Hansard — Monday, May 12, 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		12261

Statements		12261
	Natural disasters in Asia
	Hon. G. Campbell

Introductions by Members		12261

Introduction and First Reading of Bills		12262
	First Nations Heritage Protection and Conservation Act, 2008 (Bill M207)
	M. Karagianis
	Right to Know Act, 2008 (Bill M208)
	Toxics Reduction Act, 2008 (Bill M209)
	G. Robertson

Statements (Standing Order 25B)		12263
	Necklace project in Campbell River
	C. Trevena
	Mining industry in B.C.
	B. Lekstrom
	2009 World Under-17 Hockey Challenge
	S. Fraser
	Dangerous offenders
	R. Hawes
	Capital City Volunteers
	R. Fleming
	Richmond Youth Concert Band
	J. Yap

Oral Questions		12265
	Government action on forest industry
	B. Simpson
	Hon. C. Hansen
	N. Macdonald
	Hon. R. Coleman
	D. Routley
	Carbon offset projects
	M. Sather
	Hon. B. Penner
	Disclosure of documents in B.C. Rail court case
	L. Krog
	Hon. W. Oppal
	B. Ralston
	Closing of psychiatric ward in Port Alberni hospital
	S. Fraser
	Hon. G. Abbott

Second Reading of Bills		12270
	Greenhouse Gas Reduction (Emissions Standards) Statutes Amendment Act, 2008 (Bill 31)
	Hon. B. Penner
	S. Simpson
	J. Horgan
	B. Simpson
	C. Trevena
	Hon. B. Penner
	Motor Vehicle (Banning Smoking When Children Present) Amendment Act, 2008 (Bill 36)
	Hon. J. van Dongen
	Hon. G. Abbott
	L. Krog
	M. Farnworth
	A. Dix
	C. Evans
	Hon. J. van Dongen
	Local Government (Green Communities) Statutes Amendment Act, 2008 (Bill 27)
	Hon. I. Chong
	C. Wyse
	S. Simpson

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply		12302
	Estimates: Ministry of Children and Family Development
	Hon. T. Christensen
	N. Simons
	R. Chouhan

Hon. S. Hagen: To all members of the House, I am very pleased to introduce four young artists who are spending a day in the capital to celebrate their winning posters in the Discover Your Community: History in Art Poster Contest established by Mr. Speaker. Their winning artwork is on display in the reception hall for May and June.

They are Tessa Warhurst from George M. Murray Elementary School in Lillooet, Lisa Xie from Chief Maquinna Elementary School in Vancouver, Derrick Van Viegen from E.J. Dunn Middle School in Port Alberni and Eric Kim from Prince of Wales Secondary School in Vancouver. Would the House please join me and the Speaker in making them welcome.

S. Fraser: Following the same line, I had the honour and pleasure of having lunch with an incredibly talented young man, Derrick Van Viegen, a grade 8 student at E.J. Dunn Middle School. He's an artist extraordinaire and one of the winners of the Speaker's 150 poster contest. He's accompanied today in the gallery and at lunch by his parents Rick and Natalie and his sister Rachel. Would the House please join me in making them all feel very, very welcome.

Hon. L. Reid: Today I have 96 students visiting from A.R. MacNeill Secondary School in Richmond. I had the pleasure of saying hello before the House sat this afternoon. I'd ask the House to please make them welcome.

H. Lali: I, too, would like to join the member for Alberni-Qualicum and the minister who spoke earlier. Tessa Warhurst is actually a student from my constituency who lives in Lillooet, as was mentioned by the minister. She's a grade 2 eight-year-old, and she is one of the four winners. I think you mentioned that she was the overall first prize winner of this contest that the Speaker held. She's here with her mother Nancy Humber and siblings Piper, Meg and Keenan Warhurst. Would the House please give a warm Victoria welcome to my constituents.

Hon. G. Campbell: Today I rise on behalf of British Columbians to express our deepest condolences to those impacted by the two recent natural disasters which have affected literally thousands and thousands of people. Reports out of China today suggest that a 7.8 magnitude earthquake struck China's Sichuan province. It's left as many as 9,000 people or more dead and missing, with many, many more injured.

The cyclone that hit the southern delta region of Myanmar, formerly called Burma, on May 2 has also left thousands and thousands of people without their homes, in want of support. Really, I think we have to recognize that these things always come out of the blue, and they have an enormous impact on the communities that they hit.

I know all British Columbians would want our emergency personnel and professional personnel to be available. They will be available, subject to the call of the government of Canada, to make sure that we are actually improving the situation. We think we have people that we can offer to that.

I know that this Legislature would want to send our concern, our condolences and our support and prayers to the governments of both countries and to the people who have been directly impacted and who will be indirectly impacted by these natural disasters. Hon. Speaker. I'd ask that you do that on behalf of the Legislature, as long as everyone agrees that that's what we should be doing.

S. Simpson: Hon. Speaker, I want to join yourself and the minister and my other colleagues on this side in also congratulating Lisa Xie. Lisa is the winner of one of the art competitions from Chief Maquinna School in my constituency.

I would note that not only was Lisa a winner, but in her class they also took two of the three runner-up spots. So that class produced three of the four winners in their age category. Lisa is joined here by her parents and her brother Bolong, Max Xie and Gary Xie. Please make Lisa and her family welcome.

Hon. R. Neufeld: Today visiting the precinct is a young mother and her child. I've always said that I adopted this young lady's children because I haven't had any grandchildren of my own yet. I introduced her first child a number of years ago, but she brought into the world a little boy born April 21, at 7 pounds 15 ounces, named Mowat Jardine Sweet. Colleen and Randal Sweet are northerners, and Colleen worked as my MA for a number of years.

Also, I'm fortunate enough to mention that in the very near future, I will become a granddad. I won't have to adopt anybody else's. I will actually have a grandchild to love and care for sometime in June. Montana and I are both looking forward to that.

B. Simpson: In 1981 when I was attending the University of Victoria, I met a beautiful young woman there who became my wife in 1985. She is still a beautiful young woman. I don't know what happened to me in the interim.

My wife Trish is here with my two wonderful children, Jill and Jon. Would the House please make them feel welcome.

Hon. M. Coell: I have some introductions to make: LCdr. Lucie Tremblay, who is the provost marshal of Pacific region and commanding officer of the military police at CFB Esquimalt, Sergeant Kwaitkowski, MCpl. Jodrey, MCpl. Donohue, Corporal Edwards and Corporal Pettinger.

All are veterans of the war in Afghanistan and have been given the General Campaign Star for taking part in operations in the presence of an armed enemy while fighting the Taliban in that country. Some have taken part in NATO operations in the Balkans and wear the medals for those missions. The MPs even initiated a boy scout unit in Kosovo. Others have been given the special service medal for their service in humanitarian operations in Sri Lanka, Pakistan and Central America, assisting those areas in dealing with natural disasters that have befallen them.

They have performed regular police duties and have assisted in the training of civilian police in Afghanistan. All are dedicated, brave members of the Canadian Forces and deserve our gratitude for their service.

It is because of these people and others like them, who are willing to put themselves in harm's way, that we live in a peaceful, free and wonderful country. Would the House please make them welcome.

N. Simons: It gives me pleasure to welcome a number of parents in the House today, all here representing themselves and other families who have children with autism. I'd like to make welcome in particular Jodi Tucker and Blair Armstrong, who have come to speak with the minister about the importance of ensuring that there's adequate and fair access to autism therapies. Would the House please make them welcome.

R. Hawes: Included among those families are Steve and Sherry Peters from my riding. Would the House please make them welcome.

G. Gentner: It's a pleasure to welcome to the House today the grade 10 social studies students from Seaquam Secondary, 112 students from the largest secondary school in North Delta. It is a school that participates through my office with the work experience program. I certainly would suggest to all members of the House that this is a great program that's offered to volunteers to work in your offices. Could the House please make them accordingly welcome.

D. Hayer: I have two special guests today. One is Laurie Carlson, CEO of Mainland Sand and Gravel Ltd., and the other one is Ted Carlson, president of Mainland Sand and Gravel Ltd. Would the House please make them very welcome.

S. Hammell: In the gallery there are two visitors from the constituency of Surrey–Green Timbers. They are here enjoying the ambience of our beautiful capital city and are in the gallery to watch what we fondly call question period. Would the House please welcome Vanji Ocropidici and Dr. Nanang Gilanto.

M. Karagianis presented a bill intituled First Nations Heritage Protection and Conservation Act, 2008.

M. Karagianis: I move that a bill intituled First Nations Heritage Protection and Conservation Act, 2008, be introduced for a first time.

M. Karagianis: I am honoured to introduce the First Nations Heritage Protection and Conservation Act. This bill will better protect first nations heritage objects and sacred sites. The bill amends the Heritage Conservation Act to include a process by which first nations can trigger protection orders when heritage sites, objects and remains are discovered.

I believe that this bill amends the Heritage Act to provide a better set of guidelines and tools that first nations, local government and the province need in order to implement protection, stewardship and conservation of first nations heritage and culturally significant areas, their artifacts and their sacred history and, as well, to provide for the creation of a program to accomplish that goal.

I ask that all members please review the bill and support this. I move that this bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill M207, First Nations Heritage Protection and Conservation 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.

G. Robertson: I move introduction of the Right to Know Act, 2008, for first reading.

G. Robertson: I rise to introduce companion bills that will create the strongest toxics regulations in North America.

B.C. has lagged far behind other jurisdictions in protecting people from toxic pollutants, and it's time we became leaders on this crucial issue for health and environment. People have the right to know what's in their food and the products that they buy. Communities have a right to know what toxic substances are in their vicinity. These are the core principles of the Right to Know Act.

This bill provides that suppliers and producers must warn consumers if their products expose them to recognized toxic substances or to genetically engineered food. This includes using hazard labels that clearly identify — with clear signals — carcinogens, reproductive and developmental toxins, hormone disruptors and other known toxins.

This bill also supports community right to know by establishing a searchable electronic registry of toxic substances and genetically engineered foods in B.C. with locations, companies involved and information on dangers arising from exposure.

This year a Canadian Cancer Society poll of 3,200 British Columbians showed that 97 percent support legislation that requires labelling of all products that contain carcinogens. As the Premier has said, this is a non-partisan issue. It is clearly one that members of this House can work together urgently to address.

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

Bill M208, Right to Know 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.

G. Robertson: I move introduction of the Toxics Reduction Act, 2008, for first reading.

G. Robertson: Government has a responsibility to protect people from toxins. This bill bans toxins that are currently prohibited for use and sale in other OECD nations, Canadian provinces and U.S. states. It bans pesticides that are harmful to human health for residential or cosmetic use, on public lands and around children at schools, day cares and playing fields. This bill creates a comprehensive toxic and hazardous substance list and sets a goal for B.C. to achieve a 50 percent reduction of toxins generated by industry by 2015.

It also creates a biomonitoring program, testing British Columbians to inform government decisions on toxic threats. We need smart regulation of toxins to reduce cancer and other diseases directly linked to toxins, especially among our children. Strong regulation will save lives and health care dollars. B.C. will spend over a billion dollars this year dealing with thousands of deaths and new cancer cases that are caused by toxins each year.

Finally, we need to regulate toxins to protect our environment, which is being saturated with toxic pollution at unprecedented levels.

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

Bill M209, Toxics Reduction 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.

C. Trevena: Some members have been asking me about the necklace I'm wearing. I assure you it is not a prop; it is a necklace. It's jewellery, but it's also a quiet statement. It's red, it's tile-shaped, and it's got a picture of a T-shirt on it. Luckily, it's not unique.

It's part of a project known as the necklace project, which is a fundraiser to support community activities in Campbell River aimed at the prevention and awareness of violence and abuse against women. It helps ensure that events such as the December 6 memorial or the Take Back the Night march and other such events can take place to raise awareness of violence against women, and understanding and education about the issue.

The necklace comes about as a result of a very moving anti-violence demonstration — the clothesline project, which I've told the House about in the past — where women are invited to paint a T-shirt to depict their own or others' experience of violence. Their messages are haunting, they're brave, and they're bright. The T-shirts hang on lines in a very dramatic way, and it's a very emotional display which brings an awareness of the issues and honours those women who have been abused. Those T-shirts are reflected in these necklaces.

The idea came about because the organizations dealing with violence against women keep being told that they need to be sustainable. It's not an easy task when dealing with something like violence against women. How do you fundraise? Do you do bake sales or plant sales? Well, a local artisan in Campbell River came up with the idea of these necklaces, and they're now sold throughout the city and through the women's centre.

The project is growing, with the women's symbol on some of the necklaces, and they're on key chains as well. At $15 apiece, it's going to be slow to become sustainable with these necklaces, but we can only all hope that such projects are not always going to be needed and that, as a society, we do finally see an end to violence against women.

B. Lekstrom: I rise today to recognize Mining Week in British Columbia and to celebrate it with all of my colleagues here in the Legislature and all British Columbians.

