and Jan and the contribution the JET program has made to Quesnel.

J. Rustad: Prince George–Omineca offers a world-class opportunity to outdoor enthusiasts. Whether it's the fabulous lodges and top-notch guide outfitters or perhaps just sightseeing, camping, mountain biking or snowmobiling, the Omineca region offers it all.

Beginning May 1, visitors will have a new option to visit our area. I'm pleased to inform the House that Horizon Air will provide regular non-stop service from Prince George to Seattle. This is the first regularly scheduled international air service for Prince George and provides a new convenient connection to many popular U.S. destinations, including winter escapes to Hawaii and Mexico. In the reverse direction B.C.'s north can now anticipate further business and tourist visits from Americans and international travellers, as this connection makes it easier for us to access the lucrative U.S. market.

The new Horizon connection will help diversification and build stronger economic ties in our region with the rest of North America. We can now look forward to marketing our unique opportunities to more of our U.S. neighbours with the wilderness, adventure and cultural experiences of northern B.C. It also helps build the activity and excitement around Prince George Airport's expansion project.

After all, Prince George and the region have a lot to offer an expanded network of visitors. It's a thriving city just ten minutes from pristine wilderness and outdoor adventure. Visitors can enjoy everything from world-class hotels, golfing and arts to hiking, boating, hunting and fishing.

The region is also a growing centre for international investment in our natural resources as well as our emerging inland port and logistics centre. Of crucial economic importance, this new service to Seattle helps build our presence in the global transportation network. Please join me in welcoming the world directly to the northern interior through the new Prince George Airport gateway and in thanking the mayor and council of Prince George for their support of this important initiative.

J. Horgan: When it comes to green building technologies and low-environmental-impact housing alternatives, many builders are simply talking the talk, but in my constituency of Malahat–Juan de Fuca one family is truly walking the walk. Just 30 minutes from this Legislature, in the district of Highlands, live trend-setting natural building innovators Ann and Gord Baird.

Known simply as Eco-Sense, Ann and Gord have transcended the commercial green movement and embarked on an amazing journey toward real sustainability and created a multigenerational home that combines green lifestyle and modern building standards. Eco-Sense believes that a home in its system should mimic the beauty and natural functions of the world. This approach creates safe and sustainable living solutions while not taking precious resources away from future generations.

Eco-Sense is North America's first code-approved, seismically engineered, load-bearing, insulated cob house and features solar, PV and wind power, grid inter-tie, solar thermal heating, rainwater harvesting from a living roof, composting toilets, grey water reuse and passive solar design. Constructed from straw, clay, sand and pumice, Eco-Sense is writing the book on how to create housing from the ground up with the most minimal impact on the environment.

One of the challenges for the Bairds has been an inflexible building code that is reluctant to embrace alternative design concepts. To meet the environmental challenges of our age, the new building codes must include these techniques.

Sustainable from conception to completion, grandparents, children and grandchildren are living in my community with virtually no environmental impact. Encroached on by urban sprawl, blacktop and thousand-unit developments, the Bairds have made a home and lifestyle that uses little and returns much.

For the whole story on an incredible family and an amazing adventure in creativity and innovation, I invite all those listening to tune into the Knowledge Network at 7 p.m. on April 14 to watch the documentary A Sustainable Home, or google them at eco-sense.ca and see what ecologically sensible living can truly be.

D. MacKay: I rise today to speak to the attention the Olympic Games have been receiving lately. With Olympic protests making headlines in B.C. and around the world, I want to take some time to commend the

excellent work of Team Canada in preparing for the 2008 Summer Olympics and Paralympics.

In 119 days it is expected that more than 300 Canadian citizens will be competing in the Olympic events, and there are more qualifiers to come. Our athletes have been hard at work training for what will be for them the biggest event of their lives.

Many of these citizens come from British Columbia. So far, some B.C. members of team Canada include Hazelton's Carol Huynh for women's wrestling; 15-year-old Savannah King from Vancouver, who will be swimming the women's 400-metre freestyle; Haislan Garcia from Burnaby, who will be competing in the men's freestyle wrestling; and Alison Kabush, who will compete in the Paralympic Games playing boccia.

The Olympic movement has a good track record of promoting international understanding and peace and dialogue among people around the world. In Beijing our athletes will stand as examples of the enormous skill and determination that B.C. youth have. They will be the ambassadors for our province's values of multiculturalism and tolerance and will exemplify the belief that by working together, we can achieve great things.

As political representatives, it must be our first and foremost priority to support these men and women who have worked so hard and invested so much in order to represent us on the international stage. I would like the House to recognize the outstanding accomplishments of these fine British Columbians.

S. Simpson: Hon. Speaker, 100 years ago this May, Hastings Elementary School opened its doors at its present site on Penticton Street in Vancouver. Over the past century this school, one of Vancouver's largest elementary facilities, has developed a wonderful reputation as a school that works and has become an integral part of the Hastings-Sunrise community.

Many of the thousands of students who have come through Hastings doors have gone on to accomplish significant achievements in our society — likely the best known being our previous Lieutenant-Governor Her Honour Iona Campagnolo, who attended Hastings in grades 3 and 4.

Today Hastings is one of the largest, most complex elementary schools in Vancouver. It is a French immersion school with almost a third of its more than 600 students participating in that program, an excellent program that my daughter was fortunate to attend. As a past parent, I can say without reservation that Hastings School served my daughter exceptionally well.

Hastings is also an inner-city and community school that serves a diverse and complex population. It is a school that balances a wide demographic, both in terms of incomes and ethnicity, with large populations from Chinese, Vietnamese, Central American Spanish, European and first nations descent. It achieves this by promoting equity, respect and strong character.

It is a school that successfully challenged bullying. It is a school that has provided a true haven of stability and support for many children who otherwise face difficult challenges in their lives. It is a school I am proud to say is part of Vancouver-Hastings.

On May 23 the Hastings School community will come together to celebrate a rich and important hundred-year history. Classrooms will be decorated in the decades of the school's history. In support of those efforts, they are collecting memorabilia that reminisces life at Hastings, whether it be newsletters, sports day ribbons, photos and much more. Anyone hearing this statement who could contribute to that collection would be most appreciated and welcome.

We all know the essential role that our schools play in developing our children and establishing their foundation as young adults and leaders of tomorrow. Hastings and its many teachers, principals, support staff, parents and children have contributed a century to that objective. I urge all members to join me in congratulating Hastings.

B. Ralston: The Minister of Forests has never explained his decision to unilaterally grant Western Forest Products its request to take 30,000 hectares of land out of its tree farm licences on Vancouver Island. That decision was worth millions of dollars to Western Forest Products, with no return to the public.

Can the Attorney General now confirm a report published by the Dogwood Initiative that employees at the B.C. Securities Commission are investigating the possibility that insiders were leaked the Forests Minister's pending decision before it was publicly announced?

Hon. R. Coleman: The decision was made in January of 2006 or 2007 — whatever it was. The decision was made based on advice by staff after a report to me that made the recommendation. The decision stands.

The member's comments about the Dogwood Initiative…. He might want to do a little more research with regards to who that organization is and also might want to check with the B.C. Securities Commission and the fact that they don't actually make public what they might be reviewing with regards to an investigation.

B. Ralston: I'm not sure if the minister remembers just when he made the decision, but it was made in January 2007. Just prior to this decision, trading in Western Forest Products stock spiked. Trade volume was 6.5 times greater than the monthly average. Harbert Management Corp., Western Forest Products second-largest shareholder, bought an additional three million shares on January 12, 2007 — just two weeks prior to the minister's decision.

Again to the Attorney General: can he advise this House if an insider-trading investigation is underway, and can he tell us the scope of the B.C. Securities Commission probe?

Hon. R. Coleman: I do know that Western Forest Products has provided an explanation with regards to the particular incident that the member outlines. I don't know what the outcome of that discussion will be.

B. Ralston: Well, the minister can disparage the Dogwood Initiative. They did meet with the investigators from the B.C. Securities Commission, so I think that speaks at least to their credibility.

This gift to Western Forest Products was made behind closed doors and without any public input or approval. To the Attorney General: can he advise the House if he is aware if a special prosecutor has been appointed to provide legal advice to the investigators, given the politically sensitive nature of this investigation?

Hon. R. Coleman: It's clear that the members opposite still want to ride an old horse with regards to rights of people that own private land in the province of British Columbia. This wasn't a behind-the-door decision. It was a decision that was made, which was processed by my ministry — it was brought by the recommendation of my very professional staff — to allow the exclusion to take place. The decision was made, the document was signed, and the deal was done.

J. Horgan: Well, that old horse the minister refers to is the heart of my constituency. That old horse is first nations that weren't consulted. That old horse is now before the Minister of Community Services with a downzoning application for thousands of landowners in and around the region because this government mismanaged the file.

Again, a simple question to the Attorney General — the minister responsible for the Securities Commission, if he looks at his dossier there: is there at this time an ongoing investigation into potential insider trading with respect to the government's giveaway of private land assets to Western Forest Products with no compensation to the Crown?

Hon. R. Coleman: We've canvassed this in the past. The member knows full well what the process was. He knows that it was a statutory decision made by the Minister of Forests. These lands were private lands. They weren't public lands. They were in tree farm licences.

There has been a longstanding ability for people to actually apply to have them removed. They did. The recommendation was made by staff, and the approval was given.

J. Horgan: What we do know is that the Auditor General is investigating the activities of the minister and the government of British Columbia with respect to its dealings with Western Forest Products. We know that. What we do know is that Securities Commission investigators interviewed individuals with respect to the deal that took place in British Columbia on the 12th of January. Three million shares traded on that day.

The Securities Commission has thought enough about it to talk to the Dogwood Initiative. Have they thought enough about it to talk to the Attorney General? Is there an investigation going on at this time into the activities of the Minister of Forests and Western Forest Products?

Hon. R. Coleman: Again, this decision was a statutory decision made by the Minister of Forests after recommendation by his staff.

B. Simpson: The issue at hand here is whether or not the minister gave advance notice, and were there people in Western Forest Products that benefited from that? We have canvassed this — the minister is right — in this House. We dispute the minister's claim that the private lands in the tree farm licence are privately held. That's what a tree farm licence is: public and private lands as one entity.

This is going on right now. The Pope and Talbot tree farm licence in the Kootenays is being sold separately — the public lands — to Interfor. The private lands have already been sold, and the money is being held in escrow. Will the minister commit today…? Has he signalled to Pope and Talbot that those lands will be released from the tree farm licence? Is that why they've been sold and Pope and Talbot is making the profit that it is?

Hon. R. Coleman: There has been no indication given to anybody whatsoever with regards to the disposition of those lands. There's a process of consultation going on, and there's been no report given to the minister.

B. Simpson: Maybe the Securities Commission needs to look into this one again or the Auditor General will roll up his report and look into this, because this stinks.

How is it possible for a legal entity to be subdivided without the minister's approval? How is it possible that financial transactions can occur without this minister's approval, unless the minister has signalled to the parties involved that it's a done deal, that it's going to happen?

Again, my question to the Attorney General: is the Securities Commission investigating the Western Forest Products deal, and if so, will it be expanded to include what's happening with Pope and Talbot?

Hon. R. Coleman: The member knows that Pope and Talbot went through a CCAA, which is covered by

federal statute. That process can go through. Somebody can make an offer and subject-to and put money in escrow if they wish. That doesn't mean the minister has given anybody any indication of anything, which I have not.

S. Simpson: This issue around the sale of the Western Forest Products lands is a serious matter. The suggestion that it may be investigated by the Securities Commission is an extremely serious matter. The issue around whether there's insider trading or insider information here is a serious matter.

The question goes to the Attorney General, who has responsibility for the Securities Commission. Will he tell this House: is there an investigation being conducted by the Securities Commission into this sale — yes or no?

Hon. R. Coleman: To the member opposite: if there was or there was not, nobody on this side of the House would comment on an ongoing investigation by another statutory or legal entity.

S. Simpson: What's inappropriate is for the Minister of Forests to be answering these questions when his ministry and office may be involved in this investigation. That's what's inappropriate.

The Attorney General has responsibility for the Securities Commission. The Attorney General has the responsibility to this House and to the people of British Columbia to be forthright on this. Will he tell us: is there an investigation by the Securities Commission or not? Yes or no.

Hon. R. Coleman: As far as I'm concerned, I am confident in the integrity of my professional staff in my office. I will put that on the line at any time, along with my own integrity.

R. Fleming: You know, this is the process that we're in now in British Columbia, when we had to find out from the former Solicitor General that he was the subject of a criminal investigation. It took the media to ask the questions of the Attorney General's ministry whether there was such an investigation.

So here we are now in regard to the Securities Commission. They're investigating Western Forest Products for suspicious share activities. So my question is to the Attorney General. Has a special prosecutor been appointed to investigate this matter?

Hon. W. Oppal: I would have thought that with the exhaustive discussions we've had in this House regarding the appointment of a special prosecutor, the member opposite would know better than to ask that question.

R. Fleming: I can recall this very Attorney General telling us that they won't reveal any such details until they become known in the public. Now we are aware in the public realm that there is a Securities Commission investigation into this land deal.

My question again to the Attorney General, under his own advice that he has given to members of this House before, is: can he advise if he is aware of a special prosecutor being appointed to provide legal advice to the investigators, given the politically sensitive nature of this issue?

Hon. W. Oppal: Well, it's clear that the member opposite only listened to half the discussion. What we said during the last discussion that took place in this House….

Hon. W. Oppal: What we said when this issue was last raised in this House regarding the appointment of special prosecutors and when that appointment is made public is that when that matter is in the public realm, it will be for the criminal justice branch that appoints the special prosecutor to make that appointment public. It is not for the Attorney General to do so.

M. Farnworth: No one has asked the Attorney General to appoint a special prosecutor. We've been very clear. We're asking the Attorney General if he is aware that the Securities Commission may be undertaking an investigation into that financial transaction. Is the Attorney General aware that there may be an investigation taking place into that financial transaction involving those shares?

M. Farnworth: Well, the Minister of Forests indicated that the Securities Commission had received an explanation. Can the Attorney General then confirm that we won't be finding out about this tomorrow afternoon at about 5:30?

L. Krog: Recent events in Texas that saw hundreds of children apprehended from a fundamentalist Latter-Day Saints community are hitting home here in B.C. People across the province are concerned for the women and children in Bountiful. The people of B.C. are tired of talk. They want to see some action to protect those women and children from potential abuse and human rights violations.

Has the Attorney General and this government finally made a decision? Is he going to refer the issue to the courts, appoint a special prosecutor or prosecute?

Hon. W. Oppal: The issue of Bountiful has been with us for a number of decades, and it's been the concern of past Attorneys General. The reason for that is that there are difficult issues of law, and there are difficult issues of fact. Those issues, unfortunately, over the decades have not been satisfactorily resolved.

I can tell this House, and I think it's well known, that since 2005 we have made it clear that we want to do something and that we will do something about Bountiful. So what we did was ask the RCMP to reopen their investigation, which had been inactive for a number of years.

The RCMP did that. We got an extensive report from the RCMP, and we then commissioned a special prosecutor to look at it. That special prosecutor gave an opinion. We had another prosecutor outside look at it. That was Mr. Doust.

L. Krog: The delay is cold comfort to the women and children of Bountiful and people in this province who care about human rights. This problem is not going to solve itself. We need to get on with it because, in the meantime, the potential sexual exploitation of young women continues.

In Utah, Warren Jeffs, leader of the Fundamentalist Latter Day Saints Church, was convicted on two counts of accomplice to rape. In Texas authorities have acted to protect hundreds of children from alleged abuse. Here in B.C. we're still waiting for this government to act.

To the Attorney General: whether it's a prosecution or a referral, when is he going to do something?

Hon. W. Oppal: Well, this is hypocrisy at its best or at its worst. I don't mind telling this House that one of the real legal issues we've got here is that nothing was done for the last 25 years. An opinion was given to the Attorney General in the '90s. That member should know the opinion. Nothing was done in the '90s. That, in our view and in the view of some of the lawyers who have looked at it, gives some kind of legal comfort to those people who are committing those acts. If something had been done in the '90s, we wouldn't be in this dilemma now.

D. Thorne: Yesterday B.C.'s Representative for Children and Youth raised concerns about children and women who are exposed to domestic violence and abuse. She said that we need better financial and institutional supports for safety plans for women to help them escape domestic violence.

In Bountiful there is no support and no coordinated response for the women and children who might choose to leave. My question is to the Minister Responsible for Women's Issues. Will she commit today to work with the children's representative to improve supports for women and children who are facing domestic violence, including the development of safety plans on the front lines?

Hon. W. Oppal: We've made it clear to the women and children of Bountiful that we as a government are prepared to help them. We've made the same offer to the children of Bountiful that we are there, prepared to help them.

D. Thorne: With all due respect to the Attorney General, who answered the question I put to the women's ministry minister, we see problems with services for women and children in British Columbia right now. There have been so many cuts over the last six or seven years. We're not even anywhere close to the kind of funding and supports and service provision that we had in 2001.

This is the government that got rid of the Ministry of Women's Equality. It's also the government that gutted victim services, cut all funding to women's centres and also to child care programs.

Again, I ask the minister for women's services: will she commit today to increase funding and services to all communities, including Bountiful, to help women develop safety plans?

Hon. I. Chong: Well, the hypocrisy on the other side is absolutely ridiculous. Since 2001 the services, the financial programs, that have been available for women and children who are fleeing abuse and experiencing abuse have gone up 45 percent. We have provided additional dollars for training, which our front-line workers need. We have provided dollars for outreach services to ensure people are aware of services. That was never there before.

In addition, last year we provided additional resources to ensure that every single one of our provincially funded transition houses has 24-7 staffing — never before under the previous administration.

N. Simons: The problem we have here in B.C. is that resources for women and children who are facing violence, abuse or oppressive living situations aren't that well coordinated between agencies. What happened in Texas is an unfortunate consequence of government's failure to address well-known problems.

My question specifically is to the Minister of Children and Family Development. What programs are available through his ministry that are specifically tailored to offer support and assistance to women and children who wish to leave Bountiful and the FLDS sect?

Hon. I. Chong: As I indicated previously, we have provided outreach services which were previously never there. Communities around the province now have people that go out to ensure women and children who are fleeing abusive relationships, who are experiencing abuse, are aware that there are services available and that they can find a safe place to go when they are looking for a safe place to be away from their abusive relationships.

When I hear members opposite, particularly the critic, indicate that there are one-time-only dollars, that is absolutely false. Our budget has gone up 45 percent. That is an annual amount that is now there.

I have travelled around the province. I have visited virtually every community. I have visited over three-quarters of the transition houses and met with front-line workers, and they have said: "Thank you for providing the resources." You know, Mr. Speaker, at the end of the day, that opposition voted against it.

N. Simons: Well, that was the wrong minister answering the wrong question. My question is specifically to the Minister of Children and Family Development.

The issue at hand is that the supports need to be in place for families. If they choose to leave a community or a situation that isn't appropriate, they don't have access to that. Forty-six women's centres in this province were closed under this government's regime, and that's a fact everybody seems to know except for the members opposite.

My question again: does the Minister of Children and Family Development recognize there's a problem, and does he recognize that specific programs need to be put into place to address the specific issues that we're dealing with here today?

Hon. T. Christensen: I don't doubt the member's desire to try and address the situation in Bountiful. It's a desire that's actually shared by all members of this House. But as has been pointed out today, those members had a decade to start taking those steps. It wasn't done.

It's a complex matter. I can assure the member of this. Front-line workers from the Ministry of Children and Family Development are available to investigate any concern around a child that may be in need of protection. Resources are available through a combination of the Ministry of Children and Family Development as well as resources funded by the Minister Responsible for Women's Issues to ensure that there are support networks available for any woman who chooses to flee Bountiful with her children or any child who chooses to leave Bountiful on their own.

N. Macdonald: Two years ago the NDP asked this government if the roof of B.C. Place needed to be replaced before the Olympics, and we were assured that the roof was fine. Subsequently, it has collapsed. It is discoloured. It has recently had water dripping from it.

The question is simple. The chair of the board responsible for B.C. Place says the roof needs to be replaced. He says the roof will last a maximum of four years, minimum undetermined. He says it should be replaced before the Olympic Games. The question: is the provincial government committed to replacing the roof of B.C. Place before the Olympic Games?

Hon. S. Hagen: Mr. Speaker, I can't tell you how pleased I am to receive the question from that member, because that member had never been inside B.C. Place until three weeks ago when I arranged a tour for him.

Hon. S. Hagen: I can tell you that the chair of the board of VCCEP is preparing a number of alternatives for government. Government will consider those alternatives and move forward.

J. Kwan: On Monday the B.C. Rail corruption trial resumes in Vancouver. In an extraordinary move,

government lawyers are trying to place significant restrictions on the single document that the judge says goes to the heart of the "innocence at stake" principle. In an affidavit filed by the government lawyers, the government says it will release the document to the defence to see it. But they want the defence to sign away various rights to use the document, and the government wants five days' notice if the defence plans to use it in an attempt to prove innocence.

My question is to the Attorney General. What are the B.C. Liberals so afraid of? What is in this document that they don't want anyone to see it, and they don't want the defence to be able to use it in the trial?

Hon. W. Oppal: First of all, the B.C. Liberals are not running the lawsuit. Secondly, we're not going to comment on what's going on in the courtroom.

J. Kwan: This document, according to the judge, goes to the heart of the trial, to the heart of the "innocence at stake" principle. Why are the government lawyers trying to put a blockade on it? Why are the government lawyers putting conditions for this document to be released by the defence? What does the government have to hide? What do the B.C. Liberals have to hide?

Hon. W. Oppal: The issue is before the Supreme Court. I'm sure that Madam Justice Elizabeth Bennett will make that decision without any advice from anyone in this House.

Hon. R. Thorpe: Some 37 years ago the young daughter of Cora and Paul Vander Velden was married. I would ask all members of the House to join me in congratulating Edna and Mr. Speaker on their 37th wedding anniversary. [Applause.]

B. Simpson: I am presenting a rather unique petition from laid-off forest workers and many other concerned citizens in the Kamloops region. Since these forest workers have been given their pink slips with no support from their MLA, they have signed a pink slip for the MLA for Kamloops–North Thompson.

Hon. M. de Jong: I call continued second reading debate on Bill 18, Greenhouse Gas Reduction (Cap and Trade) Act, in this chamber, and in Section A, I call Committee of Supply — for the information of members, beginning debate on the Ministry of Employment and Income Assistance estimates.

M. Sather: It's my pleasure to continue the debate on the referral motion that was made yesterday by the Environment critic, the member for Vancouver-Hastings, to refer Bill 18, the Greenhouse Gas Reduction (Cap and Trade) Act, to the Select Standing Committee on Legislative Initiatives.

There's a very good reason for that. It's reminiscent of Bill 16, which we discussed earlier and which we had a similar motion for. I must say that since I've been elected anyway, I don't recall the opposition making such a motion before. The reason is that these bills are entirely inadequate. They don't give members of this House an opportunity to discuss the meat of the matter, because there is no meat, in fact, in the bills.

That's a real problem, and that's why we've asked all members to open up this discussion and have it inclusive of the real issues at hand. There are a lot of questions around Bill 18 that could be addressed very nicely by this motion and with the cooperation of all the parties involved.

I wanted to start by continuing on a theme that the member for Vancouver-Hastings mentioned yesterday towards the end of his two-hour speech, and it's about industry with regard to this bill. The other day The Vancouver Sun listed the top….

M. Sather: The other day in The Vancouver Sun the ten top greenhouse gas emitters in B.C. were listed. They included three gas plants, two cogeneration plants, Alcan, two cement plants, a refinery and a pipeline.

There are a number of questions unanswered around not only this legislation but also the carbon tax legislation that is going to be coming forth, which the Finance Minister has talked about. She said, for example — in fact, she promised — that industry would not be hit twice, once by the carbon tax and once by the cap-and-trade regime that's coming in now.

It hasn't been explained, though, how it will be the case that industry won't be hit twice. They're asking for answers to these questions, and I think it's incumbent upon the government to provide some of those answers. That's why this motion, a referral, would give us an opportunity to do that.

Competitive advantage is a question that industry is asking. If they're going to be subject to these environmental laws…. We support cap-and-trade. Certainly, it's a tool that can be used to bring down greenhouse gases. But industry is asking if they're going to be subject to these measures, now that they're already dealing with a high dollar. They're dealing with recession in the United States.

Their concern is about dealing with competition from jurisdictions with few regulations like, for example, China and how the government is going to address that so that they can continue doing business here in Canada and in British Columbia. That's what we all want to see, of course. But they have concerns, and they have been quite clear that they haven't been consulted by the government in any way that they consider meaningful about some of these issues they have.

Important issues like this speak to the reason that the referral motion has been introduced. There needs to be an airing-out, a discussion, of a lot of these important issues, and that hasn't happened right now.

The government is fond of talking about self-sufficiency, particularly when it comes to private power producers. But what about the self-sufficiency of our industries with regard to measures like cap-and-trade and the carbon tax? What is the government going to do to ensure that we're not going to have to depend on other jurisdictions, low-cost jurisdictions, to provide products like cement when we have that capacity here? Is the government willing, for example, to tax these imports to support our businesses?

One would think that's something that the government might not be likely to do, but then they'd have to explain what they are going to do and how it's going to affect business. If there's not going to be an import tax, for example, then I think it's entirely incumbent upon the government to lay out a business analysis of how cap-and-trade, how the carbon tax will affect large industry.

The question also arises: who in the government is looking after the interests of industry and the interests of business in B.C.? What are they doing? It's just a vacuum in terms of information.

We're very hopeful that the government will support this motion so that a lot of these questions can be answered. It's not going to be satisfactory to British Columbians if the government pushes through this bill. They don't know what it's all about and haven't had a chance to analyze it and to see it analyzed by those who should be doing that — namely, in part at least, those of us in this House.

Greenhouse gas emissions reduction, of course, is the purpose of the bill. It's a worthy purpose, no doubt about that. We wouldn't argue with that.

Emissions from industry and aviation in British Columbia account for about 40 percent of our total emissions. We believe they should be covered under the cap-and-trade scheme. We don't know whether aviation is going to be included in this bill, and that's one of the things we want to find out.

As I think I said yesterday — or it may have been in Bill 16 that I mentioned it — I hope the government puts up some speakers, at the very least, to answer these questions. Perhaps, as the critic has suggested, we will get some answers during the committee stage debate.

But cap-and-trade has had success, if done right. I think the most notable example is dealing with acid rain in North America. That was quite successful. People will recall that sulphur dioxide was a real issue a number of years ago. It worked.

We're looking for a scheme that will be successful. However, this bill is merely a framework of how the government will sort of be allowed to participate in the western climate initiative, which is a collaborative effort, I guess — we don't know much about it, but from what we read in the paper — between this government and governments in western United States.

That brings us to the question: what is B.C.'s role in the western climate initiative, and how is that progressing? There's a lot of secrecy around that, which was discussed at length yesterday.