I think we have a good-news story to tell in this province about what mining means to our economy, what it means to the people of this province. The value of B.C. mining is estimated to be about $5.6 billion for 2007, which is up from roughly $2.9 billion in 2001. I think it shows, by working together, the importance of

our land base, what the resource can do for all of us in our day-to-day lives and what we can do by cooperating with industry and government, communities and the people. It really is a return not for government and the general revenue, as many might have you think, but for the people who live here — the jobs that are created, the benefit to our families and our children, allowing us to grow and prosper.

The issue really is one that we can work together on. The environment is always something that's on everybody's mind. We want to make sure that the children of the future — our children, our grandchildren — can enjoy the quality of life that we've enjoyed through our lives growing up in this wonderful province and that we do that together. The mining industry, I think, has come a long way and does a marvellous job.

I would encourage British Columbians, if they have never had the opportunity, to look at a reclaimed minesite. Do so. I think you'd be quite amazed at what you see out there with the natural beauty that's maintained after the mining resource has been extracted.

Mining actually impacts only 0.04 percent of the land base in British Columbia, yet the benefit is significant to each and every one of us. It is an industry that has meant a great deal to the northeast part of the province where I'm from, but also to every region of this province. All of us in our day-to-day lives are dependent on the mineral explorations that take place around this province.

We are recognized as leaders in environmental sustainability when it comes to working with the mining industry around the world. People look to British Columbia for the contributions that government and the mining industry make together on behalf of the people we all represent in these chambers. I'm very proud to be part of a government and be part of a province that promotes this.

S. Fraser: Port Alberni loves the game of hockey. Loyal fans turn out in large numbers to cheer on their beloved Bulldogs, and their love of the game has led to a very exciting development. For the first time in history, mid–Vancouver Island communities will be hosting the 2009 World Under-17 Hockey Challenge, thanks to a bold bid by Port Alberni.

This is outstanding hockey. Players chosen to compete at this level are of exceptional calibre. The event is an exciting showcase of future stars. Germany, Russia, Finland, Slovakia and the United States will all be competing in the tournament, along with teams from five regions across Canada.

The Port Alberni proposal to put on the 2009 World Under-17 Hockey championship showcased their ability to put on this amazing event with the unique involvement cooperatively of five other Island communities all working together. Alberni Valley will share half of the games with Campbell River, Comox Valley, Oceanside, Nanaimo and Cowichan Valley. All communities will benefit greatly.

For hockey fans: get ready for the time of your life. Tournament dates are December 29, 2008, to January 4, 2009. Several exhibition games will be held on December 28.

Port Alberni is certainly no stranger to putting on world-class events. Anyone who's had an affinity for tall ships already knows that Port Alberni puts on the premier event in the world. Everyone in the know has already marked July 11 and 12 on their calendar this year for the Tall Ships Challenge in Port Alberni.

Pull out your schedules once again and mark December 29 to January 4. That's the hockey challenge, and the stars of tomorrow from all over the world will give us Islanders and others the best hockey we have ever imagined. Way to go, Port Alberni. Another class act, and a hard one to follow.

R. Hawes: Blaine MacDougal is a convicted murderer and rapist with a history of prison escape. On his first day-parole he raped two women. A decade later on a second day-parole, he again raped a young woman. For this he was named a dangerous offender.

"Dangerous offender" is not a designation easily obtained by the Crown, as it must be shown that there is a significantly high risk that the offender will commit future violent sexual acts. It brings an indefinite sentence, and its purpose is to protect the public from the most dangerous violent sexual predators in the country.

The offender is then incarcerated until the risk is deemed to no longer exist. Clearly, something has gone dramatically wrong in the assessment process when a dangerous offender like Blaine MacDougal again finds himself in Ferndale minimum security institution from which he walked away a few weeks ago. Nine other dangerous offenders who were also housed in Ferndale have now been transferred to higher levels of security until they can be further assessed.

Thankfully, Stockwell Day, the federal Solicitor General, has ordered a full review of the assessment and cascading system to ensure inmates are properly placed and the public is not unduly endangered.

But there's one remaining question that has not been addressed. Blaine MacDougal was working towards yet another parole when it was discovered, while he was on an escorted pass, that his personal computer held over 20,000 pornographic images. Why would a known sexual predator with dangerous offender status have a personal computer with access to Internet pornography while he's in jail? I can't find one person who thinks this makes any sense whatsoever. While the corrections system is being reviewed, Minister Day should also review the use of personal computers in prisons, particularly the use by known sexual predators.

R. Fleming: Last month on April 26, I had the privilege to attend the 20th anniversary celebration of an amazing organization in my community called Capital City Volunteers. It's an organization founded

to improve the social well-being of seniors in my community by linking them with dedicated volunteers.

Seniors in Victoria may or may not have the benefit of family nearby, and none should feel isolated or lonely. Capital City Volunteers helps seniors get to appointments, run errands, get a haircut or just talk about life over a cup of coffee, and 20 years has seen a lot of changes at Capital City Volunteers. Originally, it was called the North Park Volunteer Services Association, and Luella Hillmer was the first coordinator. She was instrumental in forming the society with the support of the First Baptist Church and residents of North Park Manor.

The new society then found office space at North Park Manor, and operations began with a grant from the New Horizons program sponsored by the provincial government. Initially, most of the services were delivered out of North Park Manor. But in 1989 Elsie Coles was hired as a volunteer coordinator, and she continued to advance the society's purpose until retiring in 1995. She helped broaden the mandate of the society.

The agency's mandate was changed to serve seniors and people with disabilities throughout the city of Victoria. This new funding and mandate led the board to hire Karina Wolf as executive director. Karina has led the organization since 1996.

Although there have been many growing pains along the way in this organization in its 20 years to keep pace with our aging society's growing needs, Capital City Volunteers continues to situate itself as a grass-roots community program that provides a vital link for those who strive to maintain their independence.

I invite all members of this House to join me in thanking the literally hundreds of Capital City Volunteers, executive director Karina Wolf, community services coordinator Nansi Blenkiron and the many volunteers who do so much for the people they support in my community, and to recognize this extraordinary milestone anniversary.

J. Yap: "A painter paints pictures on canvas, but musicians paint their pictures on silence." How true a quote from legendary orchestral conductor Leopold Stokowski.

Recently I was fortunate enough to hear some truly inspirational music at the Richmond Youth Concert Band annual dinner. Those fortunate enough to be in attendance at the Richmond event were treated to an evening of good fellowship, good food and great music.

The Richmond Youth Concert Band had its beginnings in 1976 to perform for the twinning ceremonies between Richmond and its sister city Wakayama, Japan. It had a humble beginning, initially formed as a small honour band with a six-week agenda. But the success it experienced in its initial performances set the groundwork to grow from there into a full concert band with a jazz ensemble.

Today the band is 45 members strong, with students ranging from grades 8 to 12. The musicians represent the best of the best, undergoing rigorous rehearsals and training. The audition process is competitive and brings out the best in the students. Each year the students are fortunate enough to attend a musical retreat as well as a focused music workshop. The band has a bursary and scholarship program so that financial concerns do not deter young talents from joining the band.

The band also gives back to the community in addition to its musical gifts. This year's fundraiser brought in $3,000, half of which was donated to Richmond Family Place.

The band relies on the efforts of many volunteers, especially the students and their parents. I want to recognize association president Hans Havas and directors Debbie Tablotney and Grace Tsang for their tireless efforts and leadership to the band.

I invite all members to join me in congratulating the Richmond Youth Concert Band on their 30th anniversary of promoting music and building community among the talented young musicians of Richmond.

B. Simpson: Last Friday Campbell River saw its last sawmill close forever, and 257 people lost their family-supporting jobs. Today in Kamloops another mill is closing permanently and another 200 jobs lost. These are permanent job losses. They're not temporary layoffs. These workers are losing their ability to pay their mortgages and support their families. Yet what do the B.C. Liberals offer these workers? Federal money to cover one-year tuition and to give them jobs as urban tree-planters.

My question is to the Minister of Forests. Would the Minister of Forests please explain why the B.C. Liberals are refusing to put provincial money into a true stability program for forest workers and forest-dependent communities? Why is that happening?

Hon. C. Hansen: It is in recognition of the challenges that forest families around this province are facing that the Premier of this province, when we knew there was $129 million coming for resource communities in this province, made the commitment that it was going to be dedicated to ensure that forest-dependent families in British Columbia are going to get the direct benefit of those dollars.

It is welcome dollars, the $129 million, and it is in addition to the $185 million that the province has committed to the Northern Development Initiative Trust. It is in addition to the $50 million that's been put into the Southern Interior Development Initiative Trust and the $50 million for the Island Coastal Economic Trust. We recognize that there are families in forest communities going through challenges. We're going to stand there with them, and we're going to support them.

Mr. Speaker: I remind members to listen to the question and listen to the answer.

B. Simpson: The minister's response begs the question: if the $129 million wasn't going to forest workers, where else would it go? General revenue — is that what the minister is suggesting?

As far as I'm aware, there is no opportunity for forest workers to apply for supports from Northern Trust or any other fund that this minister has mentioned in his response. The ministry's own website points out that only 5,000 workers will be served by this fund. Since January 1, 2007, 13,000 workers have been impacted. That doesn't include pre-2007.

So my question to the minister is this. This money will be oversubscribed the minute it is available. Why won't the B.C. Liberal government and the Premier add their own funds to this, match the federal money and make this a real sustainability fund for forest workers and their families?

Hon. C. Hansen: It's as a result of the work of this government over the last number of years that we have seen the diversification of the B.C. economy. It's as a result of the work of this government over the last number of years that we have seen a net increase in jobs in British Columbia of over 430,000.

We have a range of programs in place to assist forest workers, their families…

Hon. C. Hansen: …and their communities. We will continue to make sure that those families are supported by this government, whether they are in temporary layoff and waiting for mills to start up again as markets recover or whether we are seeing new industries that must be encouraged in these regions.

B. Simpson: It's a result of this government's forest policies that we have lost the diversification in the forest sector over the last seven years. It's a result of this government's failure to intervene for forest-dependent communities and forest workers…

B. Simpson: …that we are now at 13,000 forest workers whose jobs are threatened and a fund that may assist 5,000 of those workers.

Again, my question is to this minister. If this minister isn't willing to answer it, if he needs the Premier's permission, then let's have the Premier answer it. Will the B.C. Liberals at least match the federal money and make this a fund that will truly help these workers out?

Hon. C. Hansen: This member knows the challenge of the markets in the United States. He knows what is actually the cause of the downturn in the….

Hon. C. Hansen: This member knows the challenges that the forest sector is facing in terms of markets in the U.S. today, but we as a government are standing and supporting forest workers around this province. We are supporting communities; we're supporting economic diversification.

I challenge the member to actually go on line and read the backgrounder in the press release from last Friday. One of the programs announced last Friday by the Premier was tuition support for displaced forest workers. That will benefit 5,000 workers alone, never mind the other programs that will be there to support those families.

N. Macdonald: B.C. Liberals have pushed the forest industry to complete collapse. There are over 46 major wood-processing facilities that have been closed. There are over 20,000 forest workers that have lost their jobs under this government's watch — 13,000 with this minister alone this year. It's not only millworkers; it's not only loggers.

It's also the province's high-tech sector, with Coe Newnes in Salmon Arm. They're going down, with 110 jobs lost and 220 more at risk. Coe Newnes is a high-tech company. It is known continent-wide for its high-tech support for mills and for the machinery that it provides. The jobs are going to be devastating to Salmon Arm, but they are also a devastating loss of expertise for the province.

So the question is: what specifically is the minister going to do for Salmon Arm, for those high-tech jobs in Salmon Arm? What is he going to do?

Hon. C. Hansen: Let's actually just talk for a minute about some of the unemployment rates we saw in the 1990s compared to what we're seeing today.

Hon. C. Hansen: If you actually look at the unemployment rates in the Thompson-Okanagan region, they've been hitting record lows.

We recognize there are forest families in forest-dependent communities that are going through some big challenges today. We are supporting them. But in addition, we've created an economic environment in British Columbia today that is producing jobs and that is producing new opportunities for those families and new opportunities for those communities.

All I can say is that if the forest industry was going through the kind of challenges in 1996 that it's going through today, the entire economy of this province would be on its heels. But because we have such a strong economy, we can support those communities, and we can create the diversification they need.

N. Macdonald: So this government won't put up the Forests Minister. We're asking forestry questions. They've given up on getting him answering questions, but if another minister is going to stand up, there has to be some improvement on the quality of answers.

What every single person in this province knows is that B.C. Liberal forestry policy has been an abject failure. We see it each and every day. Some 13,000 workers this year….

Now even cutting-edge companies like Coe Newnes, which was until Wednesday Salmon Arm's largest private employer…. Now 110 people are out of work, and 220 are at risk. These workers have been offered no severance.

Like tens of thousands of people in this province, they are being affected by this government's poor policy. These are people with mortgages to pay, but all the minister has to offer is some federal money to pay for scattered programs like tuition for some.

So the overhyped pronouncements by this Premier are worth nothing to them. This government came to power promising to increase jobs in forestry.

N. Macdonald: To the Minister of Forests: will he admit that B.C. Liberal forest policies have crushed B.C.'s most important industry?

Hon. R. Coleman: I think it's time for you to be honest with British Columbians over there on the opposition. Be honest with British Columbians. Tell them the truth about the North American markets. Tell them the truth about the dollar. Tell them the truth about the changes in housing starts in the United States.

Why don't you tell the people the truth? Quit selling false hopes over there. The reality is that we're doing everything possible to work with our forest sector, and we'll continue to do so in the province of British Columbia.

D. Routley: Mr. Speaker, 13,000 jobs have been lost under the watch of that Forests Minister, and he doesn't have the gumption — or the government doesn't — to put him up to answer questions until he thinks he's on the last one. Well, he's not.

D. Routley: No, the real crime is that thousands of those jobs were lost unnecessarily. Pulp mills with markets…. Pulp in 2002 was $500 a tonne. Today it's $840 a tonne. Sawmills with markets can't get logs. It's because of his policies around logs and pulpwood.

News for the minister: those workers don't want to be transitioned out of their jobs. They want their jobs, and he can give them to them. He has the power, with the stroke of a pen, to change those policies and get fibre to those mills. That's not a market matter. That's a policy matter brought on by that minister and that Premier.

When will they step up and do something to reverse that, and bring wood to our mills?

Hon. R. Coleman: Once again, the member opposite refuses to be honest with the people of Vancouver Island and the people of British Columbia. Why don't you be honest? Why don't you go and have a conversation…

Hon. R. Coleman: …with the pulp and paper sector in British Columbia? You quoted a year, hon. Member. If you go talk to them, do you know what they'll tell you?

Whatever increase in the pulp price they've gotten has been lost in the increase of the dollar. They'll tell you. I was actually in meetings with the pulp sector only a week ago, and that's exactly what they told me.

Quite frankly, why don't you people start to be honest with British Columbia? First of all, there's fibre available for pulp mills in the province of British Columbia, and we get it to them when they need it. We've told everybody that wants to come and look at Harmac that we'll find the fibre if they want to have a look at that business. We'll continue to do that, in spite of the fact that they want to be disingenuous and not tell people the truth.

D. Routley: Well, the minister said to quit selling false hopes. You know what, Minister? It's not a false hope to the pulp mill workers to deliver them fibre to a market that they can fill. It's not false hope to deliver cedar logs to cedar mills to fill markets they can fill — except that this minister created a monopoly so they can't get those logs. That is what's happened.

This minister and this government fiddled away the best markets in North American history. Just like bad chipmunks, they didn't put any chestnuts in the tree. Now the winter of markets is upon us, and the communities we represent are on their backs when they're being asked to fight back. This minister, this bad chipmunk that failed to put chestnuts in the tree during the good times, now points to us.

Deliver to the workers and the communities of British Columbia a promise today, Mr. Minister.

D. Routley: Promise them that you will reverse your policies, deliver fibre to those mills and keep those jobs in British Columbia.

Hon. R. Coleman: I learned a long time ago that when nobody had a valid argument, they would resort to insults because they had nothing else to put on the table of any valid information.

So $129 million, community development trust; $17.25 million going to tuition for workers; $85.5 million for transition for older workers; and $26.25 million for job opportunities, announced by the Premier on Friday.

The fact of the matter is that we work with companies. We find them the fibre. That isn't the issue here. You better start being honest with people, because we're going to work with the communities to find their future while you spend your time delivering negativity and putting your constituents down when you shouldn't be doing so.

M. Sather: Ecosystem Restoration Associates, a carbon offset company, cut down over 300 red alders along the North Alouette River in Maple Ridge, along with native shrubs. They're planting little seedlings, and they're going to sell this project as a carbon offset project.

It's really troubling that these kind of anti-environmental initiatives are happening, particularly when so many more companies are getting into the carbon offset business. My question to the Minister of the Environment is: what is this government going to do to provide oversight to carbon offset companies?

Hon. B. Penner: I'm not familiar with the specific case that the member just referenced, but I will endeavour to look into it. It's worth noting that the opposition has been opposed to almost every single initiative we've brought forward to combat greenhouse gas emissions.

Hon. B. Penner: They've been opposed to every renewable energy project that's gone forward in British Columbia in the last seven years. They've voted against, in principle, a cap-and-trade system to limit industrial greenhouse gas emissions. They're opposed to a carbon tax, which academics and environmentalists support as a way of putting a price on carbon instead of using the atmosphere as a free garbage dump.

It's time for the opposition to say what they would do to combat greenhouse gas emissions rather than just spouting hot air during question period.

M. Sather: Well, I don't know what the research and the minister are doing, but it was on TV on Global last Friday night. But anyway, research….

M. Sather: Red alder is a naturally occurring species that puts nitrogen into the soil and provides the soil for the conifers that will come later on. What this company did in cutting all that alder down…. They opened this area right along a floodplain to more erosion. As well, the trees that they've left there…. The community is really upset that these are going to get into the river and cause a logjam. In addition to that, they cleared a whole bunch of wildlife habitat in bird nesting season.

How can the people of British Columbia have any confidence in carbon offset projects like this if the government has no oversight, isn't paying attention and maybe doesn't even care?

Hon. B. Penner: I understand the opposition gets their research through the media, and we've already seen that demonstrated before. I've already indicated we will be looking into the matter that the member raises here today.

However, we continue to await any sign of leadership — any sign of leadership at all — from the opposition when it comes to greenhouse gas emissions, reducing emissions or providing for our energy needs in British Columbia. You know, the only thing they've put on the table so far this session in terms of their energy plans or their energy ideas is to continue to import power into British Columbia well into the future.

They're opposed to self-sufficiency. They're opposed to wind power projects. They're opposed to run-of-the-river projects that even have partnerships with first nations. That opposition hasn't shown any leadership at all when it comes to the environment.

L. Krog: On Friday the Premier's former deputy minister confirmed that he reviewed and discussed documents seized by the RCMP in the B.C. Rail corruption case. Mr. Dobell also confirmed he did not sign an undertaking that would have given him the ability to see those documents. In other words, Mr. Dobell was not entitled to see or discuss those documents. These undertakings were sworn in order to protect the integrity of the RCMP investigation into the B.C. Rail corruption case while seized documents were vetted for privilege.

Question to the Premier: can he explain why Mr. Dobell received access to these confidential documents contrary to the undertaking sworn in court?

Hon. W. Oppal: The member opposite is obviously referring to evidence that he's heard in the trial that's before the Supreme Court. We have made it clear throughout that we will not comment on anything that's before the Supreme Court, because it's improper to do so.

L. Krog: The documents shared and discussed with Mr. Dobell all deal with the second round of the bidding process, the round where the issue of the consolation prize arose. That means those documents go to the heart of the B.C. Rail corruption trial. When Mr. Dobell reviewed those documents, he was also told that the RCMP was going to interview Ministers Collins and Reid about the documents. The special prosecutor instructed that this information not be shared, yet we know it was.

Does the Premier agree that sharing this information with Mr. Dobell may have provided the means for Mr. Collins, Ms. Reid and others to be informed about the nature of the RCMP's concerns prior to the interviews, and does the Premier not agree that this is a serious breach in the integrity of the RCMP investigation?

Hon. W. Oppal: Well, I'm somewhat disappointed in the member opposite, who is a member of the bar. He obviously has.…

Hon. W. Oppal: He has obviously ignored the well-established principle of judicial independence. We will not ignore that principle on this side of the House.

B. Ralston: The Premier felt comfortable enough to discuss these issues last spring in estimates debate here in this very room. Mr. Dobell confirmed Friday that he was under no obligation of confidentiality with respect to these documents. He had not signed an undertaking to the court. During the period in question, there were at least four cabinet meetings involving many of the people who were to be interviewed by the RCMP.

The Attorney General must see that the disclosure to Mr. Dobell tainted the investigation. This wasn't a leak from the RCMP. This wasn't a leak from the special prosecutor's office. It occurred between the Ministry of Attorney General and the Premier's office. What is the Premier going to do about it?

Hon. W. Oppal: These issues are all before the Supreme Court of British Columbia. Madam Justice Elizabeth Bennett is hearing the case. She will make the appropriate findings, and we'll live by them.

B. Ralston: The issue of the documents before the court was discussed here in estimates debate in spring 2007, so that excuse simply doesn't wash. The Ministry of Attorney General informed the Deputy Minister to the Premier about key documents that the RCMP wished to use to question Ministers Collins and Reid. This was contrary to a protocol approved by the Supreme Court restricting access to the documents to four people only.

These actions of the Ministry of Attorney General may well have tainted the integrity of the RCMP investigation. If the Attorney General won't act, will he at least agree that the matter be referred to the RCMP for their investigation?

Hon. W. Oppal: If the process was tainted, we'll let the judge make that finding. We don't have to make that finding here.

S. Fraser: The Vancouver Island Health Authority last week shut down the psychiatric ward at the West Coast General Hospital in Port Alberni with only two days' notice. The ward is now closed despite opposition from the community and from doctors. I know the

minister will say that this is because one of the psychiatric doctors was leaving the community, but it is well known in Port Alberni — and the minister should know this — that general practitioners play a very vital role in psychiatric care. There is no reason why that can't continue in the designated ward.

The ward is an integral part of the health care continuum of Port Alberni and the entire west coast and Pacific Rim, and everyone in the community understands that it is a vital service. Everyone understands what a mistake it is to close the ward. The closure is about hurting communities, not about helping patients. Will the minister commit to reopening the ward?

Hon. G. Abbott: It is interesting that this member of the Legislature would submit his political judgment in place of the medical judgments of the professionals at the Vancouver Island Health Authority. The fact of the matter is that Port Alberni has lost one of its two psychiatrists. They are not able to maintain the programs at the hospital as a consequence of that.

As the member knows well, Vancouver Island Health Authority is recruiting extensively to replace this position. But until it is replaced, they will not be able to provide those services. It is perhaps unfortunate that we do have, provincially and nationally, a shortage of psychiatrists. That is one of the consequences of the lack of investment in health care professionals in the 1990s by the NDP government.

S. Fraser: I mean, the answer doesn't befit a minister of the Crown. It's more like an answer from an uninterested spectator. For a moment I thought I was asking a question on forestry.

We've heard this before from the minister and from VIHA — that it's a worldwide shortage. The problem with doctor shortage in Port Alberni was solved by the former chief of staff and the local community, which worked together a couple of years ago. The response from VIHA and the minister was to fire the chief of staff, because it made them look bad.

Another thing. There's nothing on the VIHA website. There are no ads for this position. There are no ads on the Health Match B.C. website. There's nothing. The minister is patently wrong here. Simply put, this closure is unnecessary and will only serve to put patients and staff at risk in this community.

My question is to the Minister of Health, or to the spectator of health. There is no reason for the psychiatric ward to close. There is no reason to transport psychiatric patients for hours. There's been no discussion with the RCMP. There's been no discussion whatsoever. This government is picking apart health care in the region. On Wednesday the minister gave the community two days' notice that that ward would be closed. Will the minister today give the community two days' notice that he will ensure it's reopened?

Hon. G. Abbott: One of the things I will not be doing is submitting the political judgment of the member for the medical judgment of the Vancouver Island Health Authority. That I will not be doing.

I know the members opposite don't like to hear this, but when the 1990s started, there were 128 physicians being educated annually at the University of British Columbia. When the decade ended, in fact to 2001, there were…

Hon. G. Abbott: …128 physicians being graduated annually from the University of British Columbia.

Last fall our government, after its investment, saw 256 students registering — 256 medical students at UBC, at the University of Victoria and at the University of Northern British Columbia.

Hon. M. de Jong: I call second reading debate of Bill 31, Greenhouse Gas Reduction (Emissions Standards) Statutes Amendment Act, 2008; and in Section A, Committee of Supply, for the information of members, estimates for the Ministry of Children and Family Development.

I'll canvass in a bit more detail than I did in first reading some of the key elements of Bill 31. The first portion….

Hon. B. Penner: Mr. Speaker, would you like me to pause for a moment while some members calm down?

Mr. Speaker: Members, would you go about whatever business you have outside the chamber.

Hon. B. Penner: The first portion of this bill consists of amendments to the Environmental Management Act. These amendments will add new provisions to address the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions

from certain industry sectors, one of them being waste management facilities, which includes landfills, sewage treatment plants, waste incinerators and recycling or composting facilities.

New authority being added to the act will allow the government to require operators of specified waste management facilities to capture and manage greenhouse gases produced by wastes that they handle. This legislation will allow the government to regulate a wide range of sources and techniques to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions generated by the decomposition of waste.

The intention is to focus on landfills first. As a sector, landfills are a significant source of greenhouse gas emissions, accounting for about 8 percent of British Columbia's total greenhouse gas emissions. The main component of landfill gas is methane. Tonne for tonne, this gas has a greenhouse gas impact in the atmosphere that is 21 times greater than the effects of carbon dioxide, which is the most common greenhouse gas.

Regulating for the capture of methane from landfills is, therefore, an effective way to make significant headway in reducing British Columbia's contribution to global greenhouse gas emissions. When compared to some other greenhouse gas reduction actions, capturing landfill gas is also a relatively efficient way to reduce emissions.