The cap-and-trade, done right, allows for market forces and innovation to change behaviour. As I said before in discussion of the previous bill, it's the changes in behaviour that we're trying to encourage. If we don't change behaviour — both that of individuals and more specifically of industry in this case — then we don't have a chance of reducing our greenhouse gas emissions, which is of course the goal.

If you look at the example that California has laid out in terms of the openness of their process, I think it shows the way of what we would like to see in terms of openness and accountability by the government around cap-and-trade. But certainly this bill doesn't show it. I guess we'll have to wait, perhaps, for regulations.

The problem, of course, with regulations is that we don't get to debate those. They don't get to be debated in this House. The cabinet will pass regulations, presumably — that's behind closed doors — and then we're stuck with whatever the government comes up with.

So to me, it just seems disingenuous of the government to bring forward this legislation with so little detail. There are a lot of unanswered questions. What is

the cap going to be? How many permits will be issued? That's very important in terms of the functioning of the system. If it's too low, then you don't get a change in behaviour. Again, that's what the purpose of it is.

There are a number of things that businesses can do to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. There can be improved energy efficiency, increased use of renewable resources, capture and sequestration of carbon — in other words, typically pumping carbon dioxide deep into the earth to keep it out of the atmosphere.

I understand that the oil and gas industry in Norway, for example, is fairly successful at doing that. When asked how they're able to do it, they said: "Carbon tax." So that's one of the other parts of the government's plan, and we'll see how that progresses as we go along.

Businesses can reduce their losses from industrial systems and change types and methods of production. So those are some of the kinds of things they can do.

Some of the climate change groups have suggested that the cap that the government sets must be at least 33 percent below 2000 levels by 2020. Again, with this referral motion, we would hope that we could have a thorough discussion of the issue of where the cap is going to fall.

The cap needs to be quantified — actual numbers of metric tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalents. That's what they've done in California, and that's something where you can then actually say it's measurable. Is the government achieving a target or isn't it? We need to see a quantified cap. We're wondering what the government is going to come forth with.

What sectors will be covered by cap-and-trade is another unanswered question. I mentioned aviation. There's also the marine sector. Both cruise ships and commercial marine transport are large emitters, and we want to know whether they're going to be covered by the cap-and-trade legislation.

These are some of the issues. Other unanswered questions are: how will the permits be allocated? There are two ways the government can do that. Either they can give them away to large emitters — the purpose of the permit, of course, is to keep you below that cap — or they can be sold, I think, through what's called the auction system.

I could talk a bit about the problems they've had in Europe with their cap-and-trade system. It wasn't one where they had an auction. That has led to some of the problems they have.

Again, whether we're going to go to an auction or whether the permits are going to be handed out by the government, this is going to be a cabinet decision. There's not going to be legislative oversight, and there is not really going to be public input on that. That's the problem we have with Bill 18, and that's why the referral to the legislative committee has been made. I'm hoping and expecting that a number of speakers will address this issue as well.

Some of the benefits of the auction system that have been talked about is that, for one, companies who have already taken steps to reduce their greenhouse gases have to buy fewer permits. "The polluter pays" is one way of people putting it. If you reduce your greenhouse gas emissions by some of the methods I talked about earlier, then there are fewer permits that you have to purchase, which is a benefit.

It doesn't allow industry not to have to pay for emissions, but it can sell them for profit. That's what people are concerned about. When I talk to people about cap-and-trade, they say: "Well, that's no good, because it just allows industry to buy or trade its way out of having to reduce its emissions." A well-constructed system, I believe, does actually result in reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, so I'm hopeful the government is going to come forward with that kind of system.

There's also revenue from the auction of permits. Those can be used to fund other projects to reduce emissions and assist vulnerable companies. That's actually what I'd hoped would be the case with the carbon tax that the government has talked about — that the money could have been put to things like projects to reduce emissions. But that's not the route they've gone.

In the European Union they noticed a number of problems. The biggest polluters ended up being the winners, which seems kind of strange. But if you accumulate permits, which critics, at least, say is done in Europe…. They were asked to report on what their expected level of emissions would be. It said that they exaggerated the levels to get more permits, which are then an asset — and they were listed as assets by the company — that they then could trade for at a profit.

That drove down the value of the permits, and it led to more or less a collapse in the system. That's certainly not what we're hoping will happen here, but I expect there's considerable pressure on the government to go the route of giving out the permits. I think there will be pressure from industry for them to do that, but I hope the government resists that pressure.

We want to know too: what will be the penalties if industry doesn't comply with the legislation? Here again is one of the many unanswered questions in this legislation. Being able to refer it to the legislative committee, we could get at a lot of these answers, I think.

Also, we want to know what kinds of restrictions there will be on offsets. You can buy permits within the system, you can trade, or you can go outside the system. You don't get them from another industry, you don't get them from the government, but you can look at other projects that are happening. They might be energy retrofits. It might be renewable energy development and installation. It might be reforestation. The government needs to be careful about how they go about that, because it can be problematic.

For example, an industry shouldn't be able to purchase an offset — let's say, for a reforestation project that was part of the government's ongoing mandate — for reforestation that it was going to be doing anyway. It's kind of, "Me too. Yeah, I'm into this," but it's not actually making any demonstrable difference in reducing greenhouse gases if that project was going to happen anyway. Or would the government not do certain projects, like reforestation? Then it would become part of the offset schema. That's a question.

We don't want to see so many offsets that industry stops focusing on reducing its own emissions. We don't want offsets to become just a cost of doing business, as it were.

What kind of government oversight will there be? Will there be an open presentation of the data by industry, or what? How is that going to work? The B.C. government removed the requirement for industry to release pollution records earlier, so that's worrisome. What kind of data will we be getting? What are the sources going to be, and how reliable is it? Those are other questions.

The lack of accountability is the major issue that critics have with this legislation. It authorizes cabinet to introduce any kind of cap-and-trade regime and change it at any time without legislative oversight. That's going backward. I believe The Vancouver Sun today…. This was a point they were making in their editorial — you know, the lack of oversight and the going behind closed doors. It leaves even the principles of the cap-and-trade regime up to regulation. I mentioned the problem with regulation earlier.

We want to know — and one of the things that we believe the referral motion would assist us in getting at is: what is the scope of the cap-and-trade regime that the government is bringing in? What does it cover — which sectors, which emissions sources, which greenhouse gases? All these are questions of considerable import to the validity of the cap-and-trade system.

Where would the cap-and-trade system be enforced? Would the oil and gas industry be covered? One would surely hope so, because there are large emissions sources there in both production and transportation. As I mentioned before, there's a need to cover marine and aviation, which are not covered by the carbon tax — although they might argue with that.

There's a need to lower the cap of 100,000 tonnes of greenhouse gases per year. As it is, apparently, that captures right now about 38 facilities in British Columbia. We believe it should capture more than that.

The government often talks about Dr. Mark Jaccard. You know, he often makes statements supporting the government's initiatives, but this time he's made one that's not quite so supportive. He said: "B.C. might decide to take an observer position in the western climate initiative while it sees what the next U.S. federal government will do." I wonder if there's going to be a delay while we wait for the election in the United States, and who knows how long we would have to wait beyond then.

I think it's probably the same thing with regard to the biofuels issue. In the United States the Democratic candidates have been discussing at length and promoting biofuels, particularly in Iowa, discussing around the Iowa caucuses. What is going to happen in that regard? We wonder if in fact we're never going to find out. When I say "never," I mean…. Let me say…. We wonder if we're going to find out by the next election what the actual plan is.

I understand there's going to be some more information coming forward in August around some of these issues. Certainly, the issue of secrecy is one that there's been a lot of concern expressed about, most specifically in the letters that the Privacy Commissioner has written to the Minister of Environment. He has expressed concerns that section 36 of the act makes sweeping confidentiality concessions that will deny freedom-of-information access to previously accessible corporate data. That's something, again, that The Vancouver Sun editorial mentioned as not a good thing.

Maybe the Minister of Environment is going to bring forward an amendment to the bill himself. I don't know. He said he's looking at it. We wonder how he's going to address it. It's a big issue. We don't want to see a clampdown on access to information.

This information, which this bill is apparently addressing, is already addressed by the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, and so it should stay. The act also deems information as being supplied in confidence, even if it originates from government — so the widening of what is "in confidence." The definition for information supplied is extremely broad in information with respect to a trade secret.

This is not going in the direction that we think the government should be going in terms of openness and accountability. First of all, the fact that it is going to be discussed behind closed doors…. It can't be discussed in a fulsome way in this House. Then, on top of all that, there's the increased secrecy that's built into the bill around freedom of information. That has us very concerned.

We're hopeful that the government will support this motion to refer. We believe there's a huge importance, and it's very significant to the people of British Columbia, to know just how this government is planning to go about addressing climate change.

N. Macdonald: Joining us is Mr. Heath Slee. He's the regional director from the regional district of East Kootenay.

I have to admit something to the House here. When I first came, I was able to identify people very easily up in the decks and see clearly who they were. What has come to pass is that it's more difficult for me.

I do recognize Heath there, and I see that you have company with you. I have to admit that I can't see clearly enough to identify, so I apologize if I should recognize you and I can't. I know people are offering me glasses. It's a sad comment on what happens as each birthday progresses.

I had the opportunity of working closely with Heath in the regional district — a great guy.

I hope you've enjoyed your visit here to Victoria. I hope you both have. Anyway, if the House could join me in welcoming them.

N. Macdonald: With that, I'd like to take my place in speaking in favour of referring Bill 18 to the Select Standing Committee on Legislative Initiatives. What the NDP has said really clearly is that the big polluters have to be part of the solution to climate change. They represent 40 percent of greenhouse gas emissions, so very clearly they have to be part of the solution.

This bill, for those that are watching…. They need to understand that the bill, which we are asking that this Legislature refer to the standing committee, is a piece of enabling legislation. That means that almost everything related to what is going to be truly a massive initiative is going to be put forward as regulations from the Premier and cabinet.

This will provide a framework that will then pass the majority of the responsibility over to the Premier and cabinet. Those decisions are going to be fundamentally important to the economy, and they are going to be made without the open participation, the open debate, of the public. I think that is a fundamentally wrong way to go.

A much more reasonable way for the Legislature to move is to work to involve the public. What this referral motion will do is open up the process. It will give an opportunity for a standing committee of the Legislature to move around the province and engage people in a very important topic.

It will do two things. It will educate people who attend the meetings on the ideas that legislators have in front of them — so share that information. It will also allow the public to share their feelings and make sure that they are able to express the ideas they have and that they are able to clearly express the concerns they have about the initiatives. They're able to express what their interests are.

If we are going to move forward successfully with this initiative — and it's important that we do — then the general public has to be fully committed and has to believe we are putting in place a system that will sincerely benefit the issue of dealing with climate change.

If we move and get things wrong and have the population come to see these initiatives as ill-considered, as designed to further interests other than the interest of dealing with climate change, then we will have blown one of the first chances we have had to make change. Having blown that chance, it will make all efforts in the future far more difficult.

This bill, as I've said, is enabling legislation. Therefore, they are the bones. But there's not really very much meat to what this House is going to be asked to agree to. What the Legislative Assembly could do is put it to this committee and allow some of that meat to be put on the bones, and that would be a positive thing to have happen.

The idea of cap-and-trade is an idea that I think is widely supported. It is a system that can work, according to many who look at it, but it is a system that depends a great deal on the details. I mean, the concept is actually quite simple. But in setting it up, there needs to be tremendous care. Potentially, you are talking about vast sums of money for it to work effectively. Therefore, when you set up the system, you have to be very careful that you're setting up a system that is going to achieve your goals and is not going to be open to fraudulent behaviour.

Essentially, what is cap-and-trade? Well, the concept is that emissions are capped at a level that the government, on behalf of the people of British Columbia, determines to be appropriate. Then pollution permits are given to various emitters. If a company uses less than that permit, then the concept is that there's an opportunity for them to benefit, probably financially. So that's the general concept. If a company needs more, they can access more permits by trading — usually cash — for those permits.

The concept is to use market forces to drive innovation and to change behaviours. The concept is widely supported. So it's seen as an idea that can work. Certainly, anything that rewards innovation and rewards proper behaviour is a concept the people would agree with. But as I've said before, the devil with this is in the detail.

How exactly is it going to be put together? If done poorly, there are huge consequences. There are massive implications. The member who spoke before me talked about free allocation. Or do you use auctioned allocation? These are all things that need to be talked about, understood by the public and a decision made on the direction that will be taken.

The reason that we need to refer this and involve the public is because we know, and the public knows, that if you leave these decisions to regulation, essentially what you are doing is leaving it to cabinet. You're leaving it to the cabinet, leaving it to the Premier and the Premier's office, who participates in the decision-making — who they meet with, the advice they get. These are all things that the public will not be privy to at any time.

Therefore, essentially, these key decisions will not be made by the wider public. They will be made in secret, and that is the fundamental flaw we need to deal with. One way of dealing with it is having some of those decisions made, or at least discussed or considered, in a public process.

By referring this bill to a standing committee, there is the opportunity to talk through some of the decisions that need to be made and to have those decisions understood by the wider public. As I've said, that's key. It's key to involve them, to get them to participate, to get the public to understand the decisions that need to be made, and also to make sure that the decisions that are being made are properly thought through and properly considered.

There is a lot of concern around secrecy around this government in general. They have a very poor record

in terms of presenting things openly, and their tendency is to move to secrecy. We have debated many bills in this Legislature which essentially increased secrecy in government.

In the last term we talked about the TransLink board, which meets in secret. As early as last fall we talked about the Vancouver Convention Centre Expansion Project board — so much done in secrecy. What we saw consistently was that decisions were made poorly, and people were not held to account. There's a long list of moves by this government towards secrecy.

With climate change, unfortunately, that tendency continues. You have a climate change secretariat. This secretariat is a group that meets in secret. Their minutes are secret. Even who comes to them and makes presentations — and this is a part that seems unfathomable — is secret. So who is there talking to them, telling them about the direction they need to take and the ideas they will then secretly put forward to cabinet, which will then secretly make decisions that will impact British Columbia's economy dramatically?

I think most British Columbians would agree that if the economy is going to be impacted dramatically, they should be part of that discussion, and they should be part of the group that is going to make that decision. To be part of that decision-making process, they have to fully understand what is going on. With this motion to refer this bill to a legislative committee, there is the possibility of groups of citizens coming together and becoming engaged fully in the process.

You have a tremendous amount of information that will come before the public. The difficulty is that if it is directed from cabinet, there will only be one side of a story that will be put forward. What we have seen consistently is that cabinet, the Premier, will make a decision in secret, and then they will use the substantial resources that government has to put forward their particular point of view.

That particular point of view may or may not be in the public interest, and that is something that the public should be able to judge. But what we have seen from this government is that despite the fact that there was a promise not to use the resources of government to put forward political ideas, they very clearly do.

There are vast sums — millions of dollars — spent by this government on what is essentially political advertising. There is a staff here of several hundred people who are essentially political communication staff and will put out the government point of view.

There are the resources to buy newspaper ads, to buy television ads, to put out a particular point of view, and we should see that that is something that is very separate from informing the population. The population is not necessarily informed by that. They simply receive the government message, which is different than being properly informed on a matter.

What you would have with the idea of moving around with a legislative committee is the opportunity to have assertions made, but also assertions challenged and ideas challenged. That's a far more productive and useful tool, rather than simply depending upon government messaging which, as I say, is inevitably there to convince. It's more like advertising, to sell rather than to inform.

Some of the ideas that need to be thought about or considered by the public, I would say, are ideas like this: is there going to be legislative or public oversight? The answer with Bill 18 is that there's not. This is going to leave everything with the Premier and with cabinet.

Certainly, if you take a public meeting, and you meet with the general public…. I have hardly ever heard of a group that comes together in the public saying that they want to be removed from a decision-making process. I have never been in a meeting where people want to simply trust authority. They want authority to serve their needs.

They see the Premier, they see the cabinet, they see the government, and they see all of us here as MLAs as their servants, as they rightly should. We are their servants. If we are their servants, then we should be able to explain what we are doing. We should be able to defend the decisions we are making.

But with the process that is set up here, it will be difficult for the public to fully understand even the background to the decisions that are being made. If we take a committee and tour the province, then there is the opportunity for people to participate, to question and to understand more completely what is being put forward.

Cap-and-trade can take many, many different forms. Organized in a certain way, it can benefit individuals and businesses substantially. Put in another form, it can alter that situation dramatically. So you really want to fully understand what is going on with this.

The cabinet, with Bill 18, can do what it wants. It really can introduce any type of cap-and-trade system that it wants. As I said when I started to speak, cap-and-trade is a very general term, and it can take many different types of forms. How you organize it is fundamental to its success. Organized poorly, it will benefit certain groups or individuals, and it has the possibility of doing significant harm to parts of the economy.

But we have cabinet and the Premier, in secret, making those sorts of decisions. That's fundamentally wrong. With Bill 18, you also have the general principles not even laid out, the general principles around how this system will work. Not even the barest of ideas about how this system is going to be put in place are there in the legislation. That's something that, as you moved around the province, you could get feedback on from the general public in terms of what should be there as important principles of the legislation.

The greenhouse gas allowance allocation is going to have a massive impact on our economy, and that it is going to be done in the secrecy of cabinet should be worrying for everyone. It should be of concern to all that are involved. They are going to have unlimited ability to distribute carbon allowances, and there is no public process. To me, it is a recipe for disaster.

The premise that this House is built on is that the public has a right to know. The institution was set up

so that there are set pieces, set tools, that we have here as the opposition to test how our money is being spent and to test government policy.

The test that we apply to it is: is it in the public interest? When you try to limit that ability by the public and the opposition to test ideas, you are inevitably moving into dangerous territory. It makes for sloppy decision-making. It opens up the possibility for money spent inappropriately, for policy direction that benefits private interests and hurts the public interest.

What we have seen is that in secrecy, the deals around the sale of B.C. Rail and the management of the Vancouver Convention Centre Expansion Project were fundamentally flawed and problematic. If you shine the light on government decision-making, you will inevitably get better decisions. But with Bill 18, you have the public removed from the process. By referring this to a committee, there is an opportunity for the public to understand that and to ask for changes to Bill 18 — changes that would improve it.

There are a number of questions out there about how cap-and-trade is going to work, and you would think that the government would be in place to answer some of these. Perhaps as we move ahead, we will get some of these answers. My hope is that we would move ahead through a committee structure and that we would involve the public in answering some of the questions.

We need to be asking questions like: how are the permits going to be allocated? That is fundamentally important to whether this cap-and-trade is going to work or not. How many permits are going to be issued? What is the cap that we're talking about? All of these are yet unanswered.

What sectors are going to be covered by the regulations in Bill 18? That's not even clear, and that's of fundamental importance. How big will the penalties for non-compliance be? That points to the effectiveness. That's a big question. What sort of government oversight will be in place?

Those are all questions that the public needs to be included in. But what you see is that the public has deliberately not been included and will continue to be excluded. With this bill, as with Bill 16, you have something that's quite unusual. You have not only opposition members and the public concerned about the secrecy, but you even have Mr. Loukidelis. Now, he has raised concerns around a specific article. I think it's article 36.

Very clearly, it's not often that the individual who is responsible for freedom of information, for privacy in this province, would be raising concerns around a piece of legislation. But here it is with this legislation and the restrictions or the rules that are put in place with section 36.

I want to come back to the experience that I've had with a different piece of legislation. I've talked about it a lot this session because it's one that I found had a fairly dramatic impact on me personally, and that's the B.C. energy plan. The B.C. energy plan was put forward with all of the language that would be appealing to people who cared about the environment. All of the words were very carefully chosen so that they would appeal to people who felt that they had a responsibility to the environment, to making sure that they were acting in a responsible way for future generations.

With the B.C. energy plan, you had language around green energy, around sustainability. You had language that really would appeal to the values of those that are concerned about the environment.

But what you had with it is the government using that language, using all of the resources that government has and that business has to spread that message and to spread other messages. Yet when you look at the B.C. energy plan and come to understand it and see what they've put in place, what they have really done is primarily set up a scenario where B.C. Liberal donors and B.C. Liberal insiders have the potential for making huge sums of money. So even though it is put forward as a policy that is dealing with an environmental issue, the reality is something very different. Well, it can create cynicism within the public. In fact, that's a danger that we need to be concerned about.

With this, you have the same potential. You have the potential with Bill 18 to lay out a scenario, to say that you're dealing with something that the public cares very deeply about, that individuals care very deeply about, which is climate change. Yet there is the potential to set up a scenario where major B.C. Liberal donors will benefit massively. That possibility exists completely. We have seen in the past that those scenarios are set up again and again and again by this government, where the corporate interest is looked after. It's disguised with language that can be appealing.

Cap-and-trade. Everybody knows that if you set it up a certain way, you are going to have certain companies benefit massively, so you need to be careful about that. By referring it, involving the public and making sure that the public is fully engaged, then you make sure not only that doesn't happen but that it does not appear to happen, and that is important. So a public process will allow the public to see that things are done properly. Referral is the proper way to deal with this — referral to a committee that will travel the province and involve the public.

In many ways, the reason that the NDP supports this idea is that, fundamentally, there is a different approach to how good legislation should be made. What you see with the climate change initiative that the government talks a great deal about is that it's very clearly a top-down approach. It is an approach that is made in secret by a select group of people who are considered the elite. The idea that all of the good ideas that can possibly come forward on this topic are going to be brought…. We'll meet in secret, we'll figure out the direction, and then we'll tell the rest of us how we're supposed to handle this.

The NDP approach is fundamentally different, and it's what makes the NDP appealing to me. It is grass roots; it is bottom-up. It believes that the wisdom of this province sits with the vast majority of people. It believes in the wider public being able to participate in making important decisions. It believes that you in-

form the public, that you give them the choices and that you allow them to make it. So it's a fundamentally democratic way to approach it.

What we're suggesting here is that we begin that democratic approach to dealing with this issue, that we put the important issues in front of the public and allow them to participate and allow the wisdom of the many to find solutions for all of us.

I'll draw your attention to an initiative that the NDP has, which is Sustainable B.C., and just talk a minute about the process — a process that involves the public. These were ideas that came from groups of individuals in all parts of the province. It worked up through local groups to finally come together as a set of ideas that were looked at by the NDP convention and were strongly endorsed at that convention.

You had ideas around sustainability, around the environment, that came from the grass roots up. The strength that has is that you have those groups within the community that fully understand the topic and believe it is not being…. If rules and regulations are needed, you have the public understanding that it's not being imposed on them.

That's the danger with these initiatives. If you don't include the public, they are going to be seen as being imposed on the public. The public will also be very legitimately concerned that a system is being set up that will benefit certain individuals and will have their interests compromised.

As I've said, what we saw with the B.C. energy plan is that very clearly that is what has happened. The first example we've had from this government of legislation that was put forward as environmentally beneficial, as it emerges, we start to see that it was none of that. In fact, what it was, was a program that would benefit B.C. Liberal donors and that would be to the detriment of the public interest.

The public needs to see, with Bill 18 and with cap-and-trade, that the things put in place are in the public interest and are fully understood and that the ideas being considered are fully tested. With Bill 18, really, the public is going to be removed directly from those decisions, and their representatives are going to be removed from those decisions. By referring this to a public committee, you deal with that problem to some degree and begin to involve the public in what is a critically important issue.

To conclude, what I would say is that the referral motion is clearly the direction that we should be going in. Cap-and-trade is an idea that can work, but if it is going to work, it needs to be done properly. The experience we've had in this House is that when governments move toward secrecy, when they remove the public, then we get policies that are poorly considered.

G. Robertson: I rise to support the motion to refer Bill 18, which was introduced here by the member for Vancouver-Hastings. I think it's a very intelligent and wise motion — to have a good second look at what has been proposed here in this bill and to really open up the whole subject of cap-and-trade and how we use cap-and-trade here in B.C. to achieve the goals that have been set forth in law by this legislation to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 33 percent by the year 2020. It's is an ambitious goal, a challenging goal, a goal that's supported on both sides of the House and, certainly, by the vast majority of British Columbians.

However, the nuts and bolts as to how we achieve this goal and how we, in fact, exceed the goal and beat the goal and achieve these kinds of reductions sooner than later are really what we're here to talk about today. Cap-and-trade is one such process by which we as a society can grapple with greenhouse gas emissions and reduce them, thereby mitigating, hopefully, much of the impact of climate change.

I want to just start by setting the context for the increasingly worrying pace of climate change and a corresponding lack of rapid action and engagement, not only here in B.C. with the citizens of B.C., but around the world. Political will does come into play, as we saw here, bringing forth legislation to set targets, but it is notably sluggish in implementing measures that enable citizens to make those reductions, to make changes in lifestyle that encourage and enforce reductions in greenhouse gas emissions by industry.

The pickle we're in here is that scientists around the world are continuing to report that the pace is far beyond what was understood even a year or two ago. What warnings came forth from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change are now thought by many scientists to have been not stern or significant enough. In fact, the changes that we're seeing globally to climate are even more alarming than some of the worst predictions of even 12 months ago.

In that context, it behooves us in this House to continue to ramp up the rate of change and force the pace on greenhouse gas reductions. The consequences for not acting quickly enough are staggering. If there is one issue that we need to move on, in terms of big legislation, in terms of empowering the citizens of British Columbia to make a difference individually, in terms of making change to our industries, it is around climate change and ensuring that the impacts of climate change, be they here in B.C. or globally, are nowhere near as severe as predictions now put them.

Not to say that there aren't some really acute challenges here in B.C. that we face socially and environmentally. There are innumerable challenges that we need to grapple with. There are direct actions that can be taken in this House to reduce the problems we face locally as a society, be it on homelessness, be it on our ability to move around, on transportation, or our food supply.

All of that has to fit within a broader context of climate change as a threat that could effectively wipe our species off the planet in a matter of a few generations, which is a very difficult thing for us to digest or comprehend, but one that has moved many of us into

action politically. We see some of the results of that impetus coming forth here today.

But I have real concerns about the content of Bill 18. The content lacks transparency. It lacks fairness. It lacks effectiveness on implementing a cap-and-trade system that will achieve the goals that we have to beat. It's a complicated issue.

Many British Columbians, I think, would love to know more about cap-and-trade. Those words, I think, will increasingly be heard in the days, weeks and months ahead as we look to implementing solutions to achieve greenhouse gas reductions. I'll start with a very quick overview of what cap-and-trade is, and what it means.

As this government has launched an initiative to implement a fuel tax — which they would like to be considering as a carbon tax that, in effect, does not actually tax carbon emissions broadly in the province — that proposal and proposed legislation has left out the industrial sectors and the emissions resulting from industry, which are about 40 percent of our emissions here in B.C.

The government has decided that a cap-and-trade system is the most effective way by which to reduce the emissions from industry and has chosen a path of working collaboratively with a number of other states in the United States and provinces to pursue a collective course through the western climate initiative, which certainly has merit in that the economic realities of capping and implementing a trade regime certainly make more sense at a broader regional level so as to ensure that local industries are not uniquely affected by changes within their jurisdiction.

So this process, the WCI, is taking place right now. It's moving fairly quickly, but there are some very critical decisions and a whole process by which committees are looking at the details of cap-and-trade — what it means, what it will mean to each state and province that's involved, what it will mean to the industries in those jurisdictions, what it will mean to the citizens.

This work is being taken on aggressively. The province of B.C. has representatives on the committees that are involved in the WCI, mapping out that process, and I will go into a little more detail about the process that's taking place to define what cap-and-trade will be for B.C.

The bill that we have in front of us effectively enables the executive committee or cabinet to go ahead and implement whatever emerges from the WCI process and whatever emerges from work that they do independently. It unfortunately, takes it out of the public realm, takes it out of this Legislature once this bill has been passed, and obscures all of the inner workings, the negotiations and the decisions as to how we create a cap-and-trade system that works best for B.C. to achieve all of the goals around effectiveness and removing greenhouse gas emissions from our industrial sector.

Removing that decision-making process is really what the opposition is standing for here as unacceptable. The fact that this government sees a process as secretive and cloistered as the one they've proposed for a number of pieces of legislation here in the House to do with greenhouse gas reductions for an entire climate change action team process is reprehensible. That this government would not engage and empower the citizens of this province in the process to determine how we go about reducing our greenhouse gas emissions makes absolutely no sense.

This process of secrecy and obscurement stands in stark contrast to the way that our brothers and sisters in the United States and other provinces in Canada are pursuing their attack on climate change. There's a completely different approach taking place.

There is a completely different approach taking place that engages people; that seeks the best thinking, the best ideas; that seeks leadership from communities; that seeks input across the board in an open and transparent way; and that utilizes the tools and technology, whether it's public hearings, public meetings, web-based input. Basically, the doors are wide open, and they're collecting and implementing on all the best ideas they can capture.

We're seeing the opposite here in B.C. We're seeing the entire debate around climate change buried in this building, away in the ivory tower here. We're trying our best here as opposition MLAs to bring this forth, to speak the truth and to make sure that people around the province understand what's at stake and what's being hidden from them, effectively.

In this case, we have a vastly complicated regime to regulate, to impose non-market sanctions on our industrial sector to get greenhouse gas reductions in play, and the people of B.C. have no say in this. They have nothing to go on here. They have no input, based on this legislation that's in front of us.

This specific referral motion is a very simple, clear and admirable step to say: "Hold on a second. Lots of good ideas here. Lots that we want to do. Lots that we can agree on. I think we agree on both sides of this House as to the importance of what we're doing. But hey, let's take a step back and make sure that the people of B.C. know what's going on and can have input on what the cap-and-trade system is."

It's pretty basic. Why wouldn't the members opposite support such a motion to open up the process and involve the people of B.C. in developing a rigorous and effective cap-and-trade system? It's in keeping with many of the initiatives, legislation and policy that this government has brought forward — typically, removing citizen input, cloistering the decisions that are made away from the public.

It's not a surprise, particularly to the members on this side of the House. We see it day in and day out as the way that this government does business. We will stand up every time it happens, and we will stand up vigorously when the issues are as critical as climate change and as important for people to have input on — when their very lives are going to be affected dramatically over the years to come.

Again, I'll just state off the top, to give a very quick description and perhaps to build the mounting frustration out there around the province, once people realize

what is at stake and what's envisioned here…. Cap-and-trade, as a system, firstly, refers to the establishment of a cap on emissions that limits and then reduces the overall greenhouse gas emissions in a certain number of economic sectors. Those are what are in the process, filtered through this government, of deciding which sectors are involved….

It is basically a trading system. That's the cap on the emission. The trade part of it is the trading system that turns the emissions reductions into equal economic units that can be traded like a currency. It's effectively establishing a whole new currency in carbon that the various industrial sectors can trade within their sector, based on whether they can come in under the cap that has been set for them.

The theory behind all this is that the system enables the maximum economic efficiency and flexibility in the marketplace by allowing entities that figure out how to do greenhouse gas emission reductions to actually benefit from the technology they develop, from the costs that they bear internally to do that. They're able to benefit from that by trading that currency to those who haven't figured it out yet or who are not succeeding in reducing their emissions. It combines to produce the lowest price for the reduction of those emissions, in the economy, and therefore, it eases the overall economic impact of making those changes and controlling global warming.

Cap-and-trade proposals can be economy-wide, to take on the whole of our domestic emissions. Others can be limited to a utility, an industry, a transportation sector. There can be a combination of all of that. All of this is being worked on by the western climate initiative — B.C. being at the table in that process.

Those are some basics here. Creating this system is very complicated, and as such, there have been real pitfalls to date in how this system has been working in other jurisdictions.

The European Union proceeded with a cap-and-trade system starting in 2003. They have had very mixed results in the system that was put in place, which should spur us on, and certainly is influencing the western climate initiative process. The challenges in Europe should be a wake-up call to us here in B.C. that we've got to design this right, and we've got to implement this right if we want it to be effective.

Again, I don't think we do that in isolation. I don't think we do that by excluding the people of B.C. and a really thoughtful process as to what we design here.

In Europe 21 member states and over 9,000 factories were involved. The choice was made to allocate the emissions trading units versus auctioning them off to industry. Basically, a big number was chosen based on amalgamating all the emissions as reported by the factories throughout industry. Those numbers were added up. A cap was based on that, and off they went.

The problem that soon developed was that those emissions were inflated by different players in the industries. When the true emissions came in, in the years ensuing, they were significantly lower than the original cap.

Right away the trading of those currency units in carbon that took place was disastrous because, in fact, everyone had something to sell. Many of the trading partners were under their cap and had units to sell. So the trading market was a disaster. There have been a number of interventions in the cap-and-trade system in Europe, in the EU, to try and rectify these problems, to try and reset the emissions permits to match the actual emissions. But we've seen real problems in how that system was set up, and there's a great deal to learn from that.

If we look at what kinds of questions need to be asked here, there are significant concerns to do with these allocations of emission permits. The permits, as they were in Europe, can be given away. The system that's recommended, I think, much more vigorously now is that they're auctioned off. Therefore, industry needs to buy-in to the system and effectively. They're not going to buy-in more than they know they're emitting. So there is an accurate cap in effect set by the auction process.

The western climate initiative is, again, looking at these questions. Do some of these allocations phase in or phase out over time? Does the system lean towards cushioning the transition of polluting industries, or does it lean towards driving the emissions reductions that will seed new technologies and create new jobs?

There are different directions that that can go. Obviously, I think it's critical that we are driving new technology and new job creation through that, versus trying to make this the softest possible landing. We know we have to do a lot in a short period of time in terms of our emissions reductions. That's only going to happen by pushing the pace of technology and ensuring that our industries are mobilized to make this change.

Another key question here with regards to how the credits are allocated is: what happens with the auction proceeds and through what mechanism are they utilized?

We're jumping ahead to envisioning a system that does use auction, and thereby the people of B.C. have a kitty to work with here to start working hard on solutions — which is not built into the carbon tax side of the process here because it's been designed to be revenue-neutral. Therefore, it doesn't kick off proceeds with which we can invest in the solutions, invest in new technologies, in retrofitting, in transitions for communities that are going to need help to get through this challenging time of reducing emissions markedly across the province.

In the WCI process there are five different subcommittees beavering away at the substance of cap-and-trade. Scope, allocation, electricity, offsets and reporting are the five subcommittees that are preparing specific reports based on input from their members and the member states and provinces.

Just to give a little detail on what's going on within each one, because there are big questions being asked by each.

Regarding the scope. Which greenhouse gases? Obviously, beyond CO₂ there are a number of others.

What sectors are involved from industry — whether utilities, transportation? In B.C. we have a diverse array of emitters. We have significant emissions coming from different industries that at this point have no limits on the emissions they put forth.

I know in Vancouver in the Lower Mainland our largest emitters are the cement plants — significant CO₂ emissions. There are great new alternatives, both technological and source material, that the cement industry could utilize to dramatically reduce greenhouse gas emissions. If they're included in the cap-and-trade system that is implemented, those changes will happen a lot more readily.

Certainly, this side of the House wants to see beyond those permits being auctioned. We want to see all the sectors of our economy involved, making sure that everyone who's responsible for emissions is actually taking that responsibility seriously and is paying the price on the emissions that's appropriate.

So the scope committee is looking at sectors, at which gases, at which sources of emission should be capped, at when the enforcement begins, at how to keep it all simple — some basic overall scoping of how the system works.

Allocation I spoke of earlier — whether it's regional, whether it's by sector and how the auction system works. Those are all being worked on by the allocation committee.

The electricity committee is looking at the emissions resulting from the production of electricity. It's very different for us here in B.C. than for many of the other members, but we certainly have a voice at the table there.

Offsets is another critical committee here looking at what kinds of activities qualify for offsets. There's been a lot of controversy over different types of offsets, from tree-planting to investments in reducing emissions out of landfills or agricultural sources. Again, it's important that the offset side of it, which will be brought to bear in a significant way in the system, is really looked at in detail, and this committee on the WCI is doing that.

Finally, the reporting committee is grappling with who reports the emissions, what the standards are, whether there's independent verification and whether the requirements should apply only to emitters that are covered currently within industrial sectors or should apply to any new industries that emerge.

These are five committees working very hard on defining what cap-and-trade looks like for much of western North America and a fairly vast pool of trading partners, of jurisdictions that are all committed to reducing carbon emissions, greenhouse gas emissions, and doing it in an effective way as a broader region, thereby ensuring that, economically, we can get through this transition as smoothly as possible.

This is taking place this year. There's a whole process going on that has been going on through the winter into the spring. There are many months to go yet before it'll be clear what the WCI will produce and recommend and what should be implemented in the various jurisdictions by industrial sector.

For us to move forward on Bill 18 right now and effectively enable the government to do work behind closed doors, without hearing the WCI's findings, without seeing the recommendations coming forth, without talking to the people of B.C. and having a broad and vigorous dialogue, community to community, industrial sector to industrial sector…. It doesn't make a whole lot of sense for us to be passing legislation at this point, before we even know what's on the table and before we even gauge the people of B.C.

It's fundamentally, really, a question of transparency, of fairness and of effectiveness. On all three levels, we have to ask the hard questions. We're looking now to continuing with a process that is not transparent, in which the people of B.C. can't see what's going on. All the other states and provinces are making their steps known and public, and we're not. Transparency is off the table.

This bill, again, precludes our opportunity to ramp up the transparency of our process. It also brings up the question of fairness. A lack of transparency obviously isn't fair. With all these hard decisions around who's paying the cost and how much they are paying for their emissions, ensuring that there's fairness means that we need to be public about it. In order for something to be fair, it needs to be judged broadly and by the public. In this case, we're taking it away from that, and the whole issue of fairness is at question.

Again, effectiveness. It's hard to be effective if everyone doesn't know what's taking place and what they need to be part of. Ultimately, all three of these are really critical questions that we need to be asking, that we need to be demanding, in terms of outcomes here before we go steamrolling forward, implementing legislation that enables a process behind closed doors that excludes the people and that, in essence, will not be as effective as it could if we were engaging people and opening up this process.

I will just close by expressing my real concern that, again, it's another missed opportunity. It's very unfortunate that we have to stand in this House and talk about what could be a fantastic opportunity yet is being squandered on a secretive process.

D. Routley: I rise to speak in support of the referral motion that's before us. It is important in all these issues that the people of British Columbia have full confidence in the effectiveness of plans and the openness of this debate, particularly when the effects of policies like the one we're considering here have been so unexplored and are lacking in certainty.

The experience of British Columbians in viewing the policies of the government so far in this area is one of seeing a haphazard approach that has been ushered up in rushed announcements that have been poorly planned, that have not resulted in fairness and that have left people out of the debate on their own future. We have seen the imperative grow before us, in the pace of climate change being greater than was ever thought possible, even by some of the most dire expectations, and it is absolutely our duty in this House to increase and ramp up our reaction to that reality.

But we also need to employ great caution, because what appears to be one step forward can in fact be two steps back if we take the wrong steps, if we take the wrong direction. A perfect example of this was the fuel tax proposal that was brought before this House. It has been roundly seen not as a carbon tax but as a fuel tax in that it taxes the fuel that ordinary British Columbians use but has left out heavy industry, left out most of the industrial polluters who in fact account for approximately 40 percent of the outputs of British Columbia. That is unfortunate but also unfair. It leaves British Columbians as the sole payers, as the sole sacrifice-makers in the plan offered so far.

This bill will hand over decisions and discussions and debate on the details of the cap-and-trade system to closed-door negotiations which take the form and effect of this plan out of the hands of British Columbians.

We need British Columbians to embrace whatever plan comes forward and participate fully. We don't reach that goal by favouritism, by leaving out those who might be the largest donors to the provincial government through the B.C. Liberal Party, by leaving out those who are the biggest supporters of the B.C. Liberal Party. That breeds cynicism and is absolutely an unfair approach.

This secretive approach to the way government is deciding these issues will contribute to the cynicism that people view the process through, which will make it that much more difficult to encourage British Columbians to embrace change that may be difficult for them and may be costly to them. Shutting out the people of B.C. makes no sense.

The B.C. population expect leadership. They expect to have input. They expect this government to consider ideas from everyone, from all places. But through this bill, we can have no confidence that that will be the case. We have no confidence that the people of B.C. will be adequately heard, that the issues they will face in this transition will be adequately stewarded.

It is no coincidence, I would argue, that the biggest polluters are the biggest donors to the B.C. Liberal Party. We have seen policy consistently favour those who are supporters of the government and of the B.C. Liberal Party.

The theory of cap-and-trade is something that people are embracing. They can see that business and industry would be capped and that as emissions are reduced, those who cannot reduce as quickly would be able to trade for those credits.

But what it does is open up a huge opportunity for this government to create carbon-trading billionaires out of their supporters. In fact, if the government takes the same approach that they've taken to so many other transitions, they will just leave it completely up to forces in the market, or forces brought to bear on the market, in favour of their supporters. That would be unfortunate.

Our strategic interests need to be more carefully thought out than that. I'll use an example. I visited a company, a foundry, in the Lower Mainland a couple of weeks ago. This foundry is one of five or six left in the Lower Mainland, where there were 15 or 16 in the past.

It's a very strategic link in our manufacturing chain. This foundry does custom casting of custom alloys for the forest industry, for the marine construction industry, for civic infrastructure. It's a vital link in a competitive manufacturing chain, a flexible link that allows our industries to explore and develop new processes, new ideas, new products and new markets.

That small foundry, which employs only 110 or 120 people, uses the equivalent of 20,000 homes in electricity. It uses the electrical equivalent of what it would take to power 20,000 homes in that it uses electricity to melt the alloys used to form these castings.

We don't know what form this cap-and-trade will take. We don't know if a company like that, which is struggling to be viable, which is struggling to survive in this current marketplace — with forced policies that have driven away their customer base, with other decisions that have resulted in great challenge to them and to other strategic links in our manufacturing chain…. They are forced, with a downturn in our economy, facing a recession in their marketplaces that will be very difficult to survive.

Will the B.C. Liberal plan offer an option to companies like that to just wind down most of their activities and trade away their emissions to other companies in B.C. that aren't so interested in protecting our environment, that aren't so interested in changing along with the expectations of British Columbians? Then the marketplace pressure, which might have resulted in a reduction of carbon with the unfortunate demise of some of the companies that create that demand, will be compensated, and we won't even gain what we would gain by losing that production which is so vitally strategic to us.

Are we going to enter into a system — not described here, not described anywhere, but to be negotiated behind closed doors — that will allow heavy industry to take advantage of the cycling of the economy to avoid change and will in fact put us two steps backward when we're claiming to step one step forward.

Those are crucial issues not only for British Columbians but for this planet. These issues are being discussed by the European Union. They are being discussed by the western climate change initiative. They are being pondered by people who are experts, who are community leaders, who are environmental leaders. Unfortunately, if this bill goes forward in British Columbia, that discussion will happen behind closed doors.

It is important. It is not only important to the fairness of the application of this act and the outcomes of its effects, but it's also vital to the environment. If we simply label something, it doesn't make it so. If we simply apply a name to something, it doesn't change its content. If we simply say that a cap-and-trade system is good for the environment — end stop — then we may be in for a very bitter surprise.

We must be careful. We do not have time to waste. We do not have time to enter into experiments that are

perhaps polluted by the interests of partisan advantage. For British Columbians to trust that that is not the case, then we need to see this discussion occur in full view, in the full light of day. This bill will not provide that opportunity.

Emissions at the time of capping — how will they be calculated? How will that cap be calculated? Will there be an exaggeration of emissions immediately before that cap is settled? Will there be a disaster that will lead us to trading notional units of carbon that either were never going to be produced or are in fact still being produced but are being traded as though they weren't? That would be backward movement.

What will our system do? What will our system look like? Will our system take us towards simply trading these units to avoid change? Will they offer opportunity to those carbon-trading billionaires that would be created, to industries that are slow to change or have no interest in change? Will this system, negotiated behind closed doors, invest in new technologies, find ways to develop new processes, find ways to develop new markets? We won't know.

Will this system offer any clear path of support to the change, to the technical or work practices? Will this new plan — which will be negotiated outside the view of British Columbians, outside of this building, outside of this chamber and which will not be debated in detail here…? Which gases will it target? Will it target greenhouse gas emissions of all types, or will it be as narrow a focus as we have seen through the fuel tax proposal? Which industries will be affected and capped?

Which industries will be targeted, and which industries will be allowed exemption? We have seen in the fuel tax that the government is quite prepared to offer blanket exemptions for industries that are clearly supporters of theirs or that they are directly responsible for, such as B.C. Ferries. That was the outcome of what they call a carbon tax, which is amounting to nothing more than a fuel tax, nothing more than a gas tax.

Which regions will be affected, and how will they be affected? How will regional disparities be accommodated? How will regional disparities be compensated? None of that is apparent through this bill.

How will sensitivities in strategic industries be accommodated? How will that forging plant, which is so important to the continued industrial success of British Columbia, have its interests accommodated? Those 120 workers will be dependent on the outcomes of this debate, as will the British Columbian economy.

If we lose strategic pieces because there's more opportunity for shareholders to trade credits than to produce products in the British Columbia economy, then we will suffer, and the environment will not gain. That would be two steps back rather than one step forward.

The government is claiming a large step forward, but we don't see it. All we see are labels. All we see are labels that in the end have turned out, in our experience, to be quite vacant of the meaning that they purport to represent.

What kinds of activities or initiatives taken by industry will be recognized as credits in the offset system? Will local land decisions play into this new system? Will there be pressure on local governments that they haven't seen yet? We've seen, with the government's negotiation of the TILMA agreement behind closed doors, that the interests of local governments were considered in the most minimal way and in fact were lost.

These are the kinds of questions that British Columbians need answers to, and that is why this referral motion can give this House and this B.C. Liberal government the opportunity to step back for sober second thought and actually take an objective and careful approach to this issue that will create support and will allow British Columbians to embrace this plan.

But instead the government sees that it's easier to do these things behind closed doors. It's easier to appoint unelected friends or unelected bodies to decide the future, to make decisions that will affect British Columbians, to make decisions that will affect their economy that may not be positive, may be quite costly and may not achieve the goals they purport to be addressing.

What British Columbians need is transparency in this process. British Columbians need to be hand in hand with the planning, with the establishment of this process. They need to be participants in the entire chain of decision-making when it comes to cap-and-trade. They need to see that there is a fairness component — that social justice and fairness to British Columbians are components of this plan. They need to see that the plan is effective, but none of that will be laid in front of British Columbians until the final product is popped out by this unelected and non-transparent process.

I think, basically, it's important that we strive at all times to bring meaning to the words that are uttered in this House and bring meaning and real accomplishment to commitments by government, not simply to label something a golden goal and say: "Well, that's enough. We've addressed that one. Move on." It's simply not enough to say, "This isn't the old relationship; this is the new relationship," and then just move on and allow things to remain the same.

That would not be good enough for the environment of British Columbia. It would also help engender the kind of cynicism that allows people to dismiss what happens in this House and leads to people coming to the conclusion that what they feel, what they say or what they think doesn't matter. In that way, this would be doubly destructive to our process. Not only would British Columbians be shut out; they would not see what is coming down the road that is so important to their future and that may determine what kind of sacrifice they must make in order to achieve these goals that we all share.

In order to do that, this government should support this referral motion, back away and take that sober second look that would allow us to ensure that whatever this process produces is fair to all British Columbians and is in fact effective in stewarding and

protecting our environment. None of that is clear. None of that will be clear if it is negotiated behind closed doors.

All of that is vitally important to any plan, because any plan will rely on the embrace of British Columbians being strong enough that we can weather that storm and move forward together in a real way that equates to forward steps that must be taken without pause and must be taken immediately. But in the haste to meet that demand, we must not dispense with the clarity, transparency, fairness and openness of process.

This is the last moment when British Columbians should be shut out of the discussion of their future. This is the last moment when the government should leave it up to itself and its friends to determine who pays and who doesn't. And this is the last moment when British Columbians should hand to a government — which has proven itself to protect the interests of its main donors, its main supporters over the interests of others — this vitally important piece of securing the future of British Columbia.

This piece requires confidence, and confidence does not come through closed doors. Confidence will come when the doors are open to British Columbians, when all the industries of British Columbia feel that their interests are protected and accommodated, and when the government ceases to evade its responsibility to lay out a strategic vision that doesn't merely throw dust to the wind and depend on the whim of whatever marketplace we're talking about to determine the future of these issues.

I would go back to the example of the forging plant that is so important and strategic, which needs protection and consideration that goes beyond a simple calculation that will be arrived at by this government and their friends. We as British Columbians need to know that vital interests are being protected, not merely thrown to the wind as dust.

In order to avoid all of that perception and in order for the government to quiet the opposition benches in this criticism, they have only one step to take. That is to support this referral motion — to pause, to examine and to open the process to all British Columbians. If they fail to do that, then they will fail to develop the support that is going to be crucial and will be all-important to the success of any plan.

If we allow a system that trades notions, that allows those who resist and refuse change to continue, then we will not only fail ourselves, but we will fail British Columbia, its environment, its future. This government's history is one that requires that openness be the top priority, the number one priority.

With that, Madam Speaker, I'll close and ask the government members to support this referral motion to consider a more open and democratic approach to the issue and to resist the temptation to favour donors and friends.

B. Simpson: Just for context, we are in the middle of the debate on Bill 18. As an opposition party, we have used one of the legislative tools that we have — that is, to ask for this bill to be referred to a standing committee of the Legislature. The reason for that is that we as an opposition believe we won't serve the public well by allowing this bill to continue and to be passed by the government.

Because of the imbalance of votes, the government tables the bill, we have debate, and the government has the majority of votes, so the bill passes. As an opposition, we're hamstrung in the ability to actually stop a bill — unless, of course, we do like we did with the electoral boundaries bill where we made such a sufficient case that the bill was withdrawn.

That's a fact. That's what happened. As a consequence, that bill didn't get passed. The government pulled it, and now what we have is Bill 18. The government has an opportunity to pull the bill, but they have chosen not to do that.

Instead, we're using one of the legislative tools that we have, and we're saying that we have a standing committee. Standing committees are made up of members of both parties. In a non-partisan way, we can actually take this bill and go to British Columbians and say: "What do you think about this? Does it make sense to you? What questions do you have? What questions need to be answered? How do we perceive as British Columbians the implications of this bill on current generations and future generations and on the market?"

The market, for all of those members on the other side who maybe haven't done their homework on this bill, is going to be significantly impacted by the decisions made by cabinet. They could have businesses in their ridings that go out of business because of this bill. They could have whole sectors of the economy collapse because of this bill. They could have all kinds of things occur because of this bill.

So my contention is: let's pause. Let's step back and let a legislative committee look at this. Therefore, what I would suggest — over the noise — is that the Legislative Initiatives Committee take this on. That's what the referral motion does.

I think there's another important reason why that should occur. All one has to do is look at who is showing up at the polls. We are simply chasing people away from the polls consistently. Look at the Ontario election; 52 percent of the people showed up at the polls. Look at the Alberta election; less than 42 percent showed up at the polls.

We have an opportunity here to embrace what is a significant challenge for us as human beings and re-engage the people of British Columbia in their democracy. That's the benefit of saying yes to the referral bill. That's the benefit of giving it to the legislative committee, to get out and give them a short time period. Give them three months. Give them four months. Get them out there. Make this a transparent process.

I think we should do that more often. One of the things that troubles me about how our process works here is that we all get elected…. We're supposed to represent our ridings. We're supposed to bring those interests into the Legislature. We're also supposed to be

involved in the process of making laws for this province that make sense to British Columbians, that work and that are not in error coming out of the starting gate.

Fundamentally, I think we need to start using our legislative committees more for that purpose. I think we would make better laws. I think there would be fewer amendments and amendment acts that come into this Legislature, because there would be fewer oops. I'll talk about some big oops on the part of this government that are examples of that.

I think it also has the ability to remove, if we do it well, some of the partisanship that has to occur, because we have to get the legislation for the first time in this Legislature, and then we're forced to debate it in a partisan way.

I think the referral motion gives us the opportunity, for a variety of reasons that I'll speak to in the bill, to actually engage British Columbians in their democratic processes in a meaningful way. I think it's a good example and a good practice that we should be doing in a general way.

Let's look at a couple oops, for context, that we've got already. A very big oops in this province is the forest revitalization strategy of 2003. We actually had the minister admit, again, the other day, with respect to the Kamloops mill, that he cannot intervene in the sale of forest licences in his province, that his hands are tied.

Well, that's a very big oops from legislation that was passed in 2003, where the rights of the minister to oversee the transfer of forest licences were removed. Nobody at the time projected forward what the implications of that are. Now we have a monopoly situation occurring in our province over our public forest lands that the minister has admitted publicly — both in this House and to the press — that there's not much he can do about. In fact, the words he used: his hands are tied. That's a big oops.

If there had been proper consultation with the public…. If an all-party committee, for example, was used to help to formulate those laws, that could have been prevented. Today we had a debate in the Ministry of Agriculture estimates about the whole issue of converting Crown land designated for growing agriculture. We are now threatened with it being transferred to a British Columbian, converted into stumps as the forest is mowed down and logs taken off, and then sold to companies that then can turn around and replant it to forest. The person who makes all the benefits from that doesn't achieve the government stated objectives.

That's a result of changes to the agricultural laws in this province in 2002, where we took away the requirements for actually converting those agricultural Crown lands to agricultural purposes. Now we get the collateral damage from that.

Bill 18, in particular, is addressing a very complex issue. It's addressing the issue of climate change. The government is attempting to address that. Fair enough. It needs to be done. It needs to be done in an expeditious fashion, but as we saw with the biofuels issue, when government went rushing headlong to address that, it became a boondoggle. It became something that was out of control, and it started to create the reverse of what it was intended to do.