The other industry sector being addressed by the addition of new authorities to the Environmental Management Act is power generation. These amendments will put into law two key commitments in this government's energy plan concerning greenhouse gas emissions from electricity generation facilities.

The first of these commitments is to require that there be zero greenhouse gas emissions from any coal thermal electricity generation in British Columbia. This means that coal-based generating facilities will need to capture and store or sequester their greenhouse gas emissions. The legislation recognizes that some coal-based generation facilities may use more than one kind of fuel. For those facilities, the requirement to capture and store or sequester applies only to the coal-related emissions.

Since it may not always be feasible to separate the actual coal-related emissions from emissions produced from other fuels, the legislation provides that the requirement to capture and store emissions can be met by storing or sequestering greenhouse gas emissions from the same facility that are equivalent to the emissions produced by the burning of coal. The overall aim is to ensure that coal-based generation facilities in this province will not add to the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

This legislation also recognizes that technology is evolving and that ways to both capture and store or sequester emissions will improve and change over time. With this in mind, the act provides authority to make regulations on acceptable methods and standards for the capture and storage of emissions.

The second energy plan commitment addressed by this legislation is the requirement that all new electricity generation will have "zero net" greenhouse gas emissions and that existing thermal facilities will have zero net greenhouse gas emissions by 2016. This means that greenhouse gases produced by these facilities must be offset.

Specified producers of electricity, which will be defined by regulations based on their use of fossil fuels other than coal, will be required to report on their emissions and balance any greenhouse gas emissions that they do not store or sequester by using offsets, much like the compliance framework proposed as part of the Greenhouse Gas Reduction (Cap and Trade) Act.

The net zero emissions requirement will apply not just to load-serving public utilities like B.C. Hydro but to all generation facilities connected to the grid, including independent power producers. Together these two requirements — zero emissions for coal-based generation and net zero for other electricity generation — will allow the province to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from our electricity generation sector.

Along with this government's support for renewable energy sources like run-of-river hydro projects, expansion to B.C. Hydro facilities, future wind power projects and wood waste, the new provisions in the Environmental Management Act will ensure that British Columbia will continue to have one of the lowest greenhouse gas emission electricity sectors in the world.

This bill also contains legislation developed by the Ministry of Forests and Range. The bioenergy strategy amendments to the Forest Act will provide new licensing provisions that will enable the better use of wood residue for mountain pine–beetle attack timber as a source of power, thereby encouraging the development of the bioenergy sector.

This government is committed to taking action on climate change while also creating new economic opportunities for rural communities. We also want British Columbia to be self-sufficient again in meeting our electricity needs, and we've set a target date of 2016 for accomplishing that. All these goals are discussed in the energy plan and the bioenergy strategy. The bioenergy strategy makes it clear that we can make better use of our abundant natural biomass resources such as wood waste and mountain pine beetle–kill timber.

This bill delivers on this idea by encouraging the use of wood fibre as a potential source of bioenergy power. The provisions in this bill will improve access to fibre in several ways. The amendments will give government the authority to issue a forest licence directly to successful applicants responding to calls for power from B.C. Hydro. This will streamline the issuing of licences and eliminate government's obligation to conduct a duplicate competitive award process.

A new form of the licence-to-cut tenure is also being created called the fibre supply licence to cut. It will provide access to timber that is desirable for bioenergy or other purposes, including piles of waste wood left at roadsides or landings. The rights of existing licensees will be protected by ensuring rights to these piles are

Authorities concerning forestry licence to cut are also being updated to do two things. First, the amendments will allow this form of licence to be used to enable the removal and processing of waste timber at roadsides and landings.

Second, the changes will enable the existing forestry licence to cut for standing timber to be direct-awarded to successful applicants responding to B.C. Hydro's call for power.

Authorities in the forest legislation concerning timber scaling requirements are also being updated by this bill to facilitate the measurement of chips and other material to support the bioenergy industry. This will facilitate more efficient and cost-effective operations. These amendments will also create the means to enforce the chief forester's partition of the allowable annual cut for certain purposes, such as the harvest of beetle wood.

Lastly, this bill contains minor housekeeping amendments to the Forest Act and the Forest and Range Practices Act.

To sum up, the amendments to the forest legislation will further the work of this government in achieving its bioenergy strategy, creating new opportunities for rural communities and ensuring sounds management of forest resources. Meanwhile, the amendments to the Environmental Management Act will provide new authority to address greenhouse gas emissions from waste management facilities and electricity generation.

I'll take my place and see if there are any comments from the opposition on second reading.

S. Simpson: I am pleased to have the opportunity to stand and speak to Bill 31, the Greenhouse Gas Reduction (Emissions Standards) Statutes Amendment Act, 2008. This particular piece of legislation deals with a couple of changes, some very specific changes — though there's not information to tell us what the results of that will be — related to forestry in the province and the creation of new tenures.

This is of concern, certainly, to the industry, to first nations and to others, and I'll look forward to having the opportunity a little bit later in this discussion to speak to that. I would acknowledge that I am the designated speaker on this bill.

The bill also deals with changes that relate to coal-fired electricity and, in particular, to carbon capture-and-storage approaches or strategies related to that, strategies that we'll talk about a little bit as I proceed. We know that technology certainly is not developed today and presents some real challenges for us as we move forward around how that will work.

It also talks, significantly, about other forms of electricity generation and zero emissions on electricity generation. What the bill talks about generally, when you look at it…. As the minister referenced in his comments, it does go back and deal with the energy plan that was introduced last year.

The disappointing thing about the bill is that it really doesn't take the discussion that was in the energy plan and advance it any further than what was put in that document at that time. So we've had a significant period of time pass, and this piece of legislation doesn't tell us a lot more about what will actually occur or not occur because of the plan.

The plan itself, the energy plan, referenced a number of items, and we were told at that time to wait for the legislation. We were told that when the legislation came, it would inform the plan, and it would tell us what was anticipated. It would give us some substance and detail in regard to how the government planned to move forward — in this case, around emission standards.

Unfortunately, the legislation doesn't do that. What the legislation does is…. This piece of legislation is very similar to most of the bills that the Minister of Environment has introduced in regard to climate change issues in this session. It's an enabling bill. Now, what that means, for people who might be listening, is that it's a bill that creates a framework for taking certain actions — actions that are vague at best.

It authorizes a regulatory regime. People who are interested in this debate and certainly concerned about the issue of climate change and greenhouse gas emissions should know that those regulations now are done by cabinet. What that means is that there is no legislative oversight. In most of these instances, as with other pieces of legislation that we'll talk about a little bit, the bill says very little about what the government actually hopes to achieve. It says little about the analysis that has been done, if any, to tell us where we're going. There are no background, supporting documents provided for this legislation.

Instead, it says, "Trust me," again, for the minister and for cabinet to put in place any regulations that they deem appropriate. There is no need to have any consultation about those regulations. It's not a requirement. There's no need to have any discussions with members of this House about those regulations. It is not a requirement. There's no need to inform the public about what's being deliberated so that input can be got before decisions are taken.

As we know, the level of secrecy that has been embraced by this Premier and by this minister and this cabinet around the whole climate change issue…. And the secrecy continues to be a matter that is mind-boggling for most people — that on this issue of such global importance the government would resist talking to British Columbians about their plans or engaging British Columbians in helping to evolve those plans.

Instead, what we have is another piece of enabling legislation that suggests that there may be some changes made. The minister would tell us that it's a piece of legislation that fulfils the commitments of the energy plan, but to fulfil the commitments of the energy plan, in my view, requires the government to tell us much more than they're prepared to tell us in Bill 31. It would require the government to talk to us about how they actually get at some of these challenges that are identified in the bill.

How do we actually get at those zero emissions that they talk about for electricity? What is the coal capture and storage, the sequestration strategy? How is that going to get put in place? As we know, there's a great amount of work to be done on that issue before it gets commercialized in a way that industry can actually accomplish the sequestration that everybody talks about and that we certainly hope is successful. There is an open and very public debate about whether that will or won't work. There are people who are clear advocates, and I would be hopeful that carbon capture and storage can be made to work.

It's very important for us, certainly, as a province that has a pretty strong coalmining industry and one that needs to be able to proceed. But we need to find ways to do that with additional technology that deals with the results of that industry in terms of those buyers of our coal who primarily use it to burn for electricity production. We, of course, as British Columbia, should feel some obligation to be working to develop that carbon capture-and-storage technology to be able to sell it as a complement to coal as we move forward.

Getting back to the reference that I was making in terms of what the bill does and doesn't do, the bill doesn't talk about…. It's interesting. The bill talks about greenhouse gases in its introduction, its subject matter and its title.

Yet I would challenge anybody — and the minister, maybe at some point when he gets to close comments — to get up and point out in this legislation where it actually talks about how greenhouse gas emissions get reduced by this bill, what the approach is to that, how much they might get reduced by, what kinds of penalties might be put in place for those who don't follow the approaches here, how the technology for sequestration will get developed and what the projections and expectations are about reducing emissions from that.

The problem is that that information…. This bill, this legislation, doesn't touch those matters in any way, shape or form. It doesn't talk about any of the issues about how we get at greenhouse gas reductions, and that's a problem. It is the same problem, I think, as I've pointed out, that we see with pretty much all the legislation that's been brought by the Minister of Environment on this issue in this session. We will get to talk about it all, or certainly a good portion of it, before the government brings closure.

Every one of those bills functions in much the same way as this — as an enabling piece of legislation. That's a problem.

If you talk to people who are experts in this field — whether it be academics, people in the environmental community, people in the business community — they look at bills like Bill 31 or Bill 18, the cap-and-trade bill, and their response to us is: "It tells us nothing about what the government is actually going to do. It gives us no formal process to engage in these discussions. It gives us no confidence that the government is going to develop plans that are sustainable for British Columbia and that will, first of all, actually lead to reductions in greenhouse gases; second, that will provide support for industry and for communities as they cope to deal with these reductions in emissions; and third, that actually engages us in a discussion of these solutions."

Bill 31 does none of that. It doesn't offer that opportunity up in any way, shape or form for British Columbians, for the business community, for the environmental community. Nor did, for example, Bill 18, the cap-and-trade bill that we are in the process of discussing now.

Just to speak a little bit about the kind of challenge we have here. On the issue of coal and coal sequestration, I spoke a moment ago about the challenge of actually getting at this technology and determining what this technology can and can't do. Well, there isn't a technology today. There certainly are some pilot projects. There are some investments going on in Saskatchewan and elsewhere. The federal government has put some dollars in play to try to develop some capture-and-storage solutions, but it hasn't been done yet.

So we don't know what this looks like. For people who might be listening, essentially the process largely for this with coal is what's called a gasification process where you separate out the gases, the CO₂, or the carbon dioxide, and the hydrogen mostly, and then you find ways to sequester or store the CO₂ underground — which is the primary gas around greenhouse gases.

It's a complicated piece of work to do that. There is work going on. I know in the United States they have invested significantly in looking at sequestration or capture-and-storage strategies. There are investments going on in Saskatchewan.

I would note that there is no investment in looking at that in British Columbia that we can see. Certainly, the government has talked about it in their energy plan. The minister has talked about it, but in terms of actually investing dollars in helping to see how that works, we haven't seen dollars invested to support that kind of research and technology.

That has to raise a question, and it is a question about credibility. The question about credibility is this: if, as a government, you put forward a plan as one of the cornerstone plans of a piece of legislation on how you're going to reduce emissions through a strategy or a technology that is in its formative stages, that has not been developed yet, that has not been commercialized yet and is not being put into place yet…. You put forward pieces of legislation that say, "This is what we're going to accomplish," using something that is unproven. Then you refuse in your budget or anywhere in the legislation or anywhere else to talk about how you, in fact, will support the development of that technology.

It is irresponsible to simply say that we're going to adopt a technology that everybody knows doesn't exist yet. There's been some hopeful work done. There certainly have been other efforts made around this, but the technology doesn't exist. That is the shame with this legislation. It is another piece of legislation, much like most of the rest of the legislation we've seen that comes with the preamble "greenhouse gas reduction" in it from the Minister of Environment, that is not

based on any work. It's legislation that's based on shallow rhetoric. It's legislation that's based on trying to grab a headline.

Maybe just to give you my sense of why this has happened in this session with Bill 31, with other bills. When the government brought the budget forward, there was a lot of hype around how this was going to be the green budget for this government, framed largely around the fuel tax. We did get a fuel tax in the budget, and I would note that that piece of legislation is a substantive piece of legislation. It provides the details that the legislation offered up by the Minister of Environment — like Bill 31 — doesn't.

I would say that the fuel tax does provide a significant amount of detail, and it's easy enough to read that and to be briefed on that by ministry officials and to understand where this goes. The shortcomings, the places where the government doesn't have answers in that bill and where the Minister of Finance didn't have answers, are easily identifiable, and ministry staff would acknowledge that they don't have answers around those questions. But it is a substantive bill. It does talk about what penalties look like. It does talk about dollars and cents. It does talk about levels. It does talk about all of those things.