So I want to be clear before I get into the substance of the bill…. The reason that I think it needs to be referred is that we are, again, all for putting a price on carbon. We are all for moving into sustainable biofuels and alternate energies and alternate energy systems. We are all for looking at a cap-and-trade system, because it seems to be one of the ways that we can make sure that emissions are reduced in a timely fashion.

We are not for rushing into this, and we are certainly not for enabling the cabinet, behind closed doors, to make decisions that have significant consequences for individual companies, for whole sectors and for communities in this province. Again, as I debated yesterday and put on the table, the whole biofuels issue is a case in point.

Part of the problem that we have here is that we got off to the wrong start in this whole process. I still don't understand why the Premier put the climate change secretariat as a cabinet committee behind freedom of information. Why would we not engage the public in an open, wholesome and full debate about how we address this issue of climate change? Why wouldn't we draw them into the debate? Why wouldn't we give them opportunities throughout British Columbia to have discussions about how we address climate change?

In fact, why not go around the province…? They could have done it. Remember, the Premier signalled that he was going to do this in the throne speech of 2007. We're now in 2008. We had a year where instead of doing it behind closed doors, the Premier could have gone out to the province, could have engineered regional processes, could have had summits all around the province on how we address climate change.

So we've lost that window, because the Premier chose to go behind closed doors. We could have done that. Because it's not transparent, we don't have any clue what the thinking is behind the three bills that we have that are part of the climate change bills. We don't have any information on what the thinking was behind the fuel tax. We don't have any information in front of us behind what the thinking is about biofuels, and we don't have any information about this very complicated thing called cap-and-trade. What informed these decisions?

One of the things the government could do, and they could do it instantaneously…. It would assist us, as MLAs, to continue our responsibility to our public to inform ourselves. The Premier could, today, put all of the presentations to the climate change secretariat on the webpage in the Ministry of Environment.

Wouldn't that be interesting? We could actually see what all the lobbyists said to the government. We could see what all the environmental groups said to the

government. We could see what all the industrial sector said to the government, and we could compare what was said against the bills that we have in front of the House.

In the absence of referral, in the absence of a legislative committee doing that, that would at least allow us as Members of the Legislative Assembly to have some kind of informed basis upon which we could make a judgment on whether this bill was right, whether it was necessary, and whether it was taking us in the right direction. We don't have that information.

I think that's a failure of the Premier to respect our democratic process and give us the information that we all need — including the government's members, and in particular the backbenchers who are flying in the dark just like we are. They don't have access to that information either. And including the public, because the public has no benchmarks to make sense out of what it is the government is going to do.

We actually don't have the big framework picture to understand how all these things relate. In fact, in many jurisdictions they will go down the cap-and-trade route without going down the carbon tax route. We're doing both.

Has the government examined the implications of doing both? That means that large sectors that have a big transportation component will have taxes put on all of their transportation fuels, because it's a fuel tax. Then if they're involved in the cap-and-trade program, they will have an incremental cost associated with whatever their cap ends up being. So you've added layers of costs, and I'll speak about the implications of that for the forest sector shortly.

What is the government's thinking about the carbon tax, the fuel tax? As we've seen, the push-back from rural B.C. is significant. I've spoken in this House about my constituents who have come forward and said: "What are our options?" The government's language doesn't make sense. The government's language indicates that what they are attempting to do is put forward a tax to change people's behaviours. That's not what it's doing, because in my neck of the woods, how do you change your behaviour?

I've actually been trying to get an Escape Hybrid. We're doing our due diligence. We're sitting in the house, my wife and I. My one vehicle, the lease is up in a few short months. My wife's van is kind of falling apart a little bit. It's been abused a little bit with so many kids in and out of it over the years.

We looked at all of the implications and possibilities for us to change our orientation, change our behaviours, if you will — looking at one car, looking at me cycling in and out to work. It's the only exercise I'll probably get, because we don't get much exercise in this job as it is.

So I really like my Escape. I went to go and get an Escape. I'm told there are only two in the province of British Columbia that are available. Try and get a hybrid car in this province. It's very, very difficult, because as we shift the demand, they're not there.

The alternative for me is to go to a small car. Well, if you ever hit a moose with a small car, it's not a pretty sight — right?

B. Simpson: The minister across there says: "Don't hit a moose." Well, I'm not saying that I'm driving down the road attempting to hit a moose. But if you've been around your riding at different times, especially dawn and dusk, you'll know that you don't often have the option of hitting or not hitting when it jumps out in front of the vehicle. But as a consequence, we have to have vehicles that are higher off the ground. We have to have vehicles that are of more substance.

The carbon tax, the fuel tax, is supposed to change our behaviour, but how do I do that? It's not enabled. So I again go back to the point: who consulted with rural British Columbians on the fuel tax? What was the consultation process? Were rural British Columbians given the opportunity to make representations to the climate change secretariat? I don't think so. If they did, put the presentations on the webpage. There's already a climate change webpage. It would be a very easy technological step to simply post them, put them up there.

We don't know what informed these decisions. We don't know what the government's thinking is behind this bill in particular. We don't know what the overall and overarching plan is. I think we're being asked to say yes to a bill that has huge, huge implications for B.C., and we have very, very little information on which to judge it.

One thing we do know is that in this bill we're going to further undermine our democratic process. We are going to continue on the path of greater and greater secrecy. We are going to continue on the path where the public's right to know is undermined. I'm not overstating that. When the Information and Privacy Commissioner writes a letter to the government when a bill is before the House, that has to be taken very seriously.

In a recent column I like the way that it's been captured, where Darrell Evans, the executive director of the B.C. Freedom of Information and Privacy Association, says that, in effect, what will happen with clauses in this bill is that the "democratic sovereignty of citizens will be usurped by the commercial interests of unelected, unaccountable corporate officials whose loyalties may well lie outside of Canada."

He goes on: "Yet another attempt by the Liberals to place corporate information behind an iron curtain…. It's vital that our democratic values not be abandoned by the creation of a rapidly growing quasi-environmental grey zone where government and the private sector mix. Transparency and accountability should prevail wherever public work is done and taxpayer funds are spent."

That alone, I believe, is a cause for Bill 18 to be sent to a committee, for the committee to go and say to British Columbians: "Do you believe that you want to give

up your rights to information? Do you want to give up your rights for due process in order to get a cap-and-trade regime put in place? Is it necessary?" We can actually, because we're a standing committee of the Legislative Assembly, ask for advice from experts. We can tell them that we want them to come. We can ask lawyers to come and tell us whether or not this is necessary. Isn't that an interesting thought — that our democratic process could actually be informed through that legislative committee process?

The secrecy of this, I think, is something that should worry and concern British Columbians and is something that could be addressed by referring it to a committee. But the other aspect of this is that the track record of cap-and-trade systems around the world where they've been put in isn't all that clean, isn't all that simple. In fact, the European version of this is really in some trouble, because they got out of the starting gate wrong. They set their targets wrong. They put the caps in wrong. They priced it wrong. What happened previous to it coming in is that a lot of people started playing with the numbers, and it ended up benefiting them immensely.

We now have a situation where the cap-and-trade system in the European Union may actually be contributing more greenhouse gases, while individual companies and sectors make a lot of money off of the trading part of the regime. So it started to be a real problem there, along with biofuels, that they're having to address.

We also don't want to put a cap-and-trade system in place that locks in current polluters. If the incentives aren't designed sufficiently and if it can always buy what I need in the way of forgiveness, I don't have to change my behaviours. Now, in balance, one would hope that that would balance out and you would get GHG, or greenhouse gas, reductions, but you may not get that. It can also put entire sectors at risk and entire businesses at risk.

Again, as I said yesterday with the biofuels bill, this is market interference in such a big way. The estimate of the carbon market globally today is a hundred billion dollar market. That's a significant number. What the government is going to do is get engaged in the market and put a price on carbon and then determine who's in the game and who's not and what benchmarks are going to be there and what benchmarks are not. How all that plays out has significant implications for our business community.

There's a fundamental question that needs to be asked here. That is, who are the lobbyists working on that with the government right now? There have to be lobbyists there. There have to be lobbyists who are saying: "In the cement sector we hope you do this. In the pulp and paper sector we hope you do this. In the transportation sector we hope you do this."

There are lobbyists who are pushing the agenda just now, and because it is not an open and transparent process, because British Columbians are not engaged in the process, they don't know who those lobbyists are. They don't know what they're asking for.

It's a double insult to British Columbians. The first is that we don't know what the climate change secretariat was told in all of the presentations that were done to that. Secondly, we don't know what the lobbyists are saying in behind the scenes, and we don't know which lobbyists the government is listening to and which they're not.

In the cap-and-trade system that's proposed by the government — so that, as the MLA for Nelson-Creston would say, the folks at home understand what's going on — there will be emission reduction units. These units will be tradeable commodities. We'll get a carbon market. There'll be tradeable commodities, and the government will actually establish the price for those.

So if I am a big polluter — not me personally; symbolically, if I have a company that's a big polluter — and I start to reduce my pollution, my greenhouse gas emissions, I will be able to get these emission reduction units. That's equivalent to cash. It's equivalent to the government giving me a cheque in the marketplace and saying: "Here. Now you can go and you can trade that off for cash in the marketplace."

That's huge interference in the marketplace. That's this government deciding it's going to set the rules for a brand new market out there, a market that can pick winners and losers.

Here's an example. The pulp and paper industry has indicated to this government on numerous occasions and in numerous papers that they're very concerned about the government's thinking around bioenergy. Well, the Council of Forest Industries has come out and said they're very concerned about the government's movement into this fuel tax.

I know for a fact, from talking to them, that they're very concerned about the cap-and-trade regime for one reason: they are leaders. They are out ahead of the game. Over the last decade they have significantly reduced their greenhouse gas emissions. They have significantly reduced their energy consumption.

Now, why is that a bad thing? In a cap-and-trade system, it depends on where you put the benchmark. If you put the benchmark as 2008, and then you determine what their allowable limits are in 2008 and the pulp sector is determined at that level, it means the last ten years of capital investment in those mills amount to a hill of beans. Whereas another sector that's done nothing over the last ten years gets its benchmark set in 2008, and now it has all kinds of room to make changes to get these emission trading units and to make cash off of it.

In the pulp and paper sector they are now…. It's called the Pareto principle, or the 80-20 rule. They have reduced the 80 percent that was relatively straightforward to reduce. It cost them money, but it didn't cost them as much as the next 20 percent reduction is going to cost them. The next 20 percent for the pulp and paper sector of greenhouse gas reductions will be very costly for them, because it's now into the minutiae. It's into the "how do we reduce a little bit here, a little bit there," and the capital investments for that are very costly.

So their room to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions and get these trading units is very, very small. Whereas, as we know, in the cement sector…. Their room to invest to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions is very, very large. In fact, they're on the 80 percent, where it's going to be less expensive to do that than where the pulpwood sector is in the 20 percent that's left to do.

What that means is that the cement industry, if they embrace this and get on with it, can actually start to generate cash in the carbon-trading system because they've got the easy 80 percent that they can address and start reducing. Whereas the pulp sector cannot do that. It becomes a disincentive for investment in the pulp sector at a time when they can least afford it.

The sawmilling industry over the last couple of years has gotten into trying to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions. The pellet industry is just coming out. Will they get carbon credits in this system? Who knows? That's the fundamental problem: nobody knows. Nobody knows what the thinking is. Nobody knows what the lobbyists are saying.

We're being asked in this House, as duly elected officials, to say yes or no to a bill that has no details in it that we can wrap our heads around — no details in it that give us a sense of what it's going to do to our economy, to give us a sense of whether or not it will actually reduce greenhouse gas reductions. How can we say yes to it? How can we say no to it? How can the people of British Columbia say yes to it or say no to it? That's a question we're asking.

To resolve that, we're simply saying: refer it to committee. Give it to a legislative committee. Give it to the Legislative Initiatives Committee. Let them go out, and let them do the due diligence that this government either hasn't done or has done but isn't revealing to the public.

I would request that when we do — and I hope the government members do say yes to this referral — and when that committee is struck, then what it can do is go and get from the climate change secretariat all the presentations that haven't been released to the public. Get those presentations. Put them in front of that committee. Allow the committee to call witnesses. Allow the committee to go around the province and talk to British Columbians. Then, sure, in the fall session bring forward a bill that we can all agree to because we all know what it's going to do and British Columbians have had a say in it.

Again, I think that is a practice we should engage in when it comes to substantive bills like this that have broad-scope implications not only for now but for future generations of British Columbians. It does two things. It makes our jobs as MLAs, as elected officials, more meaningful in terms of whether or not we are voting in accordance with our constituents' wishes. It makes our jobs more interesting, because it engages us in the thinking that goes into the legislation in the first place. It makes the whole process more transparent.

I believe that if we go down this path and if we engage, particularly, the younger generations and they understand that they can actually influence the democratic process in the legislative process, we have a more educated and informed public, a public that can help us deal with very complex and complicated issues, a public that will then start showing up at the polls and engaging in the democratic process.

This has broader implications than just this bill. As a practice of this House, as part of a legislative reform package, this process of a committee looking at…. I'm not talking about every piece of legislation. Substantive legislation. We have a health bill in front of us. I think it would be interesting to be engaging the public in that debate, because it has huge implications for our health care system.

I think that all we're saying to the government members is that we're not informed enough to say yea or nay to this thing. There isn't enough information in the public domain. Let's simply pause and give it to the Legislative Initiatives Committee. Let them, with a tight mandate, get out and do the work, find out whether or not this is the right thing to do, restructure the bill in accordance with what we hear and bring it back to the House. Then we can both say yes and get on with cap-and-trade. That's what we're asking to do.

Again, I would refer, as members of this side have been referring, to the hard work that's been done by the NDP's Standing Committee on Environment within our party around sustainability principles. One of those principles is democracy and due process. That principle is failed miserably in this bill, but referral to committee gives that an A, because it then opens it up to due process. It opens it up to debate. It opens up our democratic process and, I think, will start enlivening our democracy in general.

On that note, I will close my comments. I hope the members on the other side get an opportunity to think about this and agree with us that it's an opportunity for us to engage British Columbians in meaningful debate. Let's put it to a committee. Let's have the committee go out, and then in the fall let's bring this back, and we can all say a hale and hearty yea.

M. Karagianis: I guess, as part of the series of initiatives that government's bringing forward, it's fitting that we're here talking about the next piece of controversial legislation and a controversial issue, which is around cap-and-trade. I'm standing, actually, to support the motion to refer this on to a committee debate, for a whole number of reasons.

I think that cap-and-trade in itself is a supportable concept, and I think that there are all kinds of very positive things that can be gained by this concept of cap-and-trade. I think that first and foremost it targets big polluters. It targets those largest emitters that are responsible for a significant amount of greenhouse gas here. In fact, it is an offset to what may happen at the consumer level around the other huge component of greenhouse gases here, which is transportation.

From the perspective of targeting those big emitters and polluters, I think that the cap-and-trade concept is

very positive and very supportable. I think that it gives us an opportunity here to see what kind of innovation might be brought forward in this. I think that that's one aspect of this, as well, that needs lots more exploration to think about.

I look back, and I think about times and places in our history where innovation is driven by seemingly sort of innocuous topics. I think back to the '90s, when the Internet was first new. It seemed to be an environment of just geeks, and nobody thought the Internet was anything other than a kind of geek's environment for talking back and forth to one another. But it turned out to be a huge economic driving force and a huge technological force that has grown beyond the capacity of those people who imagined it in its early days as simply being a bit of a communication tool for those who were into their computers.

I see, in the same way, the issues here around climate change. Many years ago, for those of us that were categorized as tree-huggers, enviros and green junta…. I remember a member of my municipal council calling me that, one of the green junta. We talked about climate change then. We talked about the kinds of things that needed to be done to create a huge shift in how we behave, how we conduct business and how our economy thrives. We talked about climate change being the beginning — that discussion on climate change being the beginning of that.

I see, in the same way, that things like cap-and-trade — as applicable programs to apply to climate change — also can create all kinds of innovation. I suspect in the years to come we will see that as industry itself begins to engage, whether by force or by choice, in climate change initiatives, we will see amazing innovation, even more so than what we see now. I actually see that all of this is escalating quite fast. I see that the momentum is speeding up considerably on not only the discussions and the controversy but the potential for all kinds of innovation.

I think the cap-and-trade concept will be a driving force in that, because I think it will force emitters and polluters and corporations and big business to think about doing things differently and better. They'll also inevitably see that there can be all kinds of new economies and economic gains out of doing business differently.

I do know that the system of cap-and-trade was tried on a somewhat limited basis around the reduction of acid rain. I'm going to speak about that a little bit later. I think that that has been somewhat successful and has laid a bit of the groundwork for what's possible here in the whole cap-and-trade.

I also think that there are lots of pitfalls in the cap-and-trade system. I think that creating an effective cap-and-trade system is going to be imperative in the discussion of how we move forward. I think that the lessons that were learned here out of the acid rain experience probably are very important in the debate we're having right now in the House around this motion to refer.

I have here some documentation from the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research — hardly considered to be one of the most left-leaning of organizations, I suspect. Perhaps the government will find their information, their statistics and some of their conclusions to be more interesting. They talk about the experience around cap-and-trade and acid rain and compare it very much to the current cap-and-trade application for GHG emissions. It says here in this document they've done on climate change…. This is caps versus taxes:

It's in that very final phrase that I'd like to address my remarks: "by vastly complicating a trading system." In fact, I think it's not as clean and simple an argument as you would suspect on the surface of it around cap-and-trade.

I think that this issue of volatility is going to be one of the complications that government will have to address in the future, and this would be one of the very real and compelling reasons for us to sit down in a committee environment and have this debate and look further at how we can prevent the kind of experiences that other sectors and the U.S. has had from occurring here in British Columbia, because they can have a very sharp effect on the economy of this province. The motion to refer, I think, is supportable from that perspective.

I'd like to go on and talk here. This report talks a little bit more about the kind of long-term implications here of this cap-and-trade concept and why it needs closer inspections. This report says:

There is one of the first pitfalls of this. There is all kinds of capacity for interpretation, for political interference, for manipulation of the system. That speaks very strongly to the need to create an effective carbon-trading system, and it speaks to the reason for us to have a closer and longer debate on this. There are all kinds of opportunities for manipulation of the system, which would not at the end result in an effective system.

The second thing that the report says here is: "Establishing allowances and accounting systems for GHG emissions across industries is going to be vastly more difficult" than the SO₂ was, and much more highly politicized. "The forest products industry, for example, will reasonably want credits for creating carbon sinks in the trees it plants and harvests, but the manufacturing sector that uses these wood products as a raw material will want credit for sequestering carbon."

The difference will create a split "in some arbitrary manner that will surely introduce economic distortions in the marketplace." It's another pitfall in how all of this is interpreted by any given sector, and that's just one small sector.

The economist Robert J. Shapiro notes that as a result of all of these factors and deficiencies, the European system is failing to reduce European CO₂ emissions. "The European Environment Agency has projected that the EU is likely to achieve no more than one-quarter of its Kyoto-targeted reductions by 2012." Many of those reductions are simply credits that were purchased from Russia or non-annex countries with no net environmental benefits.

That little scenario that has been outlined there in the U.S. speaks very strongly, I think, to the kind of things we want to avoid, the kind of pitfalls that we want to avoid and the lessons that we should learn by things that have already occurred in the marketplace. In creating an effective carbon-trading system, we have already got lots of groundwork that has been laid for the things that we should not do and lots of warning by economists for the things that we need to avoid in doing that.

I think it's appropriate for us to sit down and examine more clearly exactly what our carbon-trading system will look like here in British Columbia, because for now all we have is enabling legislation that's pretty thin on details. As we know, the real policies, the real meat of this cap-and-trade system will be developed behind closed doors, someplace outside of the view of this House and of the public.

For those who are watching this…. Frankly, there's more enthusiasm gained every single day by citizens of the world on what is happening on this issue, on carbon taxation, on alternative fuels — as we discussed and debated in here yesterday.

I think it's appropriate for us to make sure that we create a system — and that we can publicly speak to the kind of system we're creating — that doesn't put in place the pitfalls that we've seen in Europe or that the U.S. itself is recognizing — the difference between what they did with acid rain and what they're going to need to do in the future with greenhouse gas emissions and some kind of cap-and-trade system.

The first and foremost rule that we're going to have to follow here is setting very strong caps and ensuring that there are no loopholes in that for emitters to escape through. I think it's telling that even the editorial in The Vancouver Sun today is "Cap-and-Trade Law Can't Have Any Loopholes."

There it is, Madam Speaker. We've seen lots of pundits begin to investigate this, begin to investigate the potential for the cap-and-trade system to fail, or to fail to deliver the kind of change and the kind of reduction in greenhouse gases that we anticipate and expect.

We must, first and foremost, set strong caps. How do we do that, and how do we know that that's being done? We don't, because there is no place to have this dialogue, and that is the rationale behind a motion to refer to a committee where we could actually have that discussion.

We could look at the experiences elsewhere in the world. We could look at the negative and positive experiences that other sectors have had, and we could then ensure that we create a strong cap system that does not have loopholes in it and does not have the potential for manipulation that has been experienced elsewhere and in the European market.

I think the second point is to ensure that we include the right sectors — and all the sectors that should be involved in this. I think we have seen that already, with the government's establishment of a fuel taxation system that excluded all kinds of potential users that should not be excluded. We have to avoid that mistake here.

I think it's very important that we make sure all of the emitters and polluters in British Columbia are included and that there are no exclusions — that organizations like B.C. Ferries are not excluded, that the aviation industry is not excluded and that the oil and gas industry is not let off the hook in any way.

We already know that in the recent budget, while the government is busy putting a fuel tax on consumers that they can ill afford and is expecting that they will bear the burden of the first wave of climate change action, we continue to give huge subsidies to the oil and gas industry and expect them to go on and carry on business as normal.

While we're saying, on the one hand, that we have a huge climate change initiative, this government's actions are completely at 180 from that, because we're

just gouging a fuel tax on consumers that have no other options. At the same time, we're encouraging and subsidizing the oil and gas industry to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars and saying: "You can carry business on as usual, and oh, guess what. We're going to come in with a cap-and-trade system here."

Who of us in this House and who in the public will know? Will it apply unilaterally to the entire industry? Will they find some loopholes? Will there be some conditions on the cap-and-trade application to that industry? Is the government actually going to find a way to impose a cap-and-trade system onto an industry that it is giving hundreds of millions of dollars to, to continue doing exploration and business as usual?

You can see right away that there's a bit of a dichotomy there in the government's actions, their commitment around subsidies to the oil and gas industry and the expectation that somehow now they're going to levy a cap-and-trade system here that we should have faith is going to be effective. I for one and, I would say, members on this side of the House are pretty skeptical about government's ability to carry through on the innuendo of that — that the cap-and-trade system will somehow apply unilaterally to the oil and gas industry that's getting fat subsidies to keep exploring and carrying on their business as they have in the past.

I think we have to be assured that the appropriate sectors are being included and that the cap-and-trade requirements for them have no loopholes. They have no conditions imposed or no expectations that somehow the industry can manipulate the policy, whatever that is, when government develops it. I think it's fair that we should have that debate, where we could actually hear more details about what is being proposed or being considered.

The next piece, I think, of an effective carbon-trading system would have to be the issue of how permits are allocated. Clearly, the experience from the world market, which has already begun to view this, and the experience in Europe is that….

Strong indications are that auctioning permits are the most efficient and effective way of ensuring that permitting is done fairly across the entire marketplace. But we're not sure what the government's intentions are for that. We're not entirely sure what references they're using to base their carbon-trading system on. We would like to know that, and that is one of the things we could explore, again, in this motion to refer.

The next piece of an effective carbon-trading system, I think, is around how you determine and limit offsetting and this concept of allowing major polluters to either buy or trade their way out of their responsibilities. How will those limits be imposed? What, if any, prohibitions are going to be put in place, and at the end of the day, what kind of penalties are going to be put in place?

If this is simply a way for affluent corporations, big emitters, big polluters to stave off the inevitable for a few more years or to buy or trade or manipulate their way out of compliance or out of their responsibilities…. If there are no prohibitions and if the penalties for non-compliance here are weak, then the system fails us again, and we don't actually achieve anything over the years and into the future, where we need to.

Frankly, so much of this is not even about politics, although it can be highly politicized. It really is about significant and real change in our behaviours and significant and real responsibility on the part of emitters and polluters.

Until I hear from government that they have set up strong caps, that they have included all of the appropriate sectors, that they have a permitting distribution system that is fair and equitable, that they are going to limit the offsetting, that there will be prohibitions and penalties, and that there will not be any opportunity here for major emitters and polluters to manipulate the system or buy their way out of responsibility, then I can't be assured that we will create an effective carbon-trading system.

I don't know where else we have a chance to have this dialogue except if we support the motion to refer and have this discussion in a committee environment.

I'm also quite concerned about the western climate initiative and what it really does mean in the long run. We can see by the number of provinces and states that are included in this initiative that reaching consensus on how we will all deal with cap-and-trade and all of the various complications that I've outlined in my previous remarks…. I think that trying to reach consensus with that number of groups says in itself that there could be some issues facing us in the future.

My fear is that somehow, through this consensus…. Alberta is one of the provinces that we are going to expect to reach consensus with on how this western climate initiative is going to work. Are their goals and aspirations for cap-and-trade going to be the same as ours? I suspect not. They certainly haven't joined the ranks of those trying to show leadership in the climate change action.

It concerns me greatly that we might find ourselves moving to the lowest common denominator. Often, frankly, in a consensus environment, that is exactly what happens anyway. In order to reach consensus, you find the lowest common denominator that all parties can agree to, and that is your baseline. I think that in this particular case, if we are going to try and create an effective carbon-trading system, it cannot be about finding the lowest common denominator — reaching that consensus and making that as the baseline.

I'm very concerned about this. I'm concerned that this need for consensus could undermine the levels that we would like to achieve, that the members on this side of the House believe are possible and inevitable and, in fact, that we are compelled to reach and that the government itself purports to want to reach. Then I think we have to ensure that whatever is going on with the western climate initiative is not undermining in any way the potential for us to make some real changes.

I also don't think we have a clear view of what the time line is for reaching this consensus. Will that also drag out the process much longer than necessary? The

Kyoto agreement, I think, is a really good example of where you see that competing political interests between governments end up rendering something to the point where it no longer has meaning. It's no longer achievable. Interpretation by various levels of government, various states and various provinces made the process so painful that, in fact, most provinces have abandoned it.

Is that what's going to happen here? If we have to try and get the western climate initiative members to reach a consensus on what an effective cap-and-trade system will look like, are we going to see that watered down and the time lines stretched to the point where we're not actually achieving anything or the time lines are so far in the future that they're meaningless?

I think the government has aspired to some pretty lofty goals here on what they've set for our goals to reduce greenhouse gas. I'd like to make sure that their actions are as good as their words. So far, it's a hollow experience because actions have not followed on the promises of throne speeches in the past and budget speeches in the past.