Bill 31, like Bill 18, talks about none of those things as an enabling piece of legislation, and it embraces technology that isn't operationalized yet. So that's a big challenge. I guess the question…. We'll, hopefully, have some discussion of this, should we get this bill to committee stage, and we'll have to see whether the government brings it for committee stage or not. When we get this bill to committee stage, we'll certainly be looking for an explanation of how the government and the minister plan to accomplish those things that are identified in the bill.

Getting back to what I was talking about. This is part of the reason, I suspect, that this bill, along with a number of other bills that are a lot like it…. Pretty shallow. Not much in the way of substance. Back-load everything into regulation so that the minister, or more correctly the Premier, can write those regulations in due course somewhere down the road and can do it in secret, talking to whoever they want to, but not having to tell anybody who those discussions are with.

What we had, though, was a budget that said it was the green budget. It talked about a fuel tax that, in fact, was brought forward, and it then said that there would be a number of initiatives. We were told about a plan, a climate change plan. We haven't seen that plan yet. Maybe we'll see it sometime in the next couple of months after we're out of this place.

We were told that there would be a plan. Well, the budget really brought the tax, and it brought a handful of items that got PST exemptions through 2011. In terms of climate change, greenhouse gas emissions, that's largely what was brought. We'll get a chance to talk about the tax when the government deems to bring that piece of legislation for debate.

What we do know is that there was this huge vacuum after the government had told us that this was the green budget. That vacuum has now been filled up, so to speak, by half a dozen pieces of legislation, mostly under the name of the Minister of Environment, though some under other ministers. It's been brought forward to say: "Here you go. We've cobbled together what might be the climate change plan."

The problem, of course, is that those pieces of legislation don't connect to each other very well. They certainly don't look like a plan or at least a plan that any thought has been put into. And of course, they don't connect to the other activity going on in the province and other public policy of this government. We'll talk about that a little bit — in the area, particularly around this, when it comes to questions around forestry and bioenergy and the total disconnect between what's being discussed here and the state of affairs in our forests in British Columbia today.

What we have is a situation where we do need to get at this issue. We would call on and certainly encourage the government that if they're going to adopt legislation like this — if they're going to come forward and talk about things like sequestration — they actually put in place some resources and some expertise to be able to go out and explore that issue; that they make available to the public some understanding about what the state of affairs on carbon capture and storage is — information about what research is going on in those areas and some understanding of when it's reasonably expected and, hopefully, some understanding from an independent authority about when that technology might be in place and when we might expect it to proceed.

There clearly is a large debate about that issue around carbon capture and storage. That issue is often spoken about in terms of whether we should or shouldn't be doing carbon capture and storage. For us, in coal, I think it makes sense. We would be supportive of looking at an effective program that actually got us there. We would like very much for the government to come forward and tell us where that program is and how we might expect to see that program moving forward.

Part of the challenge we have is also with some of the things that we know aren't in the bill. We know there are things that are, of course, in the energy plan.

S. Simpson: There are pieces of the energy plan that aren't enabled by this particular legislation, and we will look to see where the legislation comes for that. The bill doesn't talk about ensuring that the clean or renewable electricity generation continues to count for at least 90 percent of new generation, which the government has talked about, but we don't see that in this particular piece of bill.

We know this is a very big issue in communities. We've heard from people in first nations communities

and others. It doesn't talk about how it deals with issues around coalbed gas practices in North America and here in British Columbia and how we will deal with that.

I would note that the bill, when it talks about emissions reductions, doesn't talk about how it gets that flaring and fugitive gas from our oil and gas sector. We haven't heard anything about that. The government has said continually that their goal is to eliminate that by 2016 and to reduce by half the flaring and fugitive gases by 2011, I believe.

The challenge, of course, is that we're getting pretty close to 2011, and we still haven't heard how that might occur to get that 50 percent reduction.

This might be an ideal piece of legislation for the government to have included that piece in and said: "Here's how we're going to get at flaring and fugitive emissions." That would have been a positive thing for the government to do. It would have been a substantive thing for the government to do, because we do know that flaring and fugitive emissions are a significant problem and contribute to our emissions. Yet we didn't hear anything about that. We didn't hear anything about that at all.

I know I have colleagues in the House who will speak to this matter as well, but I want to move my discussion over a little bit to the section on bioenergy.

The bill purports, really, to be designed to help emissions by getting us into bioenergy in a more substantive way than we are today. But what it doesn't do — and this is unfortunate…. It talks about getting into bioenergy. It talks about significant changes, particularly around forestry and around tenure relationship. But it gives us no idea about what those reductions in emissions might well be. It doesn't tell us what we can expect to get in terms of reduced emissions there.

While the number is a modest number in the fuel tax bill, the Minister of Finance told us in the budget that her expectation was that by 2020, the fuel tax would reduce about three megatons of emissions. I think she said that. I think the budget number says that.

That's an optimistic number, but the three megatons is the number there. That would be a little more than about 2 percent of our overall emissions in British Columbia. That's what will be accomplished by the fuel tax, and we'll have a discussion here about whether or not that constitutes an effective tax when that piece of legislation comes. At least there was a number that said: "Here's what we think we're going to accomplish by doing this."

In regards to this bioenergy strategy…. Among other things, we get no number. We have no idea what will be accomplished by this approach to bioenergy. But while we have no idea how this works, what we do know is that this notion of creating a whole other set of tenures for bioenergy creates a complication in a sector, a key industry, that is in crisis.

We discuss this industry in question period just about every day because of the 13,000 people…. Some 13,000 jobs gone in the last year or so because of the crisis that has been created. We would say, and we know, that a significant part of that crisis relates to fibre supply. We know a significant amount of that crisis relates to the lack of fibre coming into mills for them to be able to do the work that they can do, and that is a huge, huge problem.

We now are looking at creating here, under this structure, probably an opportunity for the private power operators to look at how they get into bioenergy. The discussion here isn't around how we can in fact begin to create maybe opportunities for others who are already working to be able to take advantage of some bioenergy opportunities that already exist with existing facilities, where there's some room to work around that.

The suggestion here is that if we're going to harvest trees for the purpose of bioenergy, there's a serious question about the economics of this. We know the government has not judged the economics of this industry very well, and that's reflected in the 13,000 people who don't have a job today, who did have a job a year or so ago.

What we know, of course, when we look at this…. We can look at what that effect has been on this sector. We've seen 271 jobs lost in Mackenzie. We've seen 530 jobs in Harmac. We've seen the Fort St. James mill — 270-odd jobs there.

These are all situations where the question of the future of the forest sector and tenure — and supply is a key piece of that — has not been addressed effectively by this government and is arguably not being addressed effectively now. Yet we have Bill 31, and what Bill 31 is prepared to do is in fact create the potential, the framework, for a totally different approach to how we deal with some of these issues.

It's done without at this point…. At least it hasn't been made available to us. We haven't seen the science — that we're going to burn that wood waste, and we're going to burn that wood product — to really understand what the implications of that are for reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. I think most of us here would say that maybe that works well. We're accelerating the loss of carbon from primarily, in this case, the dead forests or wood waste. We might accelerate that by burning it. There's no doubt about that.

But we don't know what the long-term implications of doing that are. That's a question that requires an answer. It's a question that requires an answer not just around this issue around bioenergy, but it's the much broader question around climate change and the lack of plan.

Maybe when the climate action team reports out in July, they will have done the work. Hard to say. Maybe they'll have done the work. Maybe at some point the secretariat will release information, but hard to say. There's certainly no indication of that now, as to the independent assessment of a number of these schemes of the government and what the actual projections are on reductions in emissions.

I understand the government is paying Mr. Jaccard pretty well to deal with these things, so maybe he's

going to do those assessments and provide that information. The hope we would have is that if he's doing this work or if they've contracted somebody else or if it's being done in house by Mr. Whitmarsh and his team — if it's being done by anybody in a substantive way — they will make that information available. They will be able to talk about Bill 31 and what the bioenergy strategy in Bill 31 looks like. What does it mean in terms of emissions, and what are the challenges in terms of emissions? But we haven't seen any of that. We haven't seen any of that at all.

We also know that we have a current situation where there is an issue around planning in the forest sector. As I said previously, that is a discussion that comes up in this House on a daily basis as members on this side go home to their communities or visit other communities in this province and hear from forest workers and their families and hear from the leadership of those communities who see a crisis unfolding in front of them, see their jobs disappearing and are looking for help and for a plan that they think will work.

But we don't have that plan right now. Instead of a plan being done that will actually deal with those challenges around the forest industry, the government is suggesting here in Bill 31 adding a new layer of tenure without any review of the impact on annual allowable cut on mid- and long-term timber supplies — on how that will work.

The question becomes: is it responsible to take that kind of action when you haven't done the work on the industry and on the sector in the first case? That is a challenge.

I think that with the bill, we need to look at a couple of things, and I'd like to talk a little bit about some of those things that we need to look at. We are looking for a much better explanation around how, in fact, we get to zero emissions in electricity. The bill talks about offsets as an approach to do that.

We on this side of the House are of the view, in regard to the use of offsets, that offsets provide an interim tool while you develop the technology to actually reduce emissions. They shouldn't be a way to buy your way out of responsibility to reduce emissions. They provide a tool that gives you some time to do that work to reduce your emissions.

That's an important tool, and we're supportive of an offsets program as a tool to be used for that. We are much less enthusiastic about the ability of industry or others to buy their way out of taking action to actually reduce greenhouse gases by deciding it's a cost of doing business to buy offsets.

As you know, there were questions raised today by the member for Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows in regard to what those offset programs look like, needing to have a good understanding of which programs are available for offsets and how they should be used — how you deal with organizations or groups that want to put offset businesses in place — and ensuring that they are in fact delivering on their promises and that if we're buying into a particular set of offsets as are suggested in Bill 31, we are in fact accomplishing the objectives of net zero that the minister talked about.

The problem is that we don't have that information. The government has not made that information available. We have no sense right now about what the government's policy on offsets will be.

In some cases, and we may find this, there may be industries where for the foreseeable future reducing emissions is a challenge that we can't get around. Aviation may be one of those sectors. Progress is being made, but depending on who you talk to, it has a long way to go before we see significant reductions in aviation. Aviation is an area where offsets might be a reality for us for an extended period of time.

If we identify industries that fit that bill, then they should be identified and labelled as such. There should be reporting and monitoring around that and insurances that those industries as well, even where it's somewhat more challenging, are continuing to strive to find the reductions in emissions that we know need to be put in place.

We don't know from Bill 31 what the government's intentions around offsets are, other than that they reference offsets in the bill as a way to get to net zero around electricity production. So the question then becomes: what is it that we're doing around getting to net zero there?

We also know there's a discussion in the bill…. The bill speaks to enforcement. The bill speaks to the ability to get at ensuring that records are in fact retained, etc., in regard to some of the pieces of the bill. I look particularly at the waste management facilities. In other sections of the bill it also talks about records being kept.

What it doesn't talk about anywhere in the bill is who has access to those records. How transparent will that be? How available will that information be for the public so that they can have confidence that the expectations that are supposed to be accomplished by the bill…?

At some point presumably in regulation, we're going to see some kind of numbers put to these regulations. We're going to have a reasonable expectation about what the actions of Bill 31 should accomplish in terms of reductions in emissions. What should we reasonably expect?

What will we measure against? There should be some explanation — and it's not here — about how we will measure those reductions. Will the companies measure those reductions and report it? Will the government measure those reductions themselves? How is that all going to work? We don't know that yet.

I'm assuming that we're going to see some broader framework for how we measure those emission reductions. We're going to see that at some point from the government. It's apparently not going to be in this session. Maybe it will be in the spring or at some time in the future. We don't see any of that at this point to know what we should reasonably expect to accomplish and how it gets measured.

As important — and this is certainly an issue that is a critical for us as the opposition — is how that gets reported out to the people of British Columbia so that everybody has access to information that will tell them what the government reasonably expects to accomplish in emission reductions, what is actually being accomplished and how it fits with these particular pieces of legislation and these particular bills. A number of them are in front of us today. How will we measure those reductions in emissions in regard to those bills? It will take us a little bit of time until we get to that.

Part of the challenge, of course, is around needing to have a better sense of how the government will apply this particular work to other policies in the province. We have the booming oil and gas sector. As I noted, we saw nothing in this legislation about controlling flaring in that sector. It's something that we think needs to be done.

We know the coal industry is a very important industry. Coalmining is very important. It's an important sector for us to be able to take advantage of. However, we have no sense about what we can reasonably expect to accomplish there.

We have no sense about how we measure progress. Are we to expect that in 2016, I believe, we will have sequestration in place? Should this government survive through the next election, are we to hear silence between now and whenever on these issues? Or is there some way that British Columbians can get to know how that carbon capture and storage planning is going and who will be doing the work?

Possibly that's not going to be at issue at all. It may be that instead what we will see is the government simply silent on this issue until such time as the federal government or Saskatchewan or West Virginia or the U.S. government or somebody else comes up with a plan that works, and then the government may look to adopt that. I guess that's not an unreasonable approach to take.