Here we have something so critical that we cannot risk that whatever compromise might have to be made at the western climate initiative which could be counterintuitive and could countermand every single aspect of an effective carbon-trading system that we might want to create.

I think it's imperative we have that discussion. The motion to refer here gives us that opportunity to go and sit and have those discussions and come to a determination that we will, in fact, lead. We will not allow the WCI to undermine, water down or render by consensus an effective cap-and-trade system to being a useless tool that has far too many loopholes, far too lax guidelines, no penalties and a time line that is so vague and so far in the future that we achieve nothing.

That is the real hazard here in this process. If we don't see what kind of an effective trading system we're going to put in place, if we don't see what kind of time lines and commitment will come out of the WCI, we could see ourselves waiting for years and years to hear what comes out of behind closed doors in the way of a system here that is a cap-and-trade-system.

The other piece of this bill and of this cap-and-trade concept that concerns me…. It's no secret at all here. The government itself is very aware of the fact that the concerns around transparency and freedom of information are imperative. We've seen it here from our freedom-of-information office itself and from the officer, and we've seen it in all of the media. I think it is really imperative that transparency and the issue around the freedom of information here be resolved.

If it's not, the public will have no faith in the system, and they'll think they've been cheated one more time. They get to pay a gas tax. Who knows what's actually happening with the cap-and-trade? It's a big mystery. There are loopholes all over it, and we can't actually see what's going on. I would think that the government would want to move immediately, as quickly as possible, to put that fear to rest in people's minds and get the press off their back, frankly, by addressing the imperative around transparency for this.

The other aspect of this that concerns me around this freedom of information and the whole discussion around transparency is that reporting out on a cap-and-trade system is going to be one of the fundamental pieces of the equation here. We're going to have to be able to report to the public. We have to track the actual success or failure of the cap-and-trade. We have to be able to report to the public who is complying, who is not complying, what kind of penalties are being put in place, how hard the government is following through on their promise.

That's the other aspect of this. If there's any kind of concern under the Freedom of Information Act that we are not providing that open and accountable voice to the public, where we are tracking and reporting to them on the whole issue of cap-and-trade and who is or is not participating appropriately and what kind of significant changes we'll see in the future as we ramp up and begin to have expectations of even higher compliance from emitters and polluters, then I think we fail the public.

I would hope that the government, again, would take seriously the motion to refer, where we could go and have some discussions about how this other piece of the cap-and-trade puzzle fits in — which is the accountability, the transparency, the reporting out and tracking, and how we guarantee to the public that in fact we are doing the job we promised them.

I would hope that members of the House on both sides will support this. I know that this side will support the motion to refer. I would hope that the government will. It's in their best interest as well. In fact, it's maybe even more in their best interest to do this appropriately. So I'll anticipate the vote and seeing whether or not government's going to take their responsibility here in this and do this correctly.

J. Horgan: It's a pleasure to rise today and speak in favour of the referral motion moved by my colleague from Vancouver-Hastings. For the record, I'd just like to read that referral motion. It goes as follows: "That Bill 18 not be read a second time now but that the subject matter be forwarded to the Select Standing Committee on Legislative Initiatives."

What, in essence, that does is that it will move this debate on the cap-and-trade legislation — Bill 18, the Greenhouse Gas Reduction (Cap and Trade) Act — to an all-party committee of individuals who have expertise, presumably. Certainly, we on this side of the House would appoint members who had an interest and a passion and an aptitude for understanding these issues. One assumes that the government members would be similarly apportioned.

Why I believe that this is an appropriate thing to do at this time with this piece of legislation stems from the legislative calendar that we have before us. As members will know, the calendar says that we will sit for another five weeks in the spring session and return

again in the fall to deal with legislation in a meaningful way, prior to an election coming next May.

It strikes me that we have the budget estimates for this year that are ongoing in the other place. We have legislation — I saw, I think, there or four or five health care bills that have been tabled by the Minister of Health — on issues that will require substantive debate and time in this Legislature.

Certainly, I know from my critic area, I've been dealing with bills. My opposite member, the hon. member for Peace River North, the Energy Minister, has tabled three pieces of legislation this session. We've been through one and a half of them, and there's much more work to be done.

When it comes to the question of climate change, I have to go back and think about the comments, the words, the views and the passions of the Premier of British Columbia — the member for Point Grey, as I like to call him. He came upon climate change late in the game, unlike this side of the House, who had a plan in 2000, following on the Kyoto protocols, to address climate change. We had a green economy secretariat in place to bring the province and its population around to the need to address this issue.

The government side was late to this issue. They came some seven years later, and it was on a trip overseas, I understand, that the Premier had an opportunity to read a book on a plane. I give him full marks for coming to that position, late as it might have been. But rather than take the position that the Premier and his government have, that they have all the right answers….

Rather than take the position, as the government and the Premier have, that only they can marshal forward the arguments to the public — to the community at large, the people we represent — to convince them that we as a society have to make drastic and radical changes in how we do business, why not ask all members in this place? Why not ask all perspectives in this province to address the challenge?

We have the time. That's not an issue. We have a legislative calendar that mandates four weeks, at least — or is it six weeks? — in the fall. I'm not quite sure. I don't have it at hand.

I do know it would be a golden opportunity for us to refer this legislation to an all-party committee so that we can ensure we get it right, so that we can ensure that the public has some confidence that…. They're being asked to pay more to heat their homes. They're being asked to pay more to move around in their communities if they don't have access to public transportation. We're asking and asking and asking, and we're not seeing the evidence of what the benefits of these activities will be.

Why are we not seeing that? Because of a cloak of secrecy that shrouds the climate action secretariat, a group of public servants that have been assembled by the government who meet in secret with individuals from across the province, across the country, perhaps internationally. We don't know, because we have never seen a list of the people who have made presentations or have come to hear evidence on these matters.

As an opposition member, I represent some 70,000 people in the Cowichan Valley and in southern Vancouver Island, and they're looking to me, as their representative, to be responsible about this important legislation, to be responsible about the important impacts of climate change on our communities and on our planet.

When I see in the local paper in my community, the Victoria Times Colonist, a column by the thoughtful columnist Paul Willcocks that goes as follows…. It's titled "Cap-and-Trade Bill Gives Cabinet a Blank Cheque." Well, that causes me to pause.

If my constituents are reading the journal of record here on southern Vancouver Island, the Times Colonist, and turn to the editorial pages, where opinions are shaped in many areas of our community, and they see that a reputable columnist who observes this place, who takes his job very seriously, looks at legislation and says that it's a blank cheque for cabinet, well, then I think I have a responsibility to raise some questions.

I think I have a responsibility to raise questions in a non-partisan way, in a way that will help my community understand the motivations and impacts of legislation that we're debating in this place.

The way to do that is the unique and innovative way that the member for Vancouver-Hastings has brought forward. Let's refer this bill to a committee of the whole House. Let's review it. Let's take some time — a couple of months. Let's meet through the summer. When we come back in the fall, as I'm sure we will…. The calendar says we'll do so, so I don't have any reason to doubt that the government will not want to come and assemble here again, as the calendar, the fixed legislative session, will say.

We can come back here in the fall and debate that legislation. Why wouldn't we want to do that, confident that we have asked as many questions as we can, both on the government side and on the opposition side, to ensure that we've got the best legislation possible to serve our communities, to serve our province, to serve, indeed, our country? If, in fact, the Premier is genuine when he says that we want to lead the country rather than that he just wants to lead us down the garden path to an election date next year, where he can claim to have been clean and green and in fact let the cat out of the bag….

I want to read further from Mr. Willcocks's column. I know many members on that side of the House will say: "Well, it's just one person's opinion in a local journal, and we want to just dismiss that and move right by it." But what Mr. Willcocks says, I believe, as I read it — he was saying it directly to me and saying it to the 78 of the others in this place — is as follows: "A cap-and-trade system is a good way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions." Well, we all believe that that's the case.

But he goes on and says the following: "But if I were an MLA…I couldn't vote for the B.C. government's bill setting up such a system. It's vague and

short on details that MLAs of both parties couldn't really know what they are being asked to approve." We couldn't really know what we're being asked to approve.

If, in fact, these issues — climate change, global warming, greenhouse gas emissions — are the issues of our generation, the issues of our time, don't we have a responsibility as legislators to ensure that we are addressing that in as fulsome a way as is possible? I believe we do. I believe my constituents support me and they support my friend from Vancouver-Hastings in bringing this issue of a referral to the House today.

Those of us who have been here for a short time, those who were elected in 2005, came here after listening to the Premier's rhetoric in 2001. He said: "We're going to empower the Legislature. We're going to empower MLAs to do the good work that their citizens want them to do." Well, that was all well and good when it was 77 to 2, when it was Nebraska against Ball State. But when it became 46-33, when it became….

J. Horgan: Ball State's pretty good — yeah. Well, in my youth Ball State sucked.

So 77-2. Let's empower our MLAs. Why did the Premier want to empower MLAs when it was 77 to 2? Idle hands make mischief. So those backbenchers who had aspirations to sit at the cabinet table needed something to do. So we had government caucus committees. We had committees for this, committees for that and committees for the other thing. They were making stuff up. Let's have a committee on this and that.

So here we are now. The tables have turned. The level in the place is different. It's a balanced legislature where a hard and aggressive opposition is holding the government to account, and that's exactly what we're doing today.

That's exactly what we're doing today — holding a government to account and saying to the Premier, my good friend from Vancouver–Point Grey: "Walk the walk. Walk the walk, Mr. Premier. If you want to empower members of this Legislature, if this is the fight of our life, if climate change is the single most important thing that we can address in this session, why wouldn't you put it to an all-party committee? Why wouldn't you have a real debate on this issue?"

My good friend from Vancouver–Point Grey has had a lot to say about empowering those of us who work in this place to do good deeds and to do things to pass legislation and develop policies that are in the interests of all British Columbians. I think most of us embrace that notion. What's challenging for those on this side of the House is that the member from Point Grey's view on empowerment seems to be confined to those that he hangs around with, confined to those who share his views, confined to those who would be quick to say: "That's a brilliant idea, Member for Vancouver–Point Grey."

I have to confess that, although the cap-and-trade system is certainly not devised and created…. Its genesis is not here, but it certainly is among the tools available to us as legislators, one that we certainly want to give fulsome consideration to, and indeed, potentially support — if it wasn't, as my friend Mr. Willcocks from the Times Colonist has said, a blank cheque.

J. Horgan: More friends than I can count because I've only got the ten fingers and the ten toes. After that, then I'm left to my own devices.

I want to quote a little bit further from Mr. Willcocks, because as I say, my constituents are well informed by this individual.

J. Horgan: I don't know. Am I capable of blushing, Member? Oh, Mr. Willcocks is blushing? Okay, fair enough.

He writes as follows: "MLAs are being asked to give the cabinet huge power to impose rules that could mean ruin or riches for companies and communities in B.C. The legislation doesn't say how the caps will be allocated, either by sector or by company." That, as the old adage goes, means it's a pig in a poke.

J. Horgan: I'm confident that that's parliamentary language. I didn't say "crock," so I'm certain that I'm able to say that. I may well be challenged by my good friend from Shuswap, but I rather doubt it. I think he'll let that pass.

So if the journal of record in my community, a reputable organ that has served this community since the 1850s…. I believe it's 150 years….

J. Horgan: I didn't say a reputable Horgan. I said a reputable organ. It's late in the day. For those who are watching at home, it's late in the day, and we have been debating this issue for some time.

It is an important one to me. I refer back to Mr. Willcocks, because the people that I represent…. I know that people come from all across the province. My friend from Esquimalt-Metchosin and I — our communities are represented by that newspaper. Opinions are shaped by the words on the pages in that newspaper.

So as a legislator, when I see on the…. I'm not suggesting that I am completely influenced by the things in the newspaper, goodness me. If I picked up

The Vancouver Sun one day, who knows what would happen to me? But here, I read the Victoria Times Colonist, as do my constituents.

They're going to look at this and say: "Well, why in the world would my representative, the member for Malahat–Juan de Fuca, stand and vote for something that's so uncertain and so unclear and that could lead to catastrophic consequences for industries on Vancouver Island or potential riches for those who have the ear of the government?"

I see my friend from Chilliwack has joined the debate with a couple of catcalls. I'll just say that for those in my community who have seen the benefits that have been passed on to Western Forest Products….

J. Horgan: Langley is what I meant to say. I meant to say Langley. I shouldn't be saying it anyway. You should be reprimanding me, members over there, for even mentioning it.

It is still early in the afternoon, albeit on Thursday. So we might just show a little patience. Could I remind members that if you wish to participate, you should be in your own seats.

J. Horgan: It certainly wasn't my intention to get my good friend from Port Moody–Westwood into difficulties with that.

I don't know how many good friends I can have on one day, but I think if we keep going, I could have 78 by the end of this debate, as people start to pay attention.

I heard my colleague from Cariboo North talking about this as market interference and a potential $100 billion market. I'm not certain if that's the case. I know that the regulator-busters on that side would certainly not want to be interfering in a marketplace, but there is some evidence that they've intervened in other areas of the marketplace recently.

I recall that any hint of intervention in the marketplace in the 1990s would have led to catastrophic consequences, according to the members now on that side of the House. In fact, the very journal that I've quoted today, the Victoria Times Colonist, I believe would have taken equal shots at a government of my persuasion as they've taken at the government of the day.

This is not in itself a partisan question. It speaks, as I said, to the member for Vancouver–Point Grey's commitment to the electorate as the leader of a political party and then subsequently as the Premier of British Columbia to empower legislators to do the work that they were sent here to do.

We all know that as time goes by and as we get closer to the next election, people get heated in this place. Decisions are made, I know from experience, perhaps irrationally in the interests of meeting particular constituency needs. I don't mean that in terms of our electoral areas but in terms of representative groups and stakeholders within the community.

I do want to support Bill 18. I believe that it is a valuable tool in the arsenal we will need to meet the challenges we face as a community and as a planet, as members on it. But I can't in good conscience do that with the amount of information that's at my disposal in this piece of legislation.

The responsible thing to do — in my opinion and, I believe, in the opinion of my constituents — would be to say to this Legislature: "Let's take this bill. Let's take the concept of cap-and-trade. Let's get updated on what's happening with the western climate initiative, where our partners in the United States and other Canadian provinces are in league to try and come up with a market that will work for at least those of us who are on the western side of North America."

Why wouldn't we want to know the state of those deliberations? Why wouldn't we want to know what the plan is in California, Oregon, Washington, Utah, New Mexico and other states as well as our other friends in Manitoba? Why wouldn't we want to wait and see what's going on there? Well, I would argue….

I'm not one to seek conspiracies. My friend from Kingsway knows that. But one might think for a moment that the reason we've got a half-baked bill today is because we don't plan to come back here in the fall, as the calendar prescribes, and debate legislation. Why wouldn't we come back in the fall after we've sent an all-party committee out to do some research, to scrutinize other jurisdictions who have attempted this?

The European model was a failure initially. We certainly would want to hear from colleagues there or review some of the evidence — collectively, together, both sides of this place. At the end of that review by a committee we could come back to this House, make recommendations to improve this legislation, make recommendations that could lead to unanimous support for a cap-and-trade model so that each and every one of us could go back in good conscience to our communities, to businesses — whether it be the cement sector; the pulp and paper sector, very important on Vancouver Island; oil and gas; petrochemical; aluminum; on and on — the big polluters.

Those that are creating the greatest problem for us also provide some of our wealth — in fact, the lion's share of our wealth, so we don't want to cut off our nose to spite our face. That being the case, why wouldn't the member for Vancouver–Point Grey, the leader of the government, the president of the executive council…? You can call him by many, many names. That's

the beauty of being in that position, I suppose. I'll just limit it to those that are parliamentary.

Why wouldn't we get together and come up with the best possible legislation that we can so that in unison the 79 of us, or those who seek re-election in the coming election, can go to our electorate and say: "We're introducing a cap-and-trade system in British Columbia, because it's the right thing to do"? We can say it together. We can eliminate the politics from this question.

I am certain that's what the member for Vancouver–Point Grey would want. I'm certain that his advisers holed up in the tower would want this to be a non-partisan question. I'm certain that the public affairs bureau would want to just put down their computer screens right now and say: "Let's not bother trying to seek political advantage from this important issue. Instead, why don't we try and do the right thing."

Three years I've been here, and constituents come up to me and say: "Why is it that you people can't seem to get anything right?" They're referring to me, and they're referring to members on the other side of the House.

They're referring to the collective us, hon. Speaker. I would exclude you from that, of course, because of the position you hold. But for those of us who are not sitting in your chair, the rest of us have a responsibility and an obligation to work in the best interests of all British Columbians — certainly, in the best interests of the people that sent us here.

My constituents, quite frankly, are a little bit sick and tired of hearing that this is the fight of our lives. "If we don't do something about climate change, catastrophic things will happen." If that is the case, if this is our world war, if this is our…. We heard the member for Vancouver–Point Grey talking about Vimy Ridge the other day, and I listened very carefully. That was a time when everyone came together in this country for common cause.

If in fact this is our common cause, why wouldn't we take the good advice of the member for Vancouver-Hastings, refer this bill to committee, sit down together and collectively come up with a solution to the problem that we can all go to our communities and say is the right thing to do? That seems to be me to be the appropriate course of action. Call me rational if you want. I don't mind. But that's certainly what the people….

J. Horgan: I'm going to take a drink while you guys heckle, if that's all right.

This is the second referral motion we've had this week, and it's the second bill that's been brought forward by the government with "climate change" or "greenhouse gas" in the title.

Now, this is a cap-and-trade system that will have impacts on our economy. It'll have significant impacts on some sectors of the economy, and it will make multi-millionaires out of some people unknown to us at this time. As my friend, as I've referred to him before, Mr. Willcocks says in his very thoughtful column, that is something that MLAs should be very, very mindful of.

I'd like to add one more quote from that article today, if I may. It goes as follows: "It doesn't seem that MLAs of any party could vote for this bill, because it's impossible to judge the impact on the citizens they represent."

Well, if that's the case, if the people in Malahat–Juan de Fuca, when they were having their morning coffee and reading their daily Times Colonist, came to the editorial page and read that I as their representative could not support a bill because it makes no sense…. They cannot understand it.

We don't know what the impacts will be. How am I discharging my responsibility to them by voting in favour of this bill? How am I doing what I was sent here to do if those that are observing this place are prejudging what I may well do and asking how in the world, in good conscience, based on the information available, I could support it?

Well, I want to support a cap-and-trade system. We on this side of the House are looking at this as one of the many tools that we will have to have in our kit to address this challenge. The challenge is a big one. It's significant.

We supported unanimously in this place set targets for 2020 last fall, which may well have been the last fall session we will have in this place as the 38th parliament. We voted unanimously to support meeting targets by 2020. So all of us have a responsibility to ensure that our economy, our citizens and our legislators are in a position to meet those targets.

One way to do that may well be through the cap-and-trade. We will not know based on the content in this bill. I cannot go back to my constituency tomorrow, start opening up the e-mails, start meeting with the constituents that I see regularly at the various coffee shops down coffee row on Goldstream Avenue in the proud community of Langford.

I'm going to the Association of Vancouver Island Municipalities' annual meeting in Bear Mountain at the Bear Mountain Westin tomorrow with my friend — and I say this sincerely — from Oak Bay–Gordon Head, who will be there, certainly, as the minister. I'm going to be surrounded by municipal politicians who are saying: "What the heck are you guys doing there? Why wouldn't you do what we do at the municipal council table? If we've got a problem, an issue that we need to resolve, what do we do? We roll up our sleeves, and we get it fixed."

That's not possible in the debate at second reading on a bill of this nature. Where it is possible is in com-

mittee. The member for Prince George–Omineca is the chair of the Crown corporation's committee of which I am a member. He and I have worked on issues. We've heard evidence from various Crowns. We've drafted reports that are non-partisan, bipartisan. We have come to agreement on a course of action based on the information that we've taken in. We work very cooperatively in that forum. We've done so for a couple of years now.

When we get into this place, when the adversarial knives are unsheathed, that all falls apart.

This is an important bill to all of us. It's an important bill to all of our constituents. Why wouldn't we adopt the model, why wouldn't we adopt an approach, that would allow us to work together to come up with solutions to these challenges? That's what my constituents are asking me to do on a daily basis.

I believe that in this instance, as I did with Bill 16, it's an opportunity that we should not let go by. That's why we've had the referral motion before us today. That's why I'm speaking to it at this point in time.

In fact, when I look at question periods, it's the saddest part of the day for me. I have to tell you that. My spouse and I have been talking about this quite a bit lately. I love this job. It's a fantastic job. I don't think I've ever been happier doing anything in my worklife — until it comes to 1:30 and the Speaker says, "Oral questions by members," and then it all falls apart, because it's just pathetic what we do in here. We all know that in our core. We all know that in our being — that that's the biggest hour wasted in our lives. All the things we could do in that 60 minutes, and we come in here and bray at each other.

This bill, Bill 18, and the referral motion attached to it by my friend from Vancouver-Hastings is an opportunity for all of us to go home this weekend and say: "By goodness, we did something right for a change. By goodness, we came here this week, and we said: 'Let's solve a problem collectively, cooperatively, in the interests of our community, in the interests of our constituents and in the interests of our planet.'"

That's why we all came here. That's why we sought election — not to come in here at 1:30 and go, "Oral questions by members," with "Bray, bray, bray, blah, blah, blah" coming back at us. We came here to solve problems. "The problem of our generation," said the member for Point Grey. The problem of our generation — it's bedevilled us. We need to solve the problem.

They bring forward a bill that is vacuous. It's empty. We don't know what's in it.

Journalists in my community are saying: "Don't vote for it. You're insane if you do." I, for one, can't do that because people in my neighbourhood read the paper. They're well informed — very well informed, in fact.

I have a high standard to meet. I can't meet it in good conscience without referring this bill to committee so that we can all have a good hard look at it.

Do the right thing Members on that side of the House. Support my, again, good friend from Vancouver-Hastings and support the referral motion.

N. Simons: I'd like to acknowledge my acquaintance from Malahat–Juan de Fuca and the remarks he made today.

I'd like to add my voice in support of my colleague, the critic for the Ministry of Environment, in hoping that this issue of Bill 18 gets referred to a committee where…. You know, sober second thoughts have been referred to as what are necessary to make this actually good legislation.

Now, obviously, it's not an issue of whether or not we support cap-and-trade. That's not at issue. What we are discussing here — and I think what this opportunity gives us — is the opportunity to go a little bit further into the issue and figure out why exactly we're rushing ahead with a piece of legislation that asks more questions than it answers. Specifically, the questions are numerous, and they're of such a nature that not having the answers is doing our constituents a bit of a disservice.

It's my hope that by referring it to a select standing committee where witnesses can be called, good and real debate can occur. I believe that it's an appropriate step. It's one of the tools that we have in this parliamentary system, and that is something that we could take full advantage of, I think.

Unfortunately, we seem to be going away from consultation with the public, away from consultation with the stakeholders, and more and more towards a process where government has made up its mind and goes forward without the necessary consultation — and, of course, also the debate that goes with that consultation.

It is enabling legislation. It's legislation that will lead to impacts on our communities everywhere in British Columbia, of which we do not know the impact. I think there are serious questions that need to be asked. Perhaps we'll get those answers at some time, but there's no better place to get those answers than in a bipartisan committee, a committee made up of members from both sides of the House, where we could discuss issues in more detail. I think this is one of those issues that really requires a lot of discussion so that it's not only good legislation but is bought into by all sectors of our society.

Now, there are some concerns, obviously, about the secrecy around the legislative drafting and around the drafting for regulations. Secrecy might not be a good enough word, but there's certainly unilateral decision-making and the leaving out of numerous voices that I think are appropriate to be included.

When that happens, I don't suppose any of us are surprised. We have seen a government that has engaged in a number of activities that have reduced the public input into the political process, that have cut out the voice of the general public when determining policies that have a direct impact on them.

We can see it in numerous ways: by taking away authority from agencies that reflect the public interest, by taking away the opportunities to adapt legislation and policy to meet the needs of the population and by centralizing control and centralizing decision-making to such a degree that the public is left to wonder how in fact their voice can be heard in Victoria. I think that is a disservice to the public of British Columbia, who, I believe, are well informed enough to know that their voice should be heard.

Under the current regime, unfortunately, we have fewer and fewer opportunities to engage the public in those kinds of discussions, to bring them in, to be part of developing policies that are going to have a large and long-lasting impact on our communities.

I just want to make sure that the people at home realize that they have 46 and we have 33. Their legislation passes when they choose to pass it, and our opportunity for opposition is in pointing out the flaws in their legislation, to point out where things could be better, and making suggestions on how to go about improving legislation.

I believe it's in all of our interests to make sure that any legislation that we pass is strong enough and based on solid principles so that we can actually see how it'll benefit our communities. What we have, unfortunately, in this circumstance is a reduction of our voice in this process unless we, in fact, find alternative ways of being heard.

I believe the public of British Columbia would understand that, by referring to a committee, it's in fact making sure of the integrity of the legislation and the integrity of the regulations, and that various other impacts of the legislation are understood by British Columbians. I think we need to take into account the fact that we have neighbours who are also developing systems, and we need to make sure that we don't go about doing things in a manner that is not in the best interests of the public of British Columbia.

The specific motion is that this matter be forwarded to the Select Standing Committee on Legislative Initiatives. Now, that's a committee that I don't believe has met recently. I believe that all members are available to participate in such a process, and it's one of those tools available to the parliamentary system that we have yet to use in this particular circumstance.

I think there's no better opportunity than now to engage in that process to ensure that we don't enact legislation that is full of potential flaws, that we don't enact legislation that leads to increased, well, I'll use the word secrecy — reducing the voice of the public, reducing the input of the public — when, in fact, this is legislation that, more than any, really requires the voices of the many, many constituents that make up this province.

It's my hope that the details that will determine whether this legislation is effective or not — those fine details that we don't know anything about at this point — will be examined and determined in a process that allows for the voices of various sectors to take part.

Now, there are concerns about many parts of this bill that we are unable to have answers for at this particular time. We know that everyone in this House agrees with the principle of cap-and-trade. We need to have something that will provide us with methods of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. We know that the industries in our province account for more than 40 percent of those.

I think we all agree that the legislation is necessary, but the legislation should be sound. It should be developed with the input of the public of British Columbia. I hope that by referring this to committee, those can be accomplished in this process.

G. Gentner: I rise to support the amendment from the hon. member for Vancouver-Hastings, which is I think a very pragmatic and reasonable approach. It's a matter of being conciliatory and, above all, building some consensus — to refer to a committee in order that we can rise as a united front here in order to address the 21st century, the new beginning that we are entering.

Certainly, we have to embrace all levels of government, and one of my major concerns here is, of course, the lack of consultation with that of Metro Vancouver, which has one of the most impacted airsheds in the Lower Mainland. This is an airshed where the monitoring is primarily done by the local government, the regional government in itself. Frankly, I haven't seen any consultation here in this bill that allows local government to talk about what the impacts are not only to them but to how we're going to monitor that type of legislation.