It is essentially the approach that the government is taking around tailpipe emission standards, as they relate to California, in another piece of legislation that we will presumably soon see in front of this House, where the government doesn't really know how they're going to approach this. That's again reflected in the legislation. It's much like this legislation or like Bill 18 on cap-and-trade. There at least we do know there's work being done in California on tailpipe emission standards. Should California ever settle its legal differences with the Environmental Protection Agency in the United States, that may actually move forward, and we might make some progress on that.

In that instance, it's important to know that California, a jurisdiction unlike British Columbia, pays a lot of attention to transparency and to making information available to their citizens. They have done a pretty good job of that in relation to a whole range of climate initiatives that they've taken, including the issues around tailpipe emissions and how they deal with that.

Not so much, here in British Columbia. We have levels of unprecedented secrecy here in British Columbia. In California they talk to their citizens about issues that are important to them. We do things differently in British Columbia, as we know.

This is a bill that we'll be looking for more information on as it goes forward. I would say: does everybody in this House want to find a way to have clean coal, as it's called, where we can effectively sequester CO₂ emissions and be able to allow coal to go forward? Absolutely. It's particularly important in British Columbia, because our coal industry is an important industry for us.

We're starting to see this now, as there's more and more talk about carbon tariffs and issues like that. We will start to see, at least in some countries, greater pressure if you're exporting products like coal that are significant CO₂ generators. There will be tariffs attached to that.

That's not necessarily a bad thing. If we're going to move forward on climate initiatives here, we may see ourselves doing similar things as well. But we can expect that to occur at some time in the not that distant future. If we had could develop that technology and sell it, it would be an excellent thing. Along with the coal, that would be very positive. That's a very good thing. If we can make that progress, that would be great.

The challenge here is some lack of confidence that this bill really takes us anywhere in that direction. It lays out a framework about what we might like to see but doesn't tell us anything about how we get there. It's the same thing in relation to electricity production, where it talks about a net zero on emissions there — a very positive thing. We certainly want to get our emissions down.

Of course, we know that in terms of electricity, our emissions are pretty good because of the vision — it wasn't necessarily for the reason of climate change — of W.A.C. Bennett and the creation of B.C. Hydro and the creation of our heritage dams and the progress that we've made there. It's very, very important for us to continue to support B.C. Hydro and move B.C. Hydro forward on these issues, and we would be very keen to do that. The more work we can do around net zero emissions, all the better.

The same around change as it relates to waste management facilities, to manage waste-generated GHGs. That's another piece in the bill that I haven't spoken very much about. Absolutely, waste management is a very important issue in British Columbia. We know that in Vancouver, of course, we have the debate going on between incinerators versus landfills and what the future holds.

I anticipate that the Minister of Environment at some point will have something specific to say about his views on that as it relates to Metro Vancouver. Clearly, whatever the decisions are there, we do need to ensure that how we manage our waste management is done with a recognition of greenhouse gas emissions and with a recognition that we want to drive those emissions down to the lowest possible levels.

Again the legislation, Bill 31, tells us nothing about how we get there. Instead, it lists a long list of

questions for regulation that will be answered in the regulatory process by the minister, by the Premier, by the cabinet — a series of questions that basically encompass all of the substantive information related to dealing with those emissions. That, of course, reflects on exactly what we're being told as it relates to the coal sequestration and to the electricity.

The other matter, though — and that's the one that's a little bit more concerning — certainly is the issue around bioenergy and the question there around whether this is in fact the right time to be doing those kinds of tenures, whether there isn't a better way to approach that, whether we need to make some changes around that. That's a piece of the legislation that is concerning, considering the current state of affairs in the forest industry generally.

It's a section that other members will speak more about in this debate, and it's a section that we will look to explore more when we get to committee stage and begin to deal with committees.

I look forward to us being able to move into a committee discussion. I have a number of colleagues who, as with myself, are supportive of the aspirations of the bill to bring greenhouse gas emissions down. However, as I've said, we don't see anywhere in here where that actually occurs. We do have, in particular, serious questions around the tenure issues around bioenergy that are in the bill. So we will have an opportunity to have some more debate.

Every member, of course, has the prerogative to stand and speak to this legislation. Just as an aside, it would be nice, having watched a number of bills go through this House — and I know that colleagues of mine have said this on this side — if we engaged in a debate that engaged both sides of the House. Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to occur all that often.

Instead, we have a practice where the minister gets up…. Most ministers — some are a little more verbose than others — get up and tell us for 15 minutes what the bill will do and read their notes and then take their place. Then the debate settles, and there is no more debate from the government side of the House, and issues are raised on this side.

It's unfortunate that members of the government side don't appear to see value in actually talking about why they've put forward particular legislation. It's unfortunate that members of the government side don't see any particular value in talking about what their constituents do or don't think about a piece of legislation.

Instead we have this practice now where, as I said, the minister gets up and talks for 15 or 20 minutes, and then what happens after that is that the government side goes silent. This side raises issues that have been raised for us by our constituents, by stakeholders, by community interests, by local community leaders and elected officials, but clearly, it's not a debate the other side feels a need to engage in.

S. Simpson: Bill 31 does create another piece of legislation that I hope won't be treated that way. So I'm looking forward very much to having ministers and members on that side get up and fully engage this debate along with this side. I look forward to committee stage when it comes, and now we'll see who next wants to speak to this bill.

J. Horgan: It's a pleasure to rise and speak to Bill 31, the Greenhouse Gas Reduction (Emissions Standards) Statutes Amendment Act, 2008. As my colleague the Environment critic has just articulated, we have yet again another enabling piece of legislation. As with many things, it's quite often the best to start at the end and go to the beginning. I'll just turn to page 29 in the bill, where it says "Commencement," or in other words, when the bill will come into force.

With most legislation, it comes into force at royal assent. For those in the gallery who are unaware of this, the Lieutenant-Governor comes to this place, takes the chair. The Clerk announces the name of the legislation, and it becomes an act and comes into force. That's called royal assent.

So the overall act will, of course, come in with royal assent. If you go to page 29 of the bill and read the commencement section, section 37, it says that sections 1 to 14 are by regulation of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, sections 16 to 23 are by regulation, section 26 is by regulation, sections 28 to 34 are by regulation and section 36 is by regulation of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, which is the cabinet.

What we have today, which is what we've had several times throughout this session, is legislation brought forward by the government that provides a framework, a shell, for some activity in the future, some regulations that will come into force once the cabinet decides just what the heck they are.

I don't have a problem with that. I think that in fact, the more time we invest in getting things right, the better off we're going to be and the more my constituents will embrace the work that we do here. But the troubling part is that the government is alleging that these series of bills that all will be incumbent upon regulation prescribed by cabinet or the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council are going to happen sometime in the future.

If this is in fact the fight of our lives, if climate change and managing our greenhouse gas emissions is the most important activity we can undertake in this place, why wouldn't we want to do it in cooperation? Why wouldn't we want to do it together to ensure that the solutions we're seeking are consensual and in the interests of all British Columbians? Well, we're not doing that with this bill, and we haven't done it with a series of other bills as we've been proceeding.

I know the Forests critic is going to be speaking about the bioenergy sections of this legislation, and I will only touch upon that briefly. Before I get to that, I

want to just talk a little bit about where we find ourselves at this point in time.

There are some three weeks remaining in the legislative calendar. We have, I believe, 20-odd bills on the order paper, this being one of them. It's a 30-page bill with a lot of dense detail, particularly around the bioenergy section, which is new territory for all of us. It's new territory for the industry, and it's new territory for B.C. Hydro and, I'm fairly certain, for leg. counsel.

I think that the last time significant changes to tenure and access to fibre took place in this province was, certainly, well before many of us were in this place, save and except our good friend from North Vancouver–Seymour who, of course, has been here forever. I say that in a positive way. I think he is the longest-serving member — he and the member for Peace River North and, I guess, Kamloops, while I'm making the list. A lot of elder statesmen on the other side.

The challenge we have — as the Environment critic, the member for Vancouver-Hastings, has so ably articulated — is that we have a forest sector in crisis. The industry is shedding jobs by the thousands. In my community in southern Vancouver Island the Minister of Forests, so disinterested in forest jobs, allowed Western Forest Products to remove 28,000 hectares of private lands from the tree farm licence, not to continue forestry in the region but, in fact, to encourage real estate licences.

So when we're talking about the bill and bioenergy in the forest sector, certainly the member for Shuswap will see the correlation between wood, fibre and energy as it's articulated in this bill. So I won't go into too much detail, because I know he can follow along, even without a bouncing ball.

The challenge in my part of the world is that the forest sector is in crisis. Certainly, we hear from members in the Interior, the Deputy Premier, those from upcountry and the member from Omineca that beetle kill has been devastating for communities, the environment and the people who live there.

We all want to find ways to try and address that problem, and perhaps a vibrant bioenergy sector may well be one of the tools to get there, but I'm not so sure. We don't have all the science in on what the impact of particulate matter will be. We don't have all the science in on whether the escape of any carbon as a result of burning is going to happen at an accelerated rate that would, in essence, make it not net neutral, as the minister or the government would allege, but maybe something completely different. By burning that beetle wood, we may be creating a larger problem than we're solving. Certainly, we would want to wait until the science could come in on bioenergy before we move too quickly on that.

In division 3 of the act we have the coal-based electricity generation section. This is an interesting one. Were it not for the good work of the government on the other side, we wouldn't need this section, because it wasn't until they came to power that anyone even contemplated burning coal to generate electricity in British Columbia.

No government until this one went to the private sector and said: "Hey, come forward with your ideas to make fast money on electricity sales." In result, we had two coal companies come forward, Compliance in Princeton and Wapiti in the northeast, and they were able to sign contracts with B.C. Hydro to sell electricity generated from coal-fired systems in Princeton and Tumbler Ridge. Because of the good planning of the burghers on the other side, we have a section in an act saying: "You cannot do what we just did." It's really brilliant.

Of course, before we had our epiphany about the importance of climate change, we were more interested in fostering an independent power production sector in the economy here in British Columbia. So coal plants were okay. "Let's sign them up." Then all of a sudden we changed our minds. The lawsuits are piling up, so now we have legislation before this place to restrict the use of coal to generate electricity.

Now, I don't have a problem with that. I know the member for Shuswap will remember that I was hypercritical of the government at that time for taking what was the cleanest, greenest public utility in North America and forcing it to buy power generated from coal.

At the same time, I think we have to recognize that as a producer of coal, the net exporter…. We export coal all over the world. I had the good fortune of being in the member for North Island's constituency, 350 feet under the ground at the Quinsam coalmine. It was an interesting experience, I have to say. People are working. They're on the ground. They're mining coal, and we're exporting it. They're using it in and around Vancouver Island for industrial purposes, for cement, for assisting with the burning of chips to make steam.

There's activity involving the coal sector. You look at the enormous profits coming to Fording and other companies active in the southeast of the province in the Kootenays, as well as in Tumbler Ridge and in the northeast of the province. Coal's a pretty big deal in British Columbia. It's a pretty big deal.

So when we have the government bringing forward legislation to correct the mistake they made with respect to generation of electricity with coal, you would have thought that they would have said: "Why don't we become world leaders in sequestration technology? Why don't we invest in finding solutions to the world's problems, which are by and large being created today by coal-fired plants in the Far East?"

I'm told — it's anecdotal, because it just seems to be rolling off the tongue of those who are speaking about climate change — that virtually every other day a coal-fired plant is being built and operated in China to meet the needs of the burgeoning economy there. It's a big problem. It's a big challenge. We need to displace coal as a source of electricity. If we can't displace it, we certainly have to find a way to capture the carbon, capture the greenhouse gases and sequester them in some meaningful way.

In principle, I certainly would support the section of this bill that pushes us in that direction, but I'm very

mindful — and I know the government would be mindful — that were it not for their misbehaviour two years ago, we wouldn't have to deal with that here in British Columbia, because there were no coal plants. We hadn't contemplated any coal plants until the B.C. Liberals came to power. It's an interesting challenge indeed.

Why not invest in that sequestration technology? The noted adviser to the government Mark Jaccard, who the member for Vancouver-Hastings referred to in his remarks, has written extensively about sequestration technology and the importance of capturing that carbon and sticking it back in the ground.

With all of the oil and gas activity we have in the northeast, I would think that investing in coal generation in the northeast with a view to sequestering that carbon in the holes we're plugging in the ground to bring up gas would make a lot of sense. It would make a lot of economic sense. It would make a lot of sense in terms of the impacts on the environment.

But we don't see anything about investing in that. We only see a rearguard action. I would suggest — and certainly, I'll canvass this with the minister in estimates — this is a rearguard action to try and forestall any legal action that will be coming B.C. Hydro's way as a result of the contracts they signed at the behest of the B.C. Liberal government to purchase power that was generated by burning coal.

That's an interesting paradox for the government to explain when we get to committee stage. The tragic thing, though, is that we have no guarantee that we'll get to committee stage on this legislation, as we have no guarantee that we'll get to committee stage on a host of other bills that have been brought to this place.