This is an enabling legislation that gives sweeping power to the cabinet, but it also writes a blank cheque for the potential collusion with high polluters and with those who are best friends with the government. A difficult problem I have with it is that we cannot have in this any needs or any chances of loopholes. Clearly, this legislation has many loopholes.

I want to be quite specific and just give you an aspect of why we have to really think about where we're going with this. I want to refer the members to something the minister knows well, and that is the agricultural waste control regulation that deals with wood-fired boilers.

Now, the ministry has been working for a long, long time with this notion of cogeneration in the valley and how it's going to impact us. It came forward with a policy intentions paper for consultation. It did have consultation.

But what are the implications on these regulations relative to this legislation? The paper that came out in the summer, June 2007, from the Ministry of Environment states quite categorically: "The ministry's primary intention is to amend the regulation to establish consistent emission standards for wood-fired boilers used in agriculture. The ministry intends to undertake a more comprehensive review of the regulation in the next few years."

So here we go. For some reason we've got a break. We have a break for co-gen. The ministry is dragging its feet to find standards for cogeneration when it comes down to agricultural waste control for wood-fired boilers, yet it wants to expedite this bill without further consultation with local government and the implications for all users.

You know, we have in Delta quite a long list or a litany of what's been going on — the debate between the rights under the waste management control act of emitting particulate in the atmosphere.

The minister knows all about this. He went through a similar debate up at Sumas 2. He was involved in trying to rescue us, and back then he had good intentions. He was trying to fight for the airshed in the lower Fraser Basin. He had to make a discussion and open up discussions with his colleagues south of the line, Whatcom County, in order to push the agenda. It was an honourable attempt by the minister then.

What's happened in Delta, for example, is that there's a cumulative effect. When you look at the cumulative effect of wood-fired boilers and what co-gen means, the ministry hasn't properly or sincerely looked completely at what that implication could be. There have been many lawsuits that have gone back between Houweling Nursery. There was a decision made relative to Darvonda Nurseries in the valley. Fortunately, the GVRD then — now, of course, Metro Vancouver — ruled that we have to dampen down this type of pollutant that's happening in the Fraser airshed. However, the ministry's own B.C. Environmental Appeal Board refuted everything that the GVRD was doing and basically agrees that these co-gen operations can continue.

In June 2007 the B.C. Ministry of Environment produced the agricultural waste control regulation wood-fired boilers policy intentions paper but admitted that they needed a more comprehensive review. It's under that culture that I ask, I plead with the minister: why will he not come forward with a more comprehensive review for the whole package that's now being delivered? But unfortunately, that's not the intention of the government.

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

So again I ask: if the GVRD has been delegated this authority, what role has been afforded to the GVRD or Metro Vancouver to play in this important decision? What role? Well, the point is that the GVRD has been shut out. It's been shut out, and it's been overridden many times by the Environmental Appeal Board, which says, quite frankly, that it doesn't necessarily matter what we delegate or think the minister delegates to the GVRD or Metro Vancouver — that in fact the advisory board, which acts on behalf of the ministry, can override it.

Something else interesting, too, is that we know…. For example, we've seen it up the Fraser Valley district. The GVRD has stated over and over again that the biomass-fired boilers can reduce their particulate considerably. The evidence is there. It's supported by science. Yet once again, when it comes down to the policy — which, by the way, has been parked on the back shelf….

Why is it that this new legislation, that was promised to the people of British Columbia, has been put on the back shelf? It's now an intention paper. It's sitting there. Why isn't it coming forward before we are dealing with this cap-and-trade policy? It's remarkable why that is.

I also want to talk quite briefly about what this enabling legislation does for the future cap-and-trade system in the province.

The significant problem with the bill is that of secrecy. It has been pointed out over and over again to the minister that there are some loopholes and problems with this act, and I want to give you a good example of what that means.

Hon. Speaker, I have to tell you there are so many scandals that are erupting in these corridors, in these chambers, that it's hard to pick one. We do our FOIs. I've been hopeful to be able to raise this in question period, but I don't think, because we're doing our busywork, that we're going to have an opportunity to talk about it. But I do want to raise something here on FOI that demonstrates quite clearly why we have to abolish this need of secrecy when it comes down to dealing with the industries.

I note across the way that the minister is getting tired. It's getting late and all the rest of it, but hopefully, he'll take some notice here on an FOI that I received relative to an exchange of the group that was supposed to help along the agriculture waste control regulation for wood-fired boilers, a policy intention. This is an exchange from a group that was put together by the minister himself. On that group, of course, was the president of the greenhouse association, people from the B.C. Agriculture Council and, of course, members of his own staff. They're talking about how to put this whole business together.

Mary-Margaret Gaye from the B.C. Greenhouse Growers Association writes in an e-mail to the group that relative to this policy: "The public outreach strategy seems to be a reasonable first start. However, I am concerned about the accuracy of the messaging for the fact sheet brochure." Here's industry telling the minister how they should write their brochures, specifically the first message.

It says: "We have a shared air basin in which air quality is declining. To my understanding, the air quality in the lower Fraser Valley is not declining but, rather, has continually improved over the last few years, with the exception of a couple of contaminants where the levels have remained relatively stable."

This is the industry, through e-mail and this group, telling the minister that everything is all right and that you had better change your brochure so that the public can think it's okay. This is the collusion that's happening within the ministry. Industry is dictating to the minister how to write his brochure relative to pollution. The date on the e-mail: November 22, 2006, 11:56 a.m.

G. Gentner: The member opposite, the hon. member for Shuswap, talks about conspiracy. Well, I'll talk about conspiracies. You talk about conspiracy, about the poor child up the valley with asthma, Minister of Health.

Through the Chair, please, Member. Do not direct comments directly at anybody in the House.

It's interesting, this cumulative particulate. Our airsheds are choking children up the valley. We are seeing respiratory problems accumulating, yet we have documentation here from the industry telling the Minister of Environment how to garner and how to write the language instructing children and people up the valley that everything is okay.

Now, what do we hear in exchange in the same e-mail? This one, with part of the same group, is dated June 7, 2007, as they're trying to cook this policy for the province, from Mr. Bruce Bakker. I believe he's with Horticulture Langley. He serves on the B.C. Agricultural Council. He says:

Here we go again. The industry is telling the minister that we don't need stack tests. If we go and get something done from a manufacturer…. Who knows where the manufacturer gets the details to suggest that it has a certification. But that's okay.

There you go. Let's forget about it, hon. Speaker. Let's not do what air quality experts do in the GVRD. As long as we get a manufacturer's certification, we don't have to do the proper testing.

Guess what we get from the B.C. Greenhouse Association. That e-mail went out at 6:59 p.m. By 9:28 p.m., guess what the greenhouse industry says. "The draft looks good to me, with the changes noted by Bruce."

G. Gentner: That confirms it indeed. Here we go. Who is dictating what, hon. Speaker? Who's dictating the air quality standards? It's not the Ministry of Environment.

Then what do we get later? "Hi, everybody, from the Ministry of the Environment. Here now is the latest draft of the greenhouse IP."

G. Gentner: I realize many of the members opposite are getting a little giddy and cajoling in the view that there's some kind of conspiracy here, but why I raise it to the attention of the minister opposite and the government opposite is that we are dealing here with changes and making it secret.

Now, the information I've provided, however the opposite members want to interpret it…. This was FOI. The point is that under the new legislation coming forward, we won't have that ability to ferret this out. The people of British Columbia won't have that ability to find out where we're heading when it comes to air quality. The people of British Columbia and the children up the valley will have a difficult time in the future relative to air quality.

G. Gentner: Hon. Speaker, there's a request for Bruce. Perhaps the member for Surrey-Whalley may

Noting the time, I move adjournment of the debate and reserve the right to rise again.

Committee of Supply (Section A), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. C. Richmond: Yes, I would, Mr. Chairman — just a few. I'll just be a few minutes.

Before I begin my formal remarks about the Ministry of Employment and Income Assistance, I would like to introduce some members of the ministry's executive who have joined us today. Unfortunately, the deputy minister, Cairine MacDonald, is ill and cannot join us, but her role will be ably filled by the people you see with me.

First of all is Sharon Moysey, assistant deputy minister and executive financial officer, management services division. Behind her is Andrew Wharton, who is an assistant deputy minister, policy and research division and who, by the way, won a Premier's Award for Leadership earlier this year. Heather Davidson is assistant deputy minister of the regional services division. Over here behind me is David Curtis, executive director of the corporate planning and operations division.

I'd also like to take this opportunity to thank the roughly 2,000 ministry staff who work in communities throughout the province to support British Columbians most in need. They serve our clients through 89 ministry offices, 19 Service B.C. branches and three service centres throughout the province. Five regional offices in the province ensure that service delivery is tailored to meet the unique demographic and geographic characteristics of each area in the province. These individuals are making a real difference in the lives of citizens in the greatest need.

This ministry staff exemplify public service through their dedication to clients and their willingness to create and embrace innovative strategies and find positive solutions and outcomes for issues presented to them on a daily basis. My job as minister has been made easier and more enjoyable thanks to their tireless dedication.

This budget builds on substantial rate increases implemented as part of last year's budget, and this year's budget is about the future, providing us with the ability to support and positively impact cross-government initiatives such as the allocation of $104 million to support strategies to break the cycle of homelessness.

For 2008-09 the Ministry of Employment and Income Assistance has been allocated a budget of $1.527 billion — an increase of $32.6 million, or 2.2 percent, from $1.494 billion in 2007-08. The future is firmly in focus as the ministry builds a foundation to serve British Columbians into the next generation. We are making a real difference for our citizens, providing them with safe, supportive communities to live happier and healthier lives.

I just want to outline a few of the achievements that we have accomplished over the last year: increased income assistance rates by $188 million over four years — the first increase to shelter rates since 1992; $200,000 for 10,000 cold weather kits for clients who signed up for direct deposit, and the incentive package consists of a knapsack, warm socks, a toque and a pair of gloves; $1 million grant to the B.C. Non-Profit Housing Association for Welcome to Your Home starter kits.

We implemented a new immediate needs–assessment process, ensuring urgent needs of all income assistance applicants for food, shelter or medical attention are met; announced that the new registered disability savings plan will not be considered an asset when calculating clients' eligibility for disability assistance; a $4.2 million grant presented to the communication assistance for young adults program — a disability strategy.

More than $4.3 billion is invested each year on disability programs and services, ensuring that B.C. is the best place to live, play and work for all British Columbians. Two programs that are off the ground and working very well are Measuring Up and our 10 by 10 Challenge to increase employment for persons with disabilities by 10 percent by 2010.

Some $70 million annually on employment programs. Over 54,000 British Columbians have been placed in jobs since 2001. A $20 million employment program for persons with disabilities; investing $19 million in the Healthy Kids program.

There is much more I could say, but I know that a lot of good programs and supports for British Colum-

bians will be discussed over the next few hours. Thank you for your attention, and I welcome your questions.

J. Brar: Thanks to the minister for a brief snapshot of the service plan. Actually, I had prepared two kinds of remarks. One was the detailed one, and one was the brief one. Since the minister has made his comments very brief — I've seen comments which have gone forever — I would like to keep my comments brief as well.

First of all, my sincere thanks to each and every staff member working in the Ministry of Employment and Income Assistance for the extraordinary work they are doing to serve the most vulnerable people under very, very challenging circumstances. I would also like to thank all of those staff members who have been working hard to prepare the minister for budget estimates. Welcome, and thanks for coming to help us out.

Thanks to my team members, as well, for their efforts in our work to make this budget debate a meaningful exercise. My special thanks to Gwyneth Jones, who is the researcher on my side; and also to Gurbrinder Kang, who is the legislative assistant; and my CAs, Murray Bilida and Ruby Bhandal, who both work in my constituency of Surrey–Panorama Ridge.

My role as opposition member is to ask questions with regard to the public policy, vision, goals and objectives, and funding allocations, particularly as indicated in the service plan. I'm going to do that role here, but before I start, I would like to emphasize the fact that I don't have any intention to question the commitment and the hard work that the staff members are doing. But you know, I would like to do my job as a member of the opposition and to ask the questions which are very important to the people of British Columbia.

With that, I would like to start my questions with the employment programs. I think they are the questions you are expecting first. This ministry provides, of course, a lot of employment programs, whether they're called B.C. employment program for people ready to work, and also the employment program we have for people with disabilities.

On page 25 of the service plan, it indicates the B.C. employment program. So my first question will be: can the minister list the names of the three prime contractors delivering B.C. employment programs for the expected-to-work category of clients?

Hon. C. Richmond: To answer the member's question, the three prime contractors are GT Hiring Solutions (2005) Inc.; B.C. Society of Training for Health and Employment Opportunities — THEO-BC, as they're known; and WCG International Consultants Ltd.

J. Brar: We'll get used to it pretty soon. Can the minister provide some details as to what is the exact number of clients these programs are going to serve, and what is the total budget we have for this year?

Hon. C. Richmond: The number served from July 6 to March '08 is 20,000. It's approximately $15,000 per year, and the total of the budget is $31.9 million.

J. Brar: Can the minister also list all prime contractors for the employment program for people with disabilities?

Hon. C. Richmond: First of all, let me correct a statement I made in the last answer. The number of 20,000 was from July of '06 to December of '07, not March of '08. I just want to correct that.

The three prime contractors on the EPPD program are WCG International Solutions, THEO-BC and the Neil Squire Society. The budget is $21.5 million.

J. Brar: Can the minister tell us: what is the total dollar value of the programs the ministry has with WCG, which is the West Coast Group?

Hon. C. Richmond: These numbers are contract maximums — the maximum that they can spend under these contracts — and they include BCEP and EPPD. The total is $33.4 million.

J. Brar: Thanks to the minister for the brief answer. My understanding is that the WCG has two kind of contracts with the Ministry of Employment and Income Assistance. One is the B.C. employment program for work-ready people, and the other one is the employment program for people with disabilities. Is there any other contract that WCG has with the Ministry of Employment and Income Assistance?

Hon. C. Richmond: That's the total that they have, the two contracts. I can break them down for you. The BCEP program is $24.5 million, and the EPPD is $8.9 million, for $33.4 million.

J. Brar: I think I'm a bit confused with the numbers given by the minister before. The number I have here that was given earlier for BCEP, which is the B.C. employment program, was $31 million, and for the employment program for people with disabilities, it was $21 million.

Is that the correct figure, or is it a different figure, which I received now? That certainly contradicts the earlier figure I got.

Hon. C. Richmond: The numbers I gave you before that you asked for were the totals for the prime contractors. The last question you asked me was just for WCG. Okay?

Those are the values of the contracts, not necessarily the totals that are spent. They don't necessarily spend 100 percent of the contract. These are all contract maximums. It's the maximum amount that any of these companies can spend. The first numbers were contract

totals, as you asked, for the three prime contractors. The last figures are just for WCG.

J. Brar: To make the matter very simple, then, can the minister tell me: what is the total dollar figure for the B.C. employment program and for the employment program for persons with disabilities? What is the total maximum figure? Out of that figure, what goes to WCG?

Hon. C. Richmond: I hope this will be clear to you. The BCEP forecast budget, which we forecast will be spent, is $31.9 million. The total contract value, if the service provider spends the whole contract, is $35 million, but from experience we forecast that they will spend $31.9 million.

On WCG in BCEP, the maximum contract value is $24.5 million. On EPPD, it gets a little confusing because the budgeted amount is $21.5 million; the contract maximum is $20 million. The reason is that there are some funds outside the contract maximum that we hold back for special services for people with disabilities. The amount paid to WCG is $8.9 million.

The total budget as we have it in the service plan, page 28…. My understanding is that the employment program budget is over $97 million. If we combine these two programs, which are the key programs, the total budget comes close to $55 million. Can the minister explain what other programs fall into that $97 million?

There's a total here. BCEP is $31.9 million; CAP is $7.5 million; bridging is $3.8 million; confirmed job supplement is $1 million; direct purchase is $1 million; EPPD is $21.5 million; volunteer program is $5.3 million; other EPPD that I spoke about previously is $900,000; and program management is $25.4 million — for a total of $97.9 million.

J. Brar: A lot of my questions are about the percentages and the numbers we've got here.

We are debating the budget, so if the minister needs more calculators, that should probably be advised now.

Going back to the two key employment programs — B.C. employment program and the employment program for people with disabilities. If you combine these two programs, the total amount allocated for those two programs is about $55 million. Out of that, WCG gets $33 million. So my understanding, based on that figure, is that out of these two programs, which are BCEP and EPPD, WCG has almost 60 percent of the total share of these two programs. Is that correct?

J. Brar: When the request for proposal goes out, of course, the ministry asks tons of information from all the service providers who bid on the programs, which also includes that the provider needs to provide information — what program the provider is providing in addition to the program that the provider is going to make an application to the ministry under the existing request for proposal.

So my question to the minister is this. When it comes to WCG, is there any other program that WCG has in addition to the program funded by the Ministry of Employment and Income Assistance?

Hon. C. Richmond: We have no specific knowledge of any other clients that WCG may be doing work for. I think that was your question. Do we have knowledge? No, we don't. They're a private corporation, so if they are doing work other than for government, we have no knowledge of that.

J. Brar: That's a bit surprising for me. In my previous job I wrote tons of proposals for the government, which included the federal government and the provincial government. I think one of the roles the ministry has, when the ministry is going to sign an agreement with any provider, is to see what the experience is of that organization, which basically means what type, what kind of program that particular organization is delivering or has delivered. So it's a bit surprising for me that the ministry is not aware of other programs WCG has. The ministry has the biggest contract with that organization.

Would the minister like to comment on that? Part of the proposal which is submitted to the ministry must have the information about all the programs the provider is offering, whether it's part of MEIA or any other ministry or even a private venture. That information must be there in order to make a decision, an informed decision, to sign the contract, basically — that the organization has enough experience to provide those kinds of programs.

Hon. C. Richmond: First of all, let me say that when we designed the new B.C. employment program, we went out to the industry, to the ministry, to everyone involved and had many, many consultative meetings with people who work in this industry. Then we went out for a request for proposals, which is always done using the highest standards.

If a company like WCG were asked about other contracts that they have and they submitted it in their request for proposal, it certainly is not in our binders. It's confidential information, so if they were asked about that, I have no knowledge of it. Of course, I'm not involved in the RFP proposal in any case.

Service providers…. We always examine their capacity and experience. We have a lot of experience with many of them. We know the work that they do. As I said, if they were quizzed on any private contracts that they had, they may be part of the procurement process, but I would have no knowledge of that. Therefore, I can't comment on it.

J. Brar: Based on the comment the minister has made, I would like to put on the record that it's my understanding that the only contracts WCG have are with the Ministry of Employment and Income Assistance and that those contracts are the B.C. employment program and the employment program for people with disabilities. If that's not right, today or tomorrow or Monday I would like to be corrected. I would appreciate that.

With that, I would like to move on to my next question. WCG has sold all the employment programs contracts they have with the Ministry of Employment and Income Assistance to a U.S.-based company called Providence Service Corp. So my question to the minister is this. On what date was the minister first informed about the intended sale of the WCG group to a U.S.-based company? I would like to know the date that WCG informed about their intended sale of the employment program they have with the Ministry of Employment and Income Assistance.

Hon. C. Richmond: First of all, let me answer the specific question. In July 2007 the Ministry of Employment and Income Assistance received notice from WCG advising of a potential ownership change, and on August 1, 2007, the company was purchased by a United States–based company, Providence Service Corp.

Providence is a publicly traded NASDAQ human services organization with about 900 contracts serving over 75,000 clients in 36 U.S. states and Washington, D.C. Providence's mission is to ensure the provision of accessible, effective, high-quality community-based counselling and social services to children and families.

Let me just back up to the member's last comment about WCG. He said that, to the best of his knowledge, they have contracts only with government. I have no way of verifying that, denying it or agreeing with it. I have no knowledge of it. I'm sure that if they have outside contracts, they must change from time to time, so information could rapidly become out of date. But I'm not aware of any other contracts they have.

I really want to read a statement in, because I can see where the member is going with this. I just want to put any comments to bed right now on this sale of WCG to an American company.

First of all, this ministry's number one priority is to meet the needs of its clients. For clients who are able to work, this means providing them with the best employment programs and supports available. That's why the ministry engaged in a rigorous year-long consultation and procurement process to ensure the very best employment programs for clients and the best value for taxpayers. As a result of an open and transparent tendering process, West Coast Group International HR Solutions was selected in 2006 and 2007 to deliver employment services under the new B.C. employment program and the recently improved employment program for persons with disabilities.

We are confident that the change in ownership of WCG International HR Solutions will continue to have no impact on the daily job-related activities in which our clients are presently involved. This simply was a seamless transfer at the corporate level. Clients receive exactly the same high-quality employment training and job supports they need to succeed, and taxpayers will continue to be well served. Our top priorities remain the delivery of superior services to our clients and the protection of our clients' personal information.

Organization and ownership changes like this are anticipated in government–private sector relationships, which is why we make sure all government contracts include stringent, enforceable privacy and confidentiality obligations.

Ministry clients can be assured that any personal information they provide to WCG is secure and prohibited from being stored or accessed from outside of Canada. Government contracts with WCG are subject to the rules and regulations of B.C.'s Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act has been in place since 1993 and is the strongest privacy legislation in Canada, and among the strongest in the world.

J. Brar: The minister seems to know more about Providence Service Corp. than WCG, as to what kind of program that corporation offers.

My question was on what date the minister was first informed about the intended sale of the program, and I didn't get the answer. Now I would say this. Was July 5 the day that WCG first informed the minister's office about the intended sale of the employment program funded by the Ministry of Employment and Income Assistance?

Hon. C. Richmond: First of all, I want to assure the member that his remarks were that I knew more about Providence Service than I did about WCG. That's untrue. I didn't even mention the service they provide.

They have to, because they bought the company…. Let's make it clear. It was not a sale of programs; it was a sale of shares in a company. They have to live up to the contract that WCG has with the provincial government.

I didn't mention in my remarks of any change in programs or any services that Providence was going to provide, because they're going to provide exactly what is in the contracts. They bought a company. They didn't bring their own programs in, or anything. They have to honour the contract that WCG has with the provincial government.

As for the exact date, I couldn't tell the member. I know that I was informed some time — I believe it was in July — that there was a sale pending. That was it. I believe it was in July 2007, but I can't pin it down to an exact date.

J. Brar: Again, I'm a bit surprised that the minister does not have the date when he was first informed about the intended sale of the largest employment program provider in the Ministry of Employment and Income Assistance.

I am going to read the letter the minister received from WCG, including the date. The minister can make a copy of it as well. This is a letter from WCG. It says:

Can the minister now confirm that the minister's office received this letter on July 5, 2007?

Hon. C. Richmond: The letter obviously came in at the staff level. It was addressed to Heather Dickson. I cannot tell you the exact date that I found out there was a sale pending, but I can tell you that WCG and, specifically, the proposed purchaser of their company through the staff requested a meeting with me so that they could explain what they were doing.

I refused the meeting. I said: "I do not want to get involved. It's a private deal between two companies, and I'm not going to get involved in it." I said that if the deal goes through, then they can explain to me what has happened.

But to pin an exact date when I saw that letter…. I couldn't tell you. It was around that date, I imagine.

J. Brar: My understanding is that the estimate debate involves the Ministry of Employment and Income Assistance, not the minister himself. Therefore, the documentation or the letter which came to the ADM is part of this debate that we're having here. Otherwise, if we keep it limited to just the correspondence the minister has to his office, I don't think we can have full, complete and meaningful debate.

So with that, I would ask the minister to confirm back. As I said before, this is a letter which I got…. If that's not true, I would appreciate the minister getting back to me by Monday.

Having said that, my next question will be on what date the Ministry of Employment and Income Assistance gave the approval to the sale of WCG to the Providence Service Corp.

Hon. C. Richmond: First of all, I don't like very much the tactic you're taking. In other words, we are debating the estimates and spending of the Ministry of Employment and Income Assistance. I don't know why you think we're not on track.

You asked me a specific question: exactly what date did I find out about the sale? I told you I'm not sure. The letter was received by a staff member, an ADM, on July 5, and some time around that time I found out about a pending sale.

First of all, the sale was not subject to our approval. It's not. The Ministry of Attorney General reviewed the terms of the sale and determined that there would be no immediate impact on the Ministry of Employment and Income Assistance's contractual relationship with WCG. The company has continued to operate as the same legal entity with no changes in the management team.

To put this plainly to the member — he says he expects me to come back on Monday with some kind of an answer regarding this — I've told you all I know about it, and I have no intention of coming back on Monday with any further answers.

J. Brar: The Ministry of Employment and Income Assistance has a contract with WCG which is worth $33 million, serving the most vulnerable people of the province. That company sells itself to somebody else, a U.S.-based company. It includes 100 percent of the employment program and 60 percent of the total employment program in the province, and the minister says that they don't need the ministry's approval? Is there any approval they need from this government?

Hon. C. Richmond: What we have is the ability to make sure that they live up to the terms of the contract of WCG. We have the right to cancel that contract if they don't. But as far as the transfer of shares in the companies, we have no say over that.

J. Brar: Okay. I will read the second piece of the letter your office got, and I would like, certainly, to ask your response on that. Under the second piece, which is attachment 4, CLIFF 86420, the WCG is requesting this of the Ministry of Employment and Income Assistance: "Given the urgency of our time line, we would be grateful if you could provide written assurance to us on behalf of Providence in respect of our agreement by July 27, 2007."

What was that assurance they were asking for from the Ministry of Employment and Income Assistance?

Hon. C. Richmond: I can only assume that WCG were interested in finding out whether they could sell their company and keep the contracts intact or whether

we would cancel the contract. I don't know our specific response because I was not involved in it in any way, but I can read you something of the ownership change.

"The terms of the contract allow the ministry to terminate the agreement should WCG not meet their confidentiality and privacy obligations. The ministry has received written assurances from WCG that they will adhere to the contractual obligations related to information and privacy. The company's client database will remain in Canada, with no access available to Providence or foreign governments."

Then, as I read to you before, we did our due diligence by informing the Ministry of Attorney General, who reviewed the terms of the sale and determined that there would be no immediate impact on the Ministry of Employment and Income Assistance.

As with other publicly traded companies, Providence is subject to statutory requirements to disclose a broad range of information. I should add that the other power we have here is that if they do not live up to the terms of the contract and provide the services that WCG has contracted for, then we could terminate the contract.

J. Brar: I have a lot of questions about the privacy, by the way. We will go there. We are talking about the dates, and I want to understand the dates now, as to how it went, if you can make it simple.

The thing is that the minister is responsible, the Ministry of Employment and Income Assistance is responsible, to make sure that the persons and organizations that are going to deliver the employment program for the Ministry of Employment and Income Assistance to the most vulnerable people of the province are capable, have a proven history and can deliver the program to the standards the ministry wants them to deliver.

Having said that, when the programs are changing hands, I think that it is the responsibility of the Ministry of Employment and Income Assistance to make sure that the new owner, that company — which is the Providence Service Corp., an American company coming in — is capable to deliver the program. So there must be some sort of approval by the ministry to say to West Coast Group that this group is acceptable to us, as far as the experience, knowledge and capability of Providence Service Corp. is concerned.

Hon. C. Richmond: Just let me reiterate. We take our due diligence very seriously when it comes to what the member said: that we are responsible for the most vulnerable people. We don't need a lecture on how to run our ministry and who we're looking after. That's why we did the due diligence and we took it to the Ministry of Attorney General.

Let me emphasize the last part of that statement. The company has continued to operate as the same legal entity with no changes in the management team. They are living up to the contracts that they signed.

I know that the member mentioned the financial viability of the company. Any company that changes hands, should they fail financially, we would immediately terminate the contract and re-tender it. We monitor them very closely. Like I said, the same management team is in place. We ask them to disclose a broad range of information, as with any other publicly traded company. I think that we have done the due diligence that is required in this sale.

J. Brar: I would like to put on the record, as well, that the dates I'm asking are very, very important to understand this sale of WCG. They're very, very important. They're also connected very closely as to how much due diligence was done by the ministry. I would like to, of course, clarify those things, and you know, those things may be right.

A letter was, actually, written by the minister's office on August 1, 2007. I don't have the details as to what the letter was. But my question to the minister is…. The first letter that I mentioned, the first letter the Ministry of Employment and Income Assistance got from WCG stated that they want to sell the company by July 5.

On what day did the minister's office write to the Attorney General that they are satisfied with the quality of services, the experience and the capability of Providence Service Corp., an American company which is buying employment programs that are 60 percent of the total programs for the most vulnerable people of the province? There must be some sort of communication between the minister's office and the AG's office.

Hon. C. Richmond: I have been informed that I was briefed about the pending sale on the 17th of July, 2007. We don't have the information at hand as to when the letter went to the Attorney General's office, but the member alluded that it would have come from the minister's office. It would not have come from my office. A letter to the Attorney General would have come from the ministry — from staff, not from my office. I just want to make that clear.

J. Brar: The first letter came on July 5. The final sale deal was made on August 3. So my understanding, based on that, is that the ministry's letter to the Attorney General's office, after doing the due diligence, stating that the ministry is satisfied with the experience, knowledge and capability of Providence Service Corp. offering employment programs, went between July 5 and August 3. Is that correct?

Hon. C. Richmond: If indeed a letter went from our ministry to the Attorney General, we don't have that date at hand. They're looking for it. I assume that it must have gone some time in the month of July, if the deal was completed in August, so obviously it did.

I know that senior staff from Providence came up here and talked to WCG, of course, and met with our

senior staff. But that's about the time, I believe, that they wanted — I think, out of a matter of courtesy — to just come and have a meeting with me and explain what was happening, and I refused the meeting for obvious reasons. It was a private deal between two publicly traded companies, and that part of the business deal was really none of my business.

J. Brar: Based on that, the letter did go from the ministry between July 5 and August 3, but I would like to know the date. The minister can provide that later on.

Can the minister tell me if the ministry office was aware when in fact, on what date, WCG was put on sale?

Hon. C. Richmond: No, we have no knowledge of that as a private company, and we don't even know if WCG, as the member intimated, was put up for sale. We don't know who made the first move on this or whether they had several inquiries. We have no knowledge of that. It's two private companies making a business deal.

J. Brar: Can the minister then tell me the start date of the employment program for people with disabilities?

Hon. C. Richmond: The EPPD started on July 1, 2007 with all service providers.

J. Brar: The program started July 1 and the first information to the minister's office came on July 5, which is just four days after starting the program. Is that an acceptable standard for the minister?

Hon. C. Richmond: I can tell the member that the RFP was posted for the EPPD program on February 20, 2007, and I fail to see what relevance there is to the program starting on July 1.

J. Brar: I will make it clear. The Ministry of Employment and Income Assistance did one good thing. When the RFP went out, they made it very clear that they want to have a long-term relationship with this service provider, and that's why the ministry designed the RFP for five years. It was a five-year contract.

The ministry went to the bidding process. It was very complex, very long and meaningful, in my opinion, and after going through that, probably hundreds of different organizations — community organizations — made applications. WCG won the contract which is 60 percent of the total employment programs we have and which is $33 million for one year. I think it's a five-year commitment by the ministry.

Having said that, the intent here is to have a long-term relationship. The five-year program starts on July 1, and on July 5 — which is just four days after starting that five-year-long program under the commitment to have a long-term relationship with the clients — the provider comes back with the biggest contract in the province and tells the ministry: "We are going to sell the programs." It does not fit very well with the terms and conditions that the Ministry of Employment and Income Assistance laid down in its own request for proposals.

That's why it does have relevance as to how it fits well with the long-term commitment that the ministry was looking for from WCG for five years. They were given a five-year contract based on WCG continuing to work with the clients, the most vulnerable clients, for five years. They got the biggest contract, which is $33 million for one year. For five years, it could go up to over $100 million.

That's why it's important, and I would like to ask the minister's comment on that.

Hon. C. Richmond: I want to make it clear, as the member keeps saying that WCG sold the programs. They did not. They sold their company, shares in their company, and there's quite a difference. They still have a long-term commitment to fulfil, which we insisted upon, and they will fulfil it. The same people are running the company as before.

Like I said, the ministry started the RFP in February of 2007 with an aim to bring it to fruition and start it on July 1. We had no knowledge in February when we issued the RFP that there was any kind of a sale in the works for WCG, but the long-term commitment remains the same because the legal entity is unchanged. The new owners of that company, and the shares of that company, are committed to keeping the programs in place long term.

I should point out, too, to the member that in BCEP there are 80 subcontractors. I know the member dwells on the percentage that WCG has, but they have made a commitment to hire 80 subcontractors around the province. In the EPPD program they have made a commitment to hire 70 community partners.

So it's not as if all of the work is being done by WCG. There are 80 subcontractors in the one program and 70 in the other.

J. Brar: The fact is that WCG has 60 percent of the total value of the B.C. employment programs and the employment program for people with disabilities. That's a fact. That cannot change. Your books speak for it, and I'm not making it up. That is, as I said, $33 million per year.

When I say that WCG sold the employment program, it's because I think in that company…. My interest here as a member of the opposition is to talk about the employment program. I believe — I could be corrected — that the only line of business they have is the employment program. That's why I say that WCG sold the employment programs. So just to clarify that piece.

Now, the minister just a few minutes ago said that they're not required to have any approval from the minister to sell the program. Can the minister confirm that?

Hon. C. Richmond: Just to make it perfectly clear, the minister — myself — had absolutely no way of preventing that sale. We did our due diligence on it. It

was a publicly traded company from the U.S. buying a private company from British Columbia. Just to make sure that we were doing the right thing, we asked for an opinion from the Attorney General's ministry. He said no, that we were doing the right thing. There was a share trade between two companies — one privately owned, one publicly owned.

I just have to disagree with the member. WCG did not sell programs. They sold their company. The buyer of that company, the purchaser, has to live up to the terms of the contracts that they have with the provincial government — for security and privacy, for the terms of the contract and for the services to be provided. If they don't, then we can cancel that contract.

J. Brar: Let's talk about the program. WCG has two big contracts, which are the B.C. employment program and the employment program for persons with disabilities. If somebody at WCG has a contract and then hands those programs to somebody else under this sale — it's common sense — do they need approval from the ministry or not?

Hon. C. Richmond: The share purchase does not involve any assignment of the corporation's rights or obligations. The same legal entity is managing those contracts as before. That is probably why the ruling from the Attorney General's ministry was that everything was done properly and that the sale of the company could take place.

J. Brar: I want to be clear. We're talking about two things here. We're talking about the legality of the sale — I understand that piece — that stays with the office of the Attorney General. I'm also talking about the due diligence that the Ministry of Employment and Income Assistance requires to make sure that the company which is buying WCG….

Part of that is delivering employment programs for the most vulnerable people of the province. That company is capable. They have experience. They have knowledge. They have a proven record to do that, because there's a bidding process. Why do we go through a bidding process if we don't even select who should be delivering the programs?

In that respect, my question was…. They need — on the quality of services, experience and capability — approval from the Ministry of Employment and Income Assistance. Do they not? I would like to hear from the minister a yes or no on that piece, not on the legal side.

Hon. C. Richmond: To be clear, the programs and contracts did not change hands. We were dealing with the same legal entity, the same people and the same management.

We were assured in our minds — not mine but the senior staff of the ministry — that the obligations that WCG had would not change and that they would live up to these long-term contracts. Now it's up to us to make sure that they do.

J. Brar: I don't know how many times I need to ask the same question. I will take from that, though, that the minister did not bother reviewing the experience, knowledge and capability of the Providence Service Corp. and that the minister did not give any consent that this company — before handing it over to the AG for legal advice — had the capability, experience and knowledge to deliver the employment program — if that's what I hear from the ministry.

I understand that WCG is going to continue working for two years. I understand that. But the real owner of the company which now legally has the employment program is Providence Service Corp. The only piece that WCG has is to manage the program for two years. I understand that piece.

Let's ask a little bit different question. If WCG wants to bring a new subcontractor, can it do that?

Hon. C. Richmond: Prime contractors rely on a network of community service providers — subcontractors — for the delivery of local BCEP services. Subcontractors were preapproved through the BCEP procurement process request for qualifications. Prime contractors select preapproved subcontractors to deliver client services tailored to the unique needs of clients with particular focus on expertise in the delivery of individualized service.

I don't have the details of the process, but there is a process. If the prime contractor wishes to add or change a subcontractor, there is a process that they must go through, but we don't have the details of what that process is here today.

J. Brar: I will give you that process so that you may know about that. It's a bit surprising, though — with the questions we're asking — that, for a lot of the key questions, the ministry does not have answers.

A request for proposals was issued by the ministry — the minister mentioned it a few times — on February 14. According to the terms and conditions of that RFP, a contractor can add subcontractors at the time of submitting a proposal approved by the Ministry of Employment and Income Assistance — which is the way it should be. A contractor cannot add a new subcontractor without the written consent of the ministry. Is that accurate?

Hon. C. Richmond: We can provide you the exact wording in the contract. We just don't happen to have that with us at the moment.

J. Brar: I will read the exact wording actually from the RFP, which is here.

It is subsection 17(e): "Where applicable, the names of approved service providers listed in the proposal will be included in the contract. No additional service

providers will be added nor other changes made to the list in the contract without the prior written consent of the province." That's the language of the RFP, and those are the norms set by the Ministry of Employment and Income Assistance.

So my question is this. If WCG, under these terms, cannot add a new subcontractor without the written consent of the ministry…. It may be only a subcontract worth $10,000. If they cannot do that, according to the ministry's own terms and conditions, how can they sell the whole program, which is $30 million for a year, goes to five years, to a U.S.-based private company without the written consent from the minister?

Hon. C. Richmond: First of all, the reason the protection is put in there for subcontractors is to make sure that local people, local contractors, subcontractors can work in these programs without fear of the prime contractor just at will cancelling their contracts or adding their contracts. We wanted to build that in there so that local people and local providers could work under this contract, and that's why they were preapproved.

I want to add something. It might clear up something in the member's mind. There are several areas for consideration to ensure that the Ministry of Employment and Income Assistance has conducted due diligence and is cognizant of potential impacts on service delivery for income assistance clients as advised by the legal services branch, Ministry of Attorney General. The intended sale of WCG to Providence will have no immediate impact on the Ministry of Employment and Income Assistance's contractual relationship with WCG. While the share purchase arrangement will result in a change in ownership, WCG will continue to exist as the same legal entity and operate using the same name.

Additionally, there is no anticipated change in the current management team for WCG. As the share purchase does not involve any assignment of the corporation's rights or obligations, article 10 of the BCEP and EPPD contracts, "Assignment and subcontracting," are not invoked. With no change in management or contractual obligations, services to ministry clients should not be impacted. That was the advice we got from the legal services branch of the Ministry of Attorney General.

J. Brar: Again, we're not talking about the legal aspect of this sale. I'm not asking questions about that at this point in time. I'm asking questions about the due diligence done by the ministry when the ministry goes through the request-for-proposal process. At that time, that does not involve the Ministry of Attorney General. That is a process conducted by the ministry to make sure that the selected service providers have the experience, the knowledge and the proven record to provide the programs.

My question has been around the quality and the delivery of the program, particularly in the area of responsibility of the Ministry of Employment and Income Assistance. I will repeat the question. The minister, of course, didn't answer my question.

The question is…. According to the request-for-proposal terms and conditions issued by the Ministry of Employment and Income Assistance — not by the Attorney General — a contractor cannot bring in a subcontractor, even if that subcontractor takes a very tiny piece of the total employment program. They cannot, without the written approval of the Ministry of Employment and Income Assistance. Then how does it make sense that the contractor can sell all the programs of the company, which include all the programs, without the written approval of the minister?

It doesn't make any sense to me. I would like to know if the minister can rationalize that for me. How does it make sense? A subcontractor who will take only a tiny piece is not allowed. A buyer who never went through the bidding process took all the programs, and they don't need any consent from the ministry. That doesn't make any sense to me.

Hon. C. Richmond: I will answer the question one more time. Listen to the words.

There are several areas for consideration to ensure that the Ministry of Employment and Income Assistance has conducted due diligence and is cognizant of potential impacts on service delivery for income assistance clients. It talks about service delivery to income assistance clients.

As advised by the legal services branch of the Ministry of Attorney General, the intended sale of WCG to Providence will have no immediate impact on the ministry's contractual relationship with WCG — no immediate impact. While the share purchase arrangement will result in a change in ownership, WCG will continue to exist as the same legal entity and operate using the same name. I don't think I could be any more clear.

J. Brar: Again, we're debating here the RFP process, which is not under the Attorney General ministry, and you don't need any permission for that. We are debating here the responsibility of the Ministry of Employment and Income Assistance. But the minister made some comments now that certainly the minister is not prepared to speak to, whether WCG was required to take any written consent from the ministry or not. The minister certainly is not sure. The minister doesn't know about that. The minister is not prepared to comment on that. I would like to put that on the record.

The only comment the minister is making is that the ministry took legal advice from the Ministry of Attorney General. I understand that piece, and I respect that piece too. My question has been whether they need any written consent as indicated in your own RFP process, your own terms and conditions of RFP, and the minister has failed to answer that question.

I would like to ask the question to the minister. The minister has mentioned a few times that the Ministry of Employment and Income Assistance was advised by the Ministry of Attorney General that there will not be any immediate impact on the delivery of the programs

to the people of British Columbia. Can the minister define what he means by immediate effects?

Hon. C. Richmond: The legal counsel at the Ministry of the Attorney General is involved in procurement and particularly in developing the contract. We are confident in their expertise and advice in protecting the province.

Further, due diligence is adhering to our legal and contractual obligations. I would caution the member opposite not to separate the two, and I guess to repeat, the programs are being delivered by the same legal entity as before, WCG — the same management, the same staff — and they must live up to those contracts.

J. Brar: Let's move on to a new question now. I know what the answer is to this question. We've tried a few times, and we're not going anywhere on that question.

Can the minister confirm that the total value of the employment program for the people with disabilities — which started on July 1, just four days before WCG informed the Ministry of Employment and Income Assistance about the intended sale — is close to $40 million?

Hon. C. Richmond: The total value of the EPPD programs that were tendered was $18 million a year for five years. WCG's is $8.9 million.

J. Brar: Just to put on the record, then, can the minister confirm then that the Ministry of Employment and Income Assistance signed a five-year employment program for people with disabilities with WCG worth a figure of $44 million for five years, just less than 30 days before the minister's office was informed that the program has been sold?

J. Brar: So from the debate we have had this afternoon, a few things are clear to me. The minister was, of course, not aware at the time of this bidding process, at the time when the program started on July 1, whether WCG was on sale or not.

Of course, WCG was aware that they were in the process of negotiation to sell WCG when, at the same time, they were going through a bidding process and bidding for a contract which is close to $44 million for five years.

Based on that, I would like to ask the minister: had the minister known that WCG was going to sell itself, which would include a program that is a five-year commitment and worth $44 million, would the minister still have gone ahead and signed an agreement with WCG?

Hon. C. Richmond: It's a hypothetical question, and I don't intend to get dragged into that kind of an argument.

J. Brar: The question is this, then. WCG came to the Ministry of Employment and Income Assistance just four days after starting a five-year contract worth $44 million and informed the ministry that they were going to sell the company, which includes that five-year contract — just four days after the start of the new program.

I would like to ask the minister again: does the minister believe that the bidding process, which went for three months, makes any sense if somebody from outside, from the U.S., can come in and buy the programs which were actually handed over to WCG after going through a three-month-long, very complex, very meaningful bidding process?

Hon. C. Richmond: I guess the best way I can answer that is that…. No, we went through a very extensive process, as the member has said, and did everything absolutely properly on the RFP. We consulted first, and requests for information, requests for proposals went out. We brought those RFPs to fruition some time before July 1. The programs were to start July 1. I can't tell you exactly, but the contracts were signed obviously before July 1, 2007.

We have done all our due diligence on the sale, and the member seems to be trying to find something wrong here in this process. We are satisfied that we did everything correctly. The program started on July 1.

J. Brar: You know, I appreciate that…. We're having a budget debate here. It is my right to ask those questions, to make sure the process was right and the process was good for the people of British Columbia, to make sure the taxpayers are getting the best value for their dollars and to make sure that the employment programs are for the most vulnerable people, not for big corporations to make big profits out of it.

So with that, I would like to ask the minister: can the minister confirm that the Ministry of Employment and Income Assistance had the option to terminate the contract with WCG when the ministry was informed about the sale, particularly knowing that WCG was selling this program just four days after the start of a new five-year, long-term contract?

Hon. C. Richmond: To reiterate, as I said before, this advice came from the legal services branch of the Ministry of Attorney General. As the share purchase does not involve any assignment of the corporation's rights or obligations, article 10 of the BCEP and EPPD contracts assignment and subcontracting are not invoked.

J. Brar: I will repeat my question. I will read next time as to what the minister could have done. I will repeat my question. Can the minister confirm that the

Ministry of Employment and Income Assistance did have the option to terminate the contract, particularly knowing that WCG, a corporation signing a contract with the ministry, started programs on July 1, and on July 5 the corporation came back and said, "We're going to sell the program," which was for five years and which was worth $44 million.

Hon. C. Richmond: Mr. Chairman, just to make sure that the record is clear on this, the member said that time "particularly knowing that" — that there was a pending sale of WCG. That is not correct. We did not know.

J. Brar: That was not my question. My question was that when WCG approached the Ministry of Employment and Income Assistance just four days after starting a new contract on July 1, approaching the ministry on July 5, WCG was selling its shares, which included employment programs, which was a five-year contract worth over $44 million. The contract they signed just started on July 1.

So my question is: when somebody walks into the ministry office after signing a contract for five years which is worth $44 million and after four days tells the ministry, "We are going to sell the company" — which includes the contract, at that time — does the minister have the option to say no and terminate the contract? That's my question.

Hon. C. Richmond: Mr. Chairman, I understand what the question is, and I understood it the first time. It's just that the member used the phrase "knowing that" in there, and I wanted to clear that up.

The answer is no. Under this particular sale, we had no option to cancel the contract.

As per the requests for proposal, does the Ministry of Employment and Income Assistance have the option to terminate any contract with 90 days' notice?

Hon. C. Richmond: We don't have the contract here in front of us right now. But we have the right as the person issuing the contract — I guess that's the best way to put it — to terminate any contract for cause. I'm not sure about a 90-day provision that the member mentioned, because I don't have the contract in front of me, but that would apply to any contract that we let to a service provider. If they're not living up to the terms of the contract, then for cause, we could terminate that contract.

J. Brar: So the minister does have the power to terminate the contract for cause. That's fine.

WCG was starting a contract on Monday for five years, worth $44 million. On Friday WCG comes and says: "Oh, we're going to sell the contract we signed on Monday and make some money out of it." Probably a lot of money. They made $30 million out of it. Is that not the right cause to terminate the contract?

Hon. C. Richmond: We've been through this several times. The legal entity of the people fulfilling the contract didn't change. The advice to us was from the Attorney General's ministry, the justice branch of the Attorney General's ministry, and the fact is that they are living up to the contract. There is no cause to terminate the contract.

The legal entity is the same. They are living up to all the terms of the contract. The people and the management are the same. So on doing our due diligence and taking advice from the Attorney General's ministry, the contract was…. Rather, the sale was done properly, and since the legal entity didn't change, we had no right to terminate that contract for cause.

J. Brar: Can the minister define, then: what is the right cause to terminate the contract?

Hon. C. Richmond: If they sold the contract, then yes, we would have rights as set out in the contract. However, this was not the situation, and that was the advice that we received from the justice department of the Attorney General's ministry.

Our employment program and all of our programs are managed through a robust governance framework that enables the ministry, contractors and service providers to work together and deliver a program that is responsive to the clients' needs.

The ministry works with our service providers to ensure that they continue to meet contractual obligations. Ministry staff routinely carry out quality assurance and contract-monitoring activities.

The evidence obtained through site visits, to date, shows that contract providers serve clients in employment programs in accordance with the contract. If they do not serve clients in accordance with the contract, then there is a procedure we have that we would go through to either bring that service provider into compliance with the contract or terminate the contract.

J. Brar: I'm very, very confused about the comment the minister is making — very, very confused. Simple question: has WCG sold its shares — which of course includes B.C. employment programs, employment program for people with disability — to a U.S.-based company called Providence Service Corp. or not?

Hon. C. Richmond: Naturally, we were concerned about the delivery of the programs, as we have said. This is why we sought the advice of the Attorney General's department, which came back…. I'm not going to read it into the record again. I've read it twice now.

That's why we did our due diligence and went to the Attorney General's department, and they assured us that there would be no problem with the sale, that

the legal entity didn't change, that the same people and the same management were delivering the program. So we were satisfied that that would happen, and it has to this date.

WCG is delivering the programs with the same people and the same management as they did before, and to date we are satisfied with that. If that should ever change, because of the inspections that we do and the follow-up that we do, then that would be a different matter. But so far it hasn't.

J. Brar: To make it simple, has the program been sold to the Providence Service Corp. or not? That's my question.

I understand the legal entity. I understand that WCG is going to continue the management for two years, but programs have been sold. Is that not correct?

Hon. C. Richmond: Our advice from the Attorney General's ministry is that, no, they have not been sold.

J. Brar: I would like to submit a document to the minister. Surprisingly, I've been asking these questions since we started. I would like to put this on the record. The minister doesn't know when the ministry was first informed about the intended sale of WCG, which has the largest proportion of employment programs, which could go beyond close to $100 million in five years. The minister doesn't know what day the information came to his ministry.

The minister is not sure whether the WCG needed any written consent from the ministry or not. I believe it does, but the minister is not clear about it. The minister is not sure whether WCG needed any approval, which basically could be defined as written consent as well.

The minister is not sure that, on one side, a contractor cannot bring in a subcontractor, according to the terms and reference of the request for proposal, but the minister is not sure whether the contractor can sell the program without any consent. The minister is not sure whether the programs have been sold or not.

This is a document submitted by the Providence Service Corp. to the United States Securities and Exchange Commission. This is dated August 1, 2007.

This says that on August 1, 2007, Providence Service Corp. of Canada International Exchange Corp., a wholly owned subsidiary…. Providence Service Corp. acquired all of the equity, in trust, in WCG International Ltd.

Can the minister comment on this? Is this something different than the minister is saying? I can provide a full copy. This is a very lengthy document that explains the whole thing very completely.

Hon. C. Richmond: Well, after that statement, I have to get up and refute almost everything that the member said. First of all, he says I was not clear about when the ministry first found out about the sale. I believe the letter came to an ADM in the ministry on July 5. My staff tell me, and I've told the member, that I was briefed on the 17th of July. My memory isn't that good, but they have notes on such things. So I'm clear on that.

It says the minister is not clear whether we were obliged to agree to the sale, and I've read that into the record three or four times. So I'm clear on that.

He says I'm not clear about whether the company bought the programs or not, and I gave him the ruling from the Attorney General's ministry. So I'm very clear on that.

I don't know how much more clear I can get. I assume it's because the member is not getting the answers that he wants, but I'm giving the answers as clearly and as factually as I can, and some of them I've given three or four times.

J. Brar: The ministry has a bidding process which invites applications before the ministry signs any contract with any service provider going through this whole complex, meaningful process. But, in this situation, a corporation from the U.S. came…. Actually, they kept waiting on the sidelines, and as soon as WCG signed a new five-year contract, worth $44 million…. After five days they made the deal.

Does that mean, Minister, that any big corporation can keep waiting on the sidelines and watch the bidding process? Many community organizations — small, big, trying their best to submit proposals…. After three months the ministry finally selects somebody, and then any corporation can come in and the next day say: "We will take over the WCG, which also has a contract which started just four days ago." So any corporation can do it, any time?

Hon. C. Richmond: Organization and ownership changes like this are anticipated in government, private sector and non-profit relationships, which is why we make sure all government contracts include stringent, enforceable privacy and confidentiality obligations and, I should add, performance obligations.

J. Brar: So the answer to my question from the minister is yes. The corporation can keep waiting on the sidelines, let the bidding process go through for three months, let a small company submit their proposal for their community, and as soon as the WCG signs a five-year, long-term contract worth $44 million, after four days, Providence Service Corp. says: "We want to make a deal with you which includes that big contract."

They can do that. The corporations can do that. But a subcontractor cannot have a piece of a contract without the written approval, consent from the ministry. That's a very, very surprising rule for me. With that, I would like to move on to the next question.

Now, I will just throw it out for the minister, just to provide some help here. The request-for-proposals process, from the date of issue, which was February 20, 2007, to the start date of the program, which was July 1, 2007 was almost 100 days. So 100 days it took. But when it comes to corporations taking over the program

Can the minister explain the due diligence — which the minister has been saying until now was equal to the bidding process; it took 100 days, and this took only 20 days — when the minister sent a note to the AG's office that the minister is satisfied with everything.

Hon. C. Richmond: When we are going out for requests for proposals — and the member has said this — we do very stringent due diligence. That's why it takes 100 days to put these contracts together, because they are worth a lot of money. They're a five-year contract.

But I can't comment on why it takes only 30 days or whatever it was for a private sector deal to go through. It requires a willing buyer and a willing seller, and I guess…. I have no idea when they started their negotiations. The first we heard of it, I believe, was that letter to the ADM in our ministry on July 5.

When the member says there's a corporation waiting in the wings, I have no knowledge of that. I have no knowledge of when they started to talk to WCG, nor should I have. It was a case of one company buying the shares of another company, and they made a deal. We did our due diligence, as I have said several times now, by making sure that we did the right thing and going for advice. To reiterate, the legal entity didn't change. The shares changed hands, but WCG. is still delivering the programs, and they are obliged to live up to the terms of those contracts for five years.