J. Horgan: The minister advises that it's up to us as to when that will happen.

Well, I thought — I've heard the Premier say this, and I've certainly watched the member for Peace River South live this — that we were all free spirits in this place, all sent from our 79 constituencies to exercise our personal, individual judgment on legislation that comes forward to this place, but I hear now that the Minister of Environment is saying it's up to us.

If we don't talk about the bill, we'll allow more talk on the bill. It's an inconsistency, certainly, that's not lost on the member for Peace River South as he diligently reads through all of the legislation tabled in this place.

That should be the responsibility of all of us. It should be the responsibility of all of us to come here, be as well informed as we can be and exercise our judgment on behalf of our constituents. I won't be able to do that in a fulsome way without access to the minds of the minister who tabled the legislation and the officials that helped draft it.

That's the important work we do at committee stage. As much as I enjoy standing here at second reading speaking on and on about the flaws and inconsistencies of the legislation, the real hard work comes at the clause-by-clause discussion. Both the minister and his staff are well aware of that.

When we get to the questions around coal and sequestration, I'm certainly hopeful that we'll have some answers as to whether this is in fact a rearguard action to forestall litigation or if it is an opportunity for us to move into a new era of coal carbon sequestration, which the government's pre-eminent adviser on these matters, Dr. Jaccard, has suggested is within reach, although the technology has not yet been perfected.

With that, I'd like to move again. I want to just talk for a minute…. I heard one of the government's commercials this morning when I was getting ready to come to the Legislature. It's one of their commercials around what people should do with their $100 dividend as we address the challenges laid out before us here with Bill 31.

The perky voices on my radio were telling me that there's a whole host of things I could do to make the world a better place. I could get a new pair of running shoes, I could get some compact fluorescents, or I could get some weatherstripping. And I'm thinking to myself: my, oh, my. The opportunities are limitless there. Buy running shoes, a couple of lightbulbs and some weatherstripping. That's what I'll do with my $100.

But what are we going to be doing about fugitive gases in the oil and gas sector? What are we going to be doing about routine flaring? How are we going to address those challenges that big industrial emitters are conducting right now? What's the government's response to that? It's not in this legislation. It's not in the cap-and-trade legislation that we saw last month. It's not addressed by the carbon tax.

We have the three fundamental pillars — the three legs on the stool, if you will — of the so-called "Trust us, and we'll get to the regulations as soon as we've had some time to think about it" climate change package. Their solution is to get perky people to tell me every morning when I get up to come to work: "Don't forget your compact fluorescents, your weatherstripping and your running shoes, because that's what we want you to do to help solve the problems of climate change."

No money for commuter rail on southern Vancouver Island. We still have to keep people in cars here. No money to deal with urban sprawl. We've released thousands of hectares of land at Jordan River for development purposes so that we can grow condos instead of forest workers, real estate licences instead of fallers. That's the plan of the government. Impose restrictions on individuals; don't impose restrictions on industrial polluters.

It's a sad day when $30 million worth of advertising tells me to go buy a pair of running shoes, while the oil and gas sector, reaping the largest profits in the history of corporate anything, are allowed to continue to emit greenhouse gases with impunity. That's the challenge we face as a community, as a society and as an economy, and it's not addressed at all in this legislation or in any of the other bills that have been brought forward by the Minister of Environment and his colleague the Minister of Energy to this point in time.

Again, as I stand here in my place representing the people of Malahat–Juan de Fuca, they expect me to speak up on their behalf. They expect me to say that the Environmental Management Act may well need revisions. Let's see what those restrictions are. Let's look at the regulations before we give a blank cheque to the Minister of the Environment.

Most importantly — and I know that my colleague for Cariboo North will talk at length about this — before we establish a new industry, a bioenergy industry, in a province that has been dependent, has prospered and will continue to thrive as a result of hydroelectric generation…. Before we go down that road, let's see what we can do about fixing the industry that is virtually on its knees.

Mills closing, jobs lost, and the government says, "I've got a good idea. Let's put more stress on the land. Let's put more stress on access to fibre by giving out new licences, new tenures, to those who happen to get their application in to B.C. Hydro ahead of everybody else" — more gold rush mentality, no planning, no forward thinking.

"Large emitters, do what you will. Individuals, be sure to go out and buy your weatherstripping. Be sure to go out there and try to find alternative ways to get back and forth to work and get the kids to the rink. Make sure that you're using your car as little as you possibly can, even if you don't have transit opportunities in your community. Find another way."

"Get some running shoes," the Minister of Finance said. So $30 million worth of ads to tell me that I need compact fluorescents, weatherstripping and running shoes. Well, that's just great. That's just fantastic.

What's EnCana going to do? Well, EnCana's shares just split. They've got a whole bunch of new plays for natural gas in the northeast. They're going to be poking holes in the ground. Greenhouse gases will be emitted. No sanctions, no repercussions, just more profits to the Crown, which can then be given, of course, in corporate tax breaks to the supporters of the government. It's a pretty simple circle, one that seems fairly transparent to me and to anyone who spends even a modicum of time looking at this legislation.

The solutions to the problems are complex. I do not doubt that for a moment. Nor do I doubt the effort of the Minister of Environment in trying to come up with solutions. But the best way to proceed, I would suggest, is that rather than dumping legislation that's half-cooked, why not sit down with all members of this place, as we have been elected to do, to debate these pieces of legislation not necessarily in an adversarial way but in a consensual, cooperative way. Let's bring forward all of the talents in this room, all of the talents from around the regions that are represented here, and sit down and come up with some solutions.

That's not the choice the minister has made, and that's not the choice the Premier has made. Instead, he has suggested that making climate change a partisan issue is the way to salvation and that that's the solution.

Just today, hon. Speaker, in question period…. I know that we're supposed to be focusing on the bill, and it will come back to that very quickly, I assure you and members on the opposite side.

We had a question from one member on this side of the House about the impact of some tree cutting and some tree planting with respect to offsets. Offsets are a significant portion of Bill 31. For those who are watching at home or in the gallery, what it proposes is that if you emit greenhouse gases, you can purchase offsets to supplement that or to ensure that you're in balance — the net zero impact with respect to electricity generation that's outlined in section 3.

The member for Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows asked a very simple question to the Minister of Environment. Rather than give a straightforward and direct answer to that question, the minister chose to instead come back with a partisan, vitriolic assault on the opposition for not being in favour of anything, for hating this, for hating that and for trying to get in the way of legislation such as Bill 31.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Every time I hear the member for Vancouver-Hastings speak about issues like this…. We preface those remarks by saying that we want to work with the government. We want to work with non-governmental organizations, with industry, as all of us do, to genuinely solve these problems, which could well have been solved by this legislation had it not eliminated those aspects of the economy that are contributing to the problem.

Those that are contributing to the problem get a free pass. Those that I represent here are told to go buy some lightbulbs, get some running shoes and try and find a bus. Try and catch a bus in Otter Point on a Friday night. Not a chance, because there isn't one. There are no buses there. Try and get a bus from Shawnigan Lake. The Transportation Minister just announced a whole bunch of new buses with no drivers — excellent. We've got buses that will go to Shawnigan Lake as soon as we can find a driver. As soon as we can find operating dollars, there will be transit.

J. Horgan: Shouldn't be too much trouble to off-load more responsibilities onto municipalities. "We do it every day," says the government. Let's just off-load these responsibilities onto municipalities and tell people back in my constituency to get a pair of running shoes, buy some compact fluorescents and get some weatherstripping.

When the carbon tax kicks in — what? — three years from now, it will be seven cents a litre. What do you think the cost of home heating fuel is going to be at that time? How are people in northern parts of British Columbia, people on the wild west coast, where the winds blow and the temperatures drop…? What's the cost going to be to those people? Are they going to be able to catch a bus to come to Victoria to buy some weatherstripping? No, they're not. They're going to have to get in their car and pay for that as well.

I see that I'm being pushed off the stage here to take my seat, and I do that reluctantly. I am confident that the Minister of Environment will want to bring this bill back for detailed discussion at committee stage. I'm hopeful that government members will, again, recognize that the solution is not to let large emitters off the hook. The solution is not a bunch of compact fluorescent lightbulbs. Our electricity in British Columbia is the cleanest and greenest in North America. It always has been, and hopefully, it always will be.

Sadly, it was the government on that side of the House that signed contracts with two coal companies to burn coal to generate electricity. I'm pleased to see that even if it might cost us a few bucks in court, they've taken some steps today to try and make up for that.

B. Simpson: I will make some brief comments on two parts of this bill: the part about a new bioenergy tenure and the part about partitioning the cut so that we push forest licensees and forest timber holders into certain areas of the cut that we want to see them utilize, particularly the dead and decaying mountain pine beetle stands. Let me talk briefly about the partition, and then I'll go into the bioenergy.

With respect to the partition, it's unfortunate that we're doing this so late in the game. We have seen all kinds of information coming to us that we are logging our midterm timber supply. We are logging green wood right now in the heart of the mountain pine beetle.

As the member previous to me spoke…. I hope we do get into third reading on this. As I understand this partition, we are going to put a push on companies to only log in the heavily mountain pine beetle–impacted pine stands. If that's what we're doing, then we would support that. However, again, it's very late.

Secondly, where is the strategic harvesting plan that would support that partition? We've been asking for that for some time. We don't have one for the mountain pine beetle–impacted area. It's part of the problem.

Thirdly, what are the cost implications for the companies that are working in those areas? Part of the reason that those companies are logging as much of the green wood and the midterm timber supplies is that their new mills, which they've put a lot of capital into, have difficulty processing that dry mountain pine beetle wood. So there will be significant cost implications for those mills. In a downturned market, as we have just now, with the costs, every nickel being important, I'd like to know how much this is going to add to the system.

Then finally, will this also be used to push second-growth hemlock in the coast region? If it's only going to be used for mountain pine beetle, that's one problem, and we can look at implications of that. But there's another issue, and that's that we are undercutting second-growth hemlock on Vancouver Island. Our cut level, therefore, is really not sustainable as we cut the final old growth that's available on Vancouver Island.

Will this partition be used to get into those hemlock stands? If so, what are the implications for the coast forest industry, because the Minister of Forests has indicated that we won't be doing that for another five years? We don't have the mills in most communities to do that. So what are the implications of that?

That's all third reading material, and again, unfortunately under this government, we are truncating debate severely. We may not get to that, and it's really unfortunate for our communities that they won't have answers to those questions.

With respect to bioenergy, the bioenergy tenure is part of a strategy that's been promised since May 31 of '06. That was when we were supposed to start seeing this. We were supposed to see it in the fall of '06, again in the spring of '07, again in the fall of '07, and then we finally got a few pieces of paper with some motherhood-and-apple-pie language this spring indicating what the government's general thrust is on bioenergy.

What this bill does is decide to go to tenure and to use tenure as a way to secure fibre.

B. Simpson: Well, I can tell the Minister of Energy, who is sitting over there engaging in a debate….

B. Simpson: The minister is indicating whether or not we support parts of the plan. Yes, bioenergy may be something where we have to go down that path. We may have to use some of the residual wood that's available. We may have to use some of the mountain pine beetle stands for bioenergy, but I can tell you that right now the way the government is going about this is making everybody very nervous.

The pellet industry, the pulp industry, the solid-wood industry, those that want to get into manufacturing ethanol from wood waste are all very nervous that we would issue a forest licence just for bioenergy producers who win a call through the B.C. Hydro bid process to produce electrical energy.

I have the letters in front of me from the Wood Pellet Association. They state specifically that they are very concerned that if we do this wrong, "a subsidization program put in place by government to artificially support the development of an otherwise uneconomic bioenergy business, established wood residue consumers and bioenergy producers in B.C. — pellet, pulp, etc. — would be severely affected. It could potentially kill the wood pellet industry, as we would not be able to compete for fibre."

The wood pellet industry continues to be concerned that they will be shoved out of the market and will not get the resources they need to grow that industry. What we really need is a strategy to grow wood pellets. We need a strategy for a made-in-B.C. approach to that because right now 95 percent of their products are shipped overseas. That's a way that we could reduce greenhouse gases. We could have a program to convert households that use fireplaces to pellet stoves. That's

something that we could do just now with the existing industry, and it's not on the table.

The pulp industry, which is now in the process of the first call for proposals for B.C. Hydro, is very concerned that the pricing that's going to be involved will not be sufficient for them to be competitive with the second call, who get this tenure. The issue that we have, of course, is that issuing a tenure makes a presumption that wood waste and standing timber should be best utilized to go straight to energy.

Now, how big is the possibility here? According to the Minister of Forests on Voice of B.C. last November, it's big enough to replace site C? Those are his words — that the bioenergy sector could be big enough to replace site C.

To show you how disconnected the government is on its thinking about energy, when I was at the North Central Municipal Association, I picked up a number of documents that are the preliminary documents for B.C. Hydro to look at building site C. If the Forests Minister thinks that by going down the bioenergy path we have enough energy to replace a site C, why are we then going and issuing a bioenergy tenure that would have us replace site C and then have us still go through B.C. Hydro to put site C in place?

The other aspect of this is that we don't have details. This is another one of those bills that will do everything by regulation. Again, third reading is very important, and I do hope we get to that. We need to know how this fits into the whole plan.

There have been serious questions raised about our tenure system. Every place the round table goes to — it's available for the government members on the round table website — it's tenure reform, tenure reform, tenure reform.

We've had trouble with the first nations tenures and getting them out the door. That volume may or may not be there in many timber supply areas. We are having trouble getting woodlots issued. We are having trouble with B.C. Timber Sales getting volume. While we're talking about tenure reform, the government has decided it's going to address bioenergy with a tenure.

Again, the Minister of Forests said that he was told by the independent power producers, the private power producers, that they would need a 25-year tenure to secure the fibre they need to warrant them investing. According to this bill, it will be a five-year non-renewable tenure. I'm sure that will give shivers to those who are looking to invest in this emerging industry.

Secondly, why aren't we using residuals that are still being burnt in beehive burners? Those residuals could be used for this. Why do we have to go to tenure? That's a fair question.

Thirdly, there are huge environmental implications on this. Is it, in fact, greenhouse gas–neutral? Is it carbon-neutral? Is the equation that the ministry is proposing a carbon-neutral equation?

What will it do to air quality in the various communities that it is in? There's no requirement here for best available technology to be used. It does say, however, something about some third-party entity that will establish standards. Again, we would like to see what that looks like, and if we get to third reading, we'll pursue that.

The economics of bioenergy in study after study are very shaky, so what are the residual subsidies? What else is the government going to offer to make this work? That remains to be seen and is not in this bill.

On the whole, based on all of the information that we've been provided — the government's own studies, the sectors that are out there that want to get into other uses for wood waste and standing timber — the bioenergy component of this bill is not supportable on face value. The partition will require us to have further information, hopefully in third reading.

So I look forward to third reading of this bill, should we get to it, to make sure that we get the details British Columbians need to make a decision as to whether the bioenergy portion of this bill and the partition portion of this bill are sustainable.

C. Trevena: I rise to speak on Bill 31, the Greenhouse Gas Reduction (Emissions Standards) Statutes Amendment Act, 2008. Like my colleagues have been mentioning, I would like to reiterate some of the issues they've said. I'm not going to dwell too long on this, because we would hope that we get to the committee stage so we can have the detailed debate. I think there are a lot of issues that need to be discussed in detail. The way the government is trying to push through the legislation at the moment, it's getting very difficult to do so.

I think we particularly need to look at the detail, because this is, once again, another enabling act. It's another piece of enabling legislation. We get the framework. We get a lot of details here, but as my colleague from Malahat–Juan de Fuca mentioned, this is all going to come through, through order-in-council. It's all going to be covered by regulation of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, so we are not going to have the opportunity to see that detail before it does really appear before us. It would be very good to be able to have more opportunity to discuss it. The substantive changes that we will see will come through future regulation rather than being seen in this bill.

That would be fine if one did trust the government, but I don't think that many on this side of the House really do think that the government is going to be trustworthy on this and that what they're going to say necessarily should go through without criticism and without question. So once again, I raise concerns that on yet another piece of legislation which we are having to deal with very quickly, the full details are not going to be in a form that we can have a look at. That really is a concern.

As I say, it's a matter of whether you can trust the government. Back in February they were talking about their big overarching climate change plan, and we see little dribs and drabs, but it doesn't seem to fit into a bigger whole. Again, I think that on both sides of the House we all realize the need to act, and act substantively and quickly, on the issue of climate change. We

need to be able to address these issues and would like to see some more details. I've got to say that another reason why my antennae go up and my hackles are rising is the concept of trust. Let's move on to trust.

When we have the title page and when we get a bill, there are all the details of the bill on one side, and then we have the explanatory notes on the other side. Straight away the first explanatory notes are on the Environmental Management Act, part 6.1. It's talking about using sequestration for greenhouse gases.

Sequestration is really a very, very interesting idea, a very useful idea, something that I think everybody on this side of the House and obviously on that side of the House would be interested in pursuing. But we are talking about having sequestration when we don't have the technology here. The technology isn't there.

Like my colleague the critic for the Environment, the MLA for Vancouver-Hastings, was describing, if we can look at other provinces and see what they're doing…. It's unlike the tailpipe emission standards, where we already have some of that technology. Here we're looking at something that is still being evolved, still being developed. This is something where if the government was really serious about greenhouse gases, maybe it would want to take the lead on this and start examining the possibilities and be an innovator and a leader in this and encourage this in this province. It would be fabulous.

I mean, there are many ways of being the real environmental leaders in the province. Invest in this; look at this. There are other areas that we on this side of the House have already suggested on environmental leadership, such as leading investment in looking at alternative ways of aquaculture. Like that, this would be a prime way of B.C. leading the way and actually being able to put into practice what it's talking about here, put into practice real ways of ensuring that we are controlling emissions, ensuring that we are combating greenhouse gases and ensuring that we really do have a future.

As my colleague from Malahat–Juan de Fuca mentioned — he was in my riding not so long ago — Quinsam Coal is a very large employer in the Campbell River area. It has some very well-paying jobs. As we see the death of the forest industry, it's very important to maintain those well-paying jobs in the community. One would hope we have the technology so that we can continue to extract the coal and continue to be able to use the coal without the fear that we are just talking, literally, hot air in this bill. I think that when we start talking about sequestration, it does become hot air when we don't have the technology to back it.

The other area where the red flags are flying is…. The energy plan of 2007 promised many things. One of the things that it did promise and that we on this side of the House were very supportive of was that it was going to eliminate flaring at oil and gas–producing wells by 2016, with a 50 percent reduction by 2011.

Well, 2011 is three years away, and there's no mention of that in this bill. I think if the government is serious about addressing emissions and emissions at industrial facilities, this is really something that has to be addressed and has to be addressed seriously and quickly. I would hope that if we are to take this bill seriously, if we are to really try to deal with the greenhouse gas reductions and really deal with this with industry within the province, that is something that should be in this bill.

My third area of concern on the bill is the bioenergy side of it. Again, colleagues have spoken about this. Once again, we're talking about doing things where we're not quite sure what the science is, where we're talking about saying, "Well, it's okay to burn wood for bioenergy," when we already also know that forests and the forest floor and so on are very good carbon sinks.

We really haven't had clear answers on the science of which is better — whether it's better to be burning the pellets for bioenergy or whether it's better to keep the wood in the forests as carbon sinks. I think that really is a major concern when we are talking about being serious about greenhouse gas reductions, when we are looking at this as a key piece of legislation in a supposed climate change plan on greenhouse gas reductions.

We do need more answers than we are being given here, and again, as I mentioned, we are being asked to trust the government that it will all be okay, that when it comes through an order-in-council, everything will be just fine. The cabinet will have got it all sorted out because, after all, they know best. They are the ones who are saying everything, dictating everything, and we're just here to have our very one-sided debate.

The Minister of the Environment stands up and reads his notes. We all stand up here. We give our views, sit down, and we have no debate, because we won't get into committee stage.

My last point, and it's a very serious point, is the change in tenure, the discussion of having a new form of tenure for this. This really is a concern. My colleague from Cariboo North was mentioning about tenure.

At the forestry round table…. I represent a forest-dependent community. Ask anybody in that community up and down the Island about what needs to be done to help save our forest industry — not necessarily the only answer but one step — and it would be to look at the tenures, reform tenure. To be bringing this in unilaterally without looking at the whole tenure system, all the issues of tenure is misguided, I think. If we're going to be reforming tenure or if we're going to be bringing in a new tenure, it should be as a whole.

Whether I'm talking to woodlot owners, communities, truck loggers or union people, right across the board, tenure is the big issue. I think that people would be very distressed to hear that there is a new sort of tenure system being brought in without a more embracing analysis of what we need to do, more embracing view of tenure coming up.

I think that this really is a big concern. We've had huge changes in tenure already with this government. I think what we need to see is the Minister of Forests maybe sitting down with the Minister of Environment and the Minister of Energy to say, "This is the way we

want to go," and the Minister of Forests saying: "Okay, I've been listening to the round table and the round table is going on and everybody who comes to my round table is saying tenure. We need to change more of the tenure. We don't need to just do this."

I've got to say that the Minister of Environment, when he was introducing his bill, was talking about taking wood from various areas for biofuels as well as the tenure changes. But just taking wood from various areas…. That, again, raises a few concerns for me. One of the issues that I hear very much in my community is a forestry issue. It's that there is all this wood waste lying on the ground, and it needs to be brought out for use for keeping our mills open.

I'm not sure if the minister is talking about that as some of the wood that could be used for the biofuels or whether he would be working, again, with the Minister of Forests in actually making sure that that wood is taken out and used productively, which I know that my community would very much like.

These are some of my main concerns. The issue of the sequestration — the opportunity that we have there to be leaders in technological development. The real concerns about the flaring — as I say, if we want to deal with greenhouse gas emissions seriously, I think everybody is very aware that the science is there, that this is the best way to go forward with it. Thirdly is the area of tenure reform. I think we really have to be looking at this as a bigger picture, not just through this bill but with the Minister of Forests and Range and other players to really look at tenure reform.

Finally, I'm just very, very frustrated — and I voice the concerns of many people on this side of the House — that the debate is one-sided. We stand up and answer a minister's introduction, and then we hope to have some dialogue. We don't get the dialogue, and then we don't even get the opportunity to discuss the detail because of the amount of legislation the government is trying to push through. We have to trust them. We have to trust this government that everything is going to be okay — that when it goes to the cabinet to fill in the final details, it will be fine.

With that slightly disillusioned note, I take my place and thank the members for allowing me to say a few words on Bill 31.

Hon. B. Penner: Seeing no further speakers, I'll rise to close debate. I just want to make a few observations in response to the some of the comments I heard from a number of the members who spoke on the bill.

First of all, why are we here debating this piece of legislation? Well, firstly, it's because the province of British Columbia, and our side of the House, is committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 33 percent by the year 2020. We know that's a tall order, but it's something we're committed to doing.

It's one thing to set an objective, but then you have to find ways to get there. As I've said to other audiences many times, there's no silver bullet in terms of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, but there may be some silver buckshot. It's going to take concerted effort and a range of different actions to achieve a reduction as dramatic as the one that we are committed to achieving.

The opposition continues to pour scorn on efforts on our side of the House to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by saying: "Well, this one particular policy may not do it." You know what? That is probably about the only thing I'll agree with in terms of their comments. Because one single policy itself will not accomplish the objective. It's going to take a range of different actions.

That's why I've been so disappointed over the past couple of weeks and the last few months. The opposition has been opposed to every single different policy initiative we've brought forward to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, while at the same time being deafeningly silent as to what their alternative suggestions would be in terms of specific policy actions.

They've been opposed to green run-of-river projects in B.C., as I mentioned during question period, even those projects where there are partnership agreements with local first nations. I heard members from the other side saying they're opposed to wind power developments in British Columbia because they're not government-owned, and I have no doubt that they'd be opposed to geothermal and ocean energy projects, too, unless somehow the big power of the state had direct control and ownership of those projects.

Any specific project that has come forward so far over the last seven years the opposition has been opposed to, even though they don't contribute to greenhouse gas emissions and in fact generate jobs and taxes for our economy here in British Columbia.

This bill, as we've already noted, deals with a number of initiatives, setting into law some policies that we've already enunciated — particularly around carbon capture, if someone were to want to go ahead and build a coal-fired electricity-generating facility in British Columbia.

So why are we talking about electricity in terms of the context of reducing greenhouse gas emissions? It's true that compared to some of other sources of greenhouse gas emissions in British Columbia, electricity today plays a relatively small role. It still does contribute greenhouse gas emissions to our environment and to the global environment, because greenhouse gas emissions, of course, know no boundaries once they get into the atmosphere.

From 1996 to 2001 the amount of greenhouse gas emissions from the B.C. electricity sector actually increased by 300 percent. That was largely due to the previous government running Burrard Thermal at a very high rate.

Hon. B. Penner: As the Minister of Energy notes, it's a fairly inefficient plant. It's old and probably past its best-before date.

They also pushed through the establishment of what still today remains to be the largest single independent power project in British Columbia, and that's the natural gas–fired plant that produces 240 megawatts of electricity on Vancouver Island. That was built by an American company called Calpine Corp.

Today, of course, they say they're opposed to IPPs, even Canadian ones, even ones based in British Columbia. But only a few years ago they were pushing through a very significant project on Vancouver Island by Calpine Corp. of the United States. I think they're based in California.

So there is a portion of greenhouse gas emissions that we want to reduce from the electricity sector. Electricity is going to continue to be an important way of delivering energy to British Columbians in the future.

The official opposition Environment critic, in some of his comments on the bill, which were critical, suggested that carbon capture isn't being done and therefore probably shouldn't be done, or alternatively, it's too soon to bring forward this kind of policy requirement. The member is wrong. Carbon capture is being done in different places and different jurisdictions. For example, there's been a system up and running for quite a number of years between North Dakota and Saskatchewan.

The member is right. It hasn't been done in a large commercial scale for coal-fired electricity generation, but it's mostly because it hasn't been required to be done. The various technological pieces and components are there. They're shelf-ready