J. Brar: The minister mentioned many times about the legal advice. Can the minister specifically describe what the legal advice was?

Hon. C. Richmond: With the greatest of respect to the member, I have read it into the record at least three times, and I don't see a need to read it again.

The Chair: Member, do you have a different question? I think the minister has answered this question. Do you have a different question than this?

J. Brar: Well, the minister hasn't answered my question, which I have been asking for almost two hours. I will ask, then, this question. When the minister sought legal advice on this, was there only one option given to the minister,or was there more than one option extended to the minister to deal with this sale?

Hon. C. Richmond: To answer the member's question as explicitly as I possibly can, to the best of my knowledge, we received one written piece of advice from the legal services branch of the Ministry of the Attorney General, which said: "There are several areas for consideration to ensure that the Ministry of Employment and Income Assistance has conducted due diligence and is cognizant of potential impacts on service delivery" — repeat that; service delivery — "for income assistance clients."

J. Brar: Can the minister tell us then what percentage of shares of WCG has been sold to the Providence Corp. Is it 100 percent or less or more?

Hon. C. Richmond: That's a difficult question to answer, because I don't really know why…. It says: "In July 2007, the Ministry of Employment and Income Assistance received notice from WCG advising of a potential ownership change, and on August 1, 2007, the company was purchased."

It just says the company was purchased by a United States–based company, Providence Service Corp. It doesn't say what percentage of the company. It just says the company was purchased.

The Chair: I have received a request for a five-minute recess, so we'll have a five-minute recess.

J. Brar: Now we know two things very clearly. One is that WCG started a new contract to provide employment programs to people with disabilities on July 1. Subsequently, after four days they approached the minister's office about the intended sale of the company to the Providence Service Corp.

That contract which started July 1 — four days of the information — was about $44 million. My question to the minister is this. Will the minister agree that for WCG, having a five-year contract worth $44 million will significantly increase its sale value to the Providence Service Corp.?

Hon. C. Richmond: No. I won't speculate on anything like that — like the purchase price and what was negotiated between the two companies. I do have a letter written by our ADM, Sharon Moysey, to WCG on July 31 in answer to the letter that they wrote to Heather Dickson on July 5. Is that correct? I think I'm

J. Brar: It's common sense that a company whose main line of business is to provide employment programs funded by the Ministry of Employment and Income Assistance…. That company signs and starts a new contract on July 1, which is worth $44 million, and after four days the company finally makes up its mind to sell it.

It's common sense that the sale value of the company will go up significantly, having a contract worth $44 million. I just want to put on the record that this is not rocket science. It is very, very common sense that the sale value of the company will go up significantly.

I want to also clarify this with the minister. My understanding is that WCG made $30 million by selling the company, which includes the employment program funded by the Ministry of Employment and Income Assistance to U.S.-based Providence Service Corp., and that the $30 million includes, as per the sale documents, $10.5 million in cash, approximately $9 million in shares plus a possible earn-out provision worth an additional $10.8 million as of 2008.

Hon. C. Richmond: I have absolutely no knowledge of what took place in the sale. This is the first I've heard of any amounts. I have no way of knowing what took place or what the sale price was or shares or bonuses or anything. I have no knowledge of it.

J. Brar: I would like to put this on the record. I would like to ask that a photocopy of this document be made and provided to the minister, for the information which I just mentioned about the sale and how much money WCG will make. This is a document — I'm going to provide a copy — which was submitted to the United States Securities and Exchange Commission by the Providence Service Corp.

It indicates very clearly that WCG will be paid and will make about $30 million out of this deal, as I said before, which includes $10.5 million in cash, approximately $9 million in shares plus a possible earn-out provision worth an additional $10.8 million as of 2008. I just want to make sure that is on the record. I will hand over this copy for the minister so that the minister can review it and, basically, educate himself about how much money WCG has made out of this deal.

When you are in charge, in the chair, about the RFP process, finding a provider to provide employment programs, you invite applications, and you go through the process and all that. Then you find out, in front of you, that a corporation came in and bought WCG — which, of course, had the program that also included one program which started just five days before that deal.

Would you not ask a question to the company, which is Providence Service Corp., as to why they did not participate in the bidding process which concluded just a few days ago? This is just a commonsense question when you do the due diligence. So would you not ask that question to that corporation?

Hon. C. Richmond: I guess the simple and short answer to the member is no. I have absolutely no idea when Providence started talking to WCG, nor do our staff. You know, I don't ask people — at least, I don't think I ever have — why they didn't bid on something. I have no desire to know that. I have yet to meet with the principals of Providence, but I have met on occasion, not very often, with the management of WCG. We are satisfied that they are doing an excellent job for us.

J. Brar: The minister has been mentioning this whole afternoon that the ministry has done due diligence. One of the steps, when you see somebody sitting in front of you…. It may not be the minister himself. I'm talking about the ministry here, because the estimate debates involve the Ministry of Employment and Income Assistance.

When you see a buyer sitting in front of you just five days after starting a new five-year program worth $44 million, if you have a list of things to do under the due diligence, one of the simple questions would have been: why were you not part of the bidding process? But the minister didn't want to ask the question. That is the minister's choice, but I think that is one of the ques-

tions which should have been asked under the list of due diligence tasks to make sure this transaction, this sale, stands on the right footing.

Having said that, I would like to read this into the record as well. The WCG, which made approximately $30 million out of this sale, selling the company which mainly has the employment program contract worth hundreds of millions of dollars…. One of the vice-presidents of WCG is Mr. Robin Adair.

Mr. Adair — I hope I'm pronouncing it right — directed communications for Liberal candidate Sheila Orr in the 2001 election. The lobbyist registry also reveals that Mr. Adair has lobbied on behalf of the West Coast Group to the Premier, Deputy Premier, Christy Clark, Graham Bruce and two other cabinet ministers of the current Liberal government.

Another vice-president of WCG is James Rae. Mr. Rae worked as the deputy minister to the current Minister of Employment and Income Assistance between 1983 and 1984, so there is a relationship there. I just wanted to put that on the record.

Above all, WCG has donated over $95,000 to the B.C. Liberal party since 2001. Can the minister confirm these facts?

Hon. C. Richmond: Certainly not all of them. I can confirm that I have known Dr. Rae for a long time on and off since he was a deputy minister for me. That was back in 1982 for a short while, and then I was out of government for ten years and didn't really see him. It's a very friendly relationship but certainly not a very close one.

The other facts I can't confirm or deny because I don't know. The first I've ever heard of donations is what you just told me today. I have no knowledge of that. Beyond that I can't comment.

I should add, though, for the record, that when we are going out for an RFP for a proposal for contracts, the minute that RFP is put out to tender for the public, I have absolutely nothing to do with it. I don't meet with any of the proponents or talk to them, and I have nothing whatsoever to do with that until the staff tell me who was the successful bidder on a contract.

Between the one time and the other, I have no knowledge of what goes on. I know that the staff do an awful lot of work assessing the bids that come in, because sometimes they are numerous and complicated. They do work with the people. But just to make it clear, as the minister I have absolutely nothing to do with the RFP process. I find out who the successful bidder is from the staff.

J. Brar: Now, knowing the fact, which the document suggests, that WCG made $30 million out of this deal — the potential $30 million deal — and, as I said many times before, that the company's main line of business is employment program funded by the Ministry of Employment and Income Assistance....

Having said that, how can the minister justify a corporation friendly to the Liberal party making almost $30 million out of this sale — which mainly includes the employment programs funded by the Ministry of Employment and Income Assistance — by selling those programs just four days after the start of a five-year contract?

Hon. C. Richmond: Mr. Chairman, I just want to read into the record too, and I want to be clear that I'm very proud of the procurement process the ministry follows. It is open, transparent and designed to get the best value for the taxpayers and the best service for our clients.

J. Brar: I have no doubt about the procurement process of the ministry, and I don't have any questions about that. I agree with the minister on that.

My questions are about the sale of WCG — the way it took place, the time frame within which it took place and the money that WCG made with the help of the Ministry of Employment and Income Assistance. WCG got a new contract — $44 million for five years — and after four days they made the deal.

To clarify, I am concerned about the quality of the programs. I know the minister is going to stand up and say: "We are absolutely sure that the quality of programs will not be compromised."

The question is this. The program is probably, all combined, worth about…. I know that one program, the employment program for people with disabilities, is about $44 million. I don't know the exact value of the B.C. employment program for four years, but all combined, my estimation is that the program probably is worth over $80 million for the full duration, which is part of the deal.

Out of that $80 million, WCG made $30 million. Money was taken out, in my opinion. So how can the minister stand here and say that the quality of the program will be maintained by the Providence Service Corp. after paying $30 million to WCG — that they will still continue and maintain the quality of the programs?

The second question is: how can the minister justify that these programs are helping the most vulnerable people of the province rather than the corporation that's making $30 million?

Hon. C. Richmond: Before I attempt to answer the member's question, I want to just reiterate what his preamble was to that. I have to paraphrase it, because I don't have the exact words. He went on at length to talk about the money that WCG made from the sale and used the words "with the help of the Ministry of Employment and Income Assistance." I find that offensive, and I just want that on the record.

They did not make, as he says, $30 million with the help of this ministry. It was a deal between two companies — one public, from the States, and one private, from here. They made a business deal which we've been into ad nauseum this afternoon. But I find those words "with the help of the ministry" offensive.

Then he goes on to question the value of our programs. I want to read a few things into the record

about that. The government is committed to building the best system of support for British Columbians with disabilities. That includes ensuring they have the supports and services they need to participate in the workforce as they are able.

That's why, as part of the government's disability strategy, we're investing more than $20 million annually in a new skills and training program for all British Columbians with disabilities. That's all British Columbians with disabilities.

The employment program for persons with disabilities provides a range of specialized services to help individuals with disabilities participate in their communities, pursue their employment goals as they are able, increase their self-reliance and build skills and experience that may lead to further employment or volunteer opportunities.

It is intended to assist persons with disabilities to achieve their economic and social potential to the fullest extent possible. The EPPD is a provincewide program with individualized services provided through service provider contracts.

In addition to client outcomes of full-time or part-time employment, successful results of EPPD participation also include increased access to needed disability supports, career planning and assessment, employment placement and follow-up, job-related skills training, self-employment services, better understanding of the disability as it relates to employment and increased connection to the community.

Participation in EPPD is voluntary. Employment outcomes under EPPD include part-time or full-time paid employment, self-employment or volunteer employment.

J. Brar: Certainly, my observation of this whole sale is much different than the minister has just explained. I do believe that if a company will sell itself just four days after starting a new contract worth $44 million, its worth is going to go up significantly, and it has made money because of that contract.

My next question to the minister is: what steps did the minister take to ensure that the U.S.-based company Providence Service Corp. is capable and has the experience and proven record to deliver the employment program for the people of British Columbia, BCEP, as well as EPPD?

Hon. C. Richmond: As I've explained to the member numerous times today, the programs are still being delivered by WCG, by the same staff, by the same company — granted, with different ownership. They're living up to their contracts, and the programs are being delivered in the manner that they should be delivered. Should that ever change, then the ministry has the opportunity to step in and correct the situation. But we're quite pleased with the way the programs are being delivered.

J. Brar: Can the minister confirm, then, whether WCG is going to retain the management for one year, two years, three years or four years?

The Chair: If I may interject a little bit, I just wanted to caution the member that I've been watching this debate on television for the past several minutes, and I seem to feel that the question is revolving around this one subject matter. Maybe the member wants to move on and go to the next subject after the minister has answered the question.

Hon. C. Richmond: Well, not being privy to what is in the sale agreement between the two companies, I cannot answer that question. I don't know what the commitment was to keep them there, over how long. I was told that they had committed to keep the same management and the same people, but I can't give you a time line on that. I have no knowledge of it.

Now, it's probably in the sales agreement between the two companies, but I don't know that.

J. Brar: Mr. Chair, I respect your directions, but at the same time, the minister has made statements more than maybe ten or 15 times this afternoon saying: "Since there's no change of the management, there's no difference."

Now, I say this. WCG is only going to be in management for two years, when the ministry's contract will go beyond four years. So there is a question there, and you don't have the answer.

You don't know, but you've been saying the whole afternoon, on the record — many times, not one time — that WCG is going to continue and that there is therefore no need to check anything of Providence Service Corp.

I say that because it's only two years, and Providence Service Corp. is going to take control before the end of the contract. You haven't done your due diligence, and that's the question in this deal.

So my question again is…. WCG is going to stay only for two years, but the contract goes much beyond that. Having said that, what step did the minister take to make sure that Providence Service Corp. has the experience, knowledge and capability to deliver the programs?

Hon. C. Richmond: To date there's been no change in management, and I have no knowledge — as the member seems to — that the agreement is only for two years. I haven't seen the agreement of their sale. Maybe it's in the document you photocopied for me; I don't know. But if you say that it's two years, and you know that, then I'll take your word for it.

Services continue to be delivered under the contracts. For any company, including non-profits, when there are changes that trigger consequences under the contract or other significant changes, we will act.

But even if Providence did change the management of the company — and I have no knowledge if they're

going to do that, if the company is being well run — that's their prerogative. They still have to live up to the terms of the contracts. They accepted this deal. They have to live up to the terms and conditions of those contracts, and if they don't, that's when we will act.

J. Brar: I'm not talking about what the Providence Service Corp. will do or not. I'm talking about what the ministry did to make sure that this deal stands as a good deal for the people of British Columbia and that you're going to maintain the quality of programs.

It's very, very surprising — disturbing, for me — that the minister is not aware about many things about the contract. Now, I know that the minister is going to stand up and say that it is the ministry. Yes, we are talking about the ministry. The minister doesn't know, didn't know, the first time that WCG…

…informed the ministry about the intended sale. The minister is not sure whether WCG needs any written consent from the Ministry of Employment and Income Assistance to sell itself, which includes the employment programs, to make sure the company which was taking over the program is capable and has the experience. The minister was not sure about that.

The minister is not sure whether a contractor can bring in a new subcontractor or not, which is part of the RFP process of the ministry. The minister is not sure — although the minister has been saying the whole afternoon that since there's no change in the management, therefore it's no problem. There's no question.

There will be a change in the management of WCG. My understanding is — I would like to be corrected if the minister knows, but the minister doesn't know about it — that WCG is only going to stay for two years, when the programs are long-term, for five years. Ultimately, Providence Service Corp. is going to take over. The minister allowed that to happen without doing the due diligence to ensure that Providence Service Corp. has the experience, knowledge and proven record to deliver the program.

My next question, based on that, is this. In a standard RFP process, when any bidder is short-listed, the ministry would conduct a reference check from two other individuals or companies about the short-listed company.

Now, to do the due diligence, here the programs are basically going to be handed over to Providence Service Corp., Did the minister conduct any reference checks about Providence Service Corp. — the terms and conditions of your own process, which you put in place? It's a good process, in my opinion.

Hon. C. Richmond: Well, we've been over and over this, and the member keeps repeating that I didn't know this and didn't know that and that I'm not sure of this and not sure of that. I cleared all that up once. I guess I can go through and clear it up again.

I've given him the dates when we first found out there was a pending sale. The staff has given me the date when I was first informed of it. I think it was July 20, something like that. The sale was concluded on August 1.

We've been over the due diligence that we did and were expected to do. You know, I don't know how many times I can just keep going over the same ground. Unless the member has a different question to ask, I don't know how I'm going to come up with anything different for him, except to stand here and just keep giving the same answer over and over.

J. Brar: I think the question was simple. It was a different question; it was a new question.

According to the RFP process, when you select a company which will deliver the program for the people of British Columbia, the ministry is required to check two references of the company. Did the minister check references for the Providence Service Corp., which is the owner of the company now technically delivering the employment program for the people of British Columbia?

Hon. C. Richmond: To the member: let me read again about the RFP process to which he keeps referring. I want to be clear that I am very proud of the procurement process the ministry follows. It is open, transparent and designed to get the best value for the taxpayers and the best service for clients.

To answer the second part of the question, Providence was not a bidder. We do not have a contract with Providence, and they were not part of the RFP process.

J. Brar: Again, it's very confusing. Providence has now bought WCG, which has a contract to provide the employment program for the Ministry of Employment and Income Assistance.

Mr. Chair, he's saying that I keep repeating. Yes, I don't have a choice not to repeat here.

Providence now owns the…. Providence bought WCG, which includes the employment program, and therefore, they are responsible to deliver the employment program for the people of British Columbia. It's clear from the answer of the minister that the minister did not check the references when it was a mandatory requirement by the ministry. That's the answer I got from the minister. The minister did not actually check the references.

There is one more mandatory requirement when you sign a contract and hand over the program to somebody, a company. The second requirement is that after you short-list the bidders, then they are required to make a presentation to the staff about their capability, their experience and their knowledge.

I would like to ask the minister again, since Providence Service Corp. is now in command: before giving consent or agreeing to the deal, did the minister's office or the minister ask the Providence Service Corp. to make a presentation about their knowledge and experience in delivering programs which are similar to this?

Hon. C. Richmond: I'm just going to say it one more time. We've been over it and over it. I've answered that question several times this afternoon. We went through the due diligence of what we were required to do regarding this sale. We got an answer from the Attorney General's ministry which I've read into the record three or four times. I don't know what more I can say about it.

It was a sale between two companies — one public, from the U.S.; one private, from here. As I said, we sought advice as to what we should do and whether we had done our due diligence. I'm not going to read it into the record again. It's been read into the record about three or four times. We feel that we have done our part in this.

A sale was completed. The member seems to know how long the agreement was between Providence and WCG. I don't have access to that knowledge. Nor, I guess, should I. It was a deal between two corporations. I don't know what else I can do except read everything back into the record again.

The Chair: Member, I encourage you to just take note that your line of questioning has been fully canvassed, and I encourage you to move on to the next question.

J. Brar: My next question is: under the contract with WCG, how many FTEs will deliver the employment program? Is that part of the contract?

Hon. C. Richmond: No. It's up to the contractor — WCG in this case — to determine how many people they need to run their program.

J. Brar: My take on that one is that Providence Service Corp. can lay off a number of people if they want to.

Hon. C. Richmond: Just to answer the question, I would say that they have to maintain sufficient staff to run the programs properly. If the programs aren't being run properly, that's when we would step in.

The contractors utilize 30 service providers and over 70 identified community partners for individual referrals and services. So there is much more involved here than just the WCG staff. Over 50 percent of the $18 million in contracts was awarded to not-for-profit organizations. While EPPD contracts do not stipulate a percentage flow through to the community-based service providers, the disability-specific needs of many EPPD clients will ensure that contractors acquire the services of agencies that are positioned to address the needs of these clients.

I did tell the member how many subcontractors there were in EPPD. I think it's 70. So it goes far beyond just the staff that work for WCG.

J. Brar: You know, during the debate this afternoon the minister has at various times mentioned the protection of personal information of the clients who will be part of the programs. I would like to read this and then ask a question on that one.

First of all, under schedule E, privacy article 13, it references that "the contractor must not store personal information outside Canada or permit access to personal information from outside Canada." The minister has mentioned that before. I just want to put that on the record.

A letter by WCG, written to the Ministry of Employment and Income Assistance on July 12, 2007, states: "WCG advises the following. Providence Service Corp. will not have access to the data contained in our case management system for either the EPPD contract or the BCEP contract."

The minister has mentioned that more than one time as well. My question is: is this assurance for one year, two years, three years, four years, five years?

J. Brar: Can the minister refer to any document or agreement under which WCG is obliged to this agreement?

Hon. C. Richmond: To be accurate, we have found the contract. This is a quote right from the BCEP contract. The EPPD will be the same. It's schedule E of the contract, section 13, and it's titled "Storage and access to personal information."

"Unless the province otherwise directs in writing, the contractor must not store personal information outside Canada or permit access to personal information from outside Canada."

J. Brar: I understand that piece. I can read that letter, though the ministry at one time asked WCG to give a written assurance that WCG will be in charge of storing and protecting the personal information under the provision the minister just mentioned.

My only concern and question is that, as I said before, my understanding is that WCG is only going to continue the management for two years. However, when the program's duration is longer…. The minister, at this point in time, is not sure about whether WCG is going to continue for two years or more.

If WCG is going to end the management after two years, I just want to make sure that WCG has the responsibility, as the minister mentioned under that provision, to continue protecting and storing the personal information of the clients.

Hon. C. Richmond: Well, it's right in the contract, as I read, that whoever is managing that contract has to live up to it. If it's WCG, which it very well may be, or if it's some other management that Providence brings in, it's literally written in stone in the contract.

In fact, these contracts even go so far as…. Even if information is requested from outside the country, we

can cancel the contract. So it is very clear. I know Health has the same agreements in their ministry — that there is no doubt about the protection of privacy and information in these contracts.

J. Brar: I just want to correct the minister. It is not the case that whosoever has the contract is responsible. We are talking about this particular contract for protecting the personal information.

In this case it's WCG. Although Providence Service Corp. bought WCG — which includes the employment program, according to your own documents — WCG cannot hand over the data management and the personal information to Providence Service Corp. because Providence Service Corp. comes from outside Canada. So it has to be WCG for the full duration of the contract.

I will take from this that as far as the personal information is concerned, WCG, as the minister is telling me, is responsible for the full duration of the contract and the minister has that agreement with WCG. If that's not correct, I would like to be corrected.

With that, I'd like to move to the next question. That will be: has the Ministry of Employment and Income Assistance conducted any inspection of WCG to inspect that the personal information of the clients is appropriately managed and that the system is up to the standard?

Hon. C. Richmond: The ministry staff routinely carry out quality assurance and contract-monitoring activities. The evidence obtained through site visits to date shows that contract providers serve clients in employment programs in accordance with the contracts.

The answer to your question is yes. We carry out routine quality assurance and contract-monitoring activities.

J. Brar: My question was more specific to the protection of the personal information of the people of British Columbia. The minister gave an answer which is very generic, not specific to personal information protection. But I will take that the Ministry of Employment and Income Assistance does perform routine inspections to ensure that the private information of the people of British Columbia is appropriately protected, by WCG in this case.

My understanding is that the minister is either in the process of or planning to conduct an audit of WCG employment program, including to see the security arrangement to protect the personal information of people. Is that correct?

Hon. C. Richmond: I just want to back up for a minute and assure the member and everyone else that the routine quality assurance and contract-monitoring activities of the ministry do include every aspect of the contract, including information and privacy.

To the best of our knowledge here, there is no plan at the moment to do a specific audit of WCG.

J. Brar: This is a letter from the Auditor General of British Columbia. I would like to correct the minister on this one too. This is a letter dated December 11, 2007, written to me, to Jagrup Brar.

The last paragraph of the letter says: "In our discussion with the ministry, they also indicated that internal audit was planning to do some work in this area. At this time I am unaware about the scope of this potential audit but felt you might wish to be aware of it."

Can the minister tell what the Auditor General is talking about? I can give you a copy of this letter, too, if you want.

Hon. C. Richmond: The internal audit is looking at our quality assurance framework. We ask them from time to time to take a look at our procedures and our quality assurance, to make sure that we are doing everything in the proper fashion. The B.C. government is committed to helping our most vulnerable citizens find and maintain employment and to sound fiscal management and accountability to British Columbia's taxpayers.

As part of our relaunched B.C. employment program and employment program for persons with disabilities, ongoing reviews take place to ensure that program concerns are addressed in the most timely, effective manner. That's why the ministry routinely monitors and assesses its employment programs, to ensure that they are the best possible design and are being well managed.

The ministry has established a management team dedicated to working with our employment service providers to ensure they continue to meet contractual obligations, performance measures and service standards for clients.

J. Brar: So on this one, too, I was right. There is an internal audit taking place.

J. Brar: If there are still doubts, I can read the full letter, but I know that there is an internal audit in the planning. The ministry has informed the Auditor General, and subsequently….

J. Brar: This is specific to WCG. If that is not correct, I would like to be corrected. This is specific to WCG. So with that, will the minister now accept that there is an internal audit going on related to WCG? If that is not correct, I would like to be corrected.

I would like to move on to a new question. On page 25 of the service plan, B.C. employment program has three main components: client intake, direct work search, and individualized services and support.

Can the minister provide details of fee-for-service for these three different components? How much fee is paid for each component?

Hon. C. Richmond: Just to clear up my answer to the last question. The member thinks he has some revelation that he discovered. We request and do internal audits all the time. But the member — the question before this last one — asked about an audit of WCG. No, there is not a specific audit going to be done on WCG at this moment, but we will check on WCG as part of our ongoing quality assurance framework, and we do ask the internal auditors to review our procedures from time to time. But when you ask about a specific audit for a specific service provider, the answer is no.

J. Brar: My question which I asked last…. Actually, the minister answered that question. It is about the fees of different components of the B.C. employment program.

Hon. C. Richmond: The fees that he asked for are $100 for intake, $500 for directed work search and $100 maximum average for directed work search supports.

J. Brar: If I could understand it correctly, it's $100 for client intake, $500 for direct work search, and the third component is individualized service and support. The minister said that it's $100 for that. If that's the correct figure, I'll move on to the next question.

The welfare caseload for employable single men and women started increasing in October 2006, and it jumped from 6,722 in October 2006 to 9,721 in December 2007 — a significant jump. Can the minister explain if the ministry has conducted any review as to why this workload jumped significantly during this short time?

Hon. C. Richmond: I want to go back to the member's last question, because I think he was mixing up two different things. At least that's the way I saw it.

The figures I gave him are correct for exactly what we said — $100 for intake, $500 for directed work search, $100 maximum for direct work search supports. But the member said individualized support, which is different. Individualized services and supports is $1,600. That's for sending someone on a course or a program, putting them in a program, and it's $1,600. Over and above that, individualized services and supports averages $220, and that's for things such as haircuts, bus tickets, work clothes, etc. That's over and above sending them to the course that they're going to be attending.

To answer the member's last question as completely as I can, February's statistics show a slight increase in the overall B.C. employment and assistance caseload over the previous month — 705 cases, or 0.64 percent. This is not unexpected. Caseload increases over the winter months are consistent with historical seasonal employment patterns. Increases also reflect the concerted outreach efforts the ministry is taking to ensure that people who are typically hard to reach — the homeless or those with mental health and addictions problems — receive emergency needs and assessments and immediately get connected to the income supports they are eligible for.

That's a reflection of the fairly successful outreach programs that we have been running throughout the province. We are taking our office, if you like, out to the people, and the results have been pretty gratifying.

J. Brar: Just to make the last comment before I move this, the jump in the caseload, as I mentioned before, for income assistance for single men and women is significant, and the response I got from the minister is not what the question was.

You know, there must be some factors which have caused this jump. Just on the record I would like to put that the change in the design of the program which is a people service program…. I would like to start probably Monday asking the minister if there is any connection between the people service–based new program and the increase in caseload. So that's the question we will start.

With that, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Hansard Services publishes transcripts both in print and on the Internet.
Chamber debates are broadcast on television and webcast on the Internet.
Question Period podcasts are available on the Internet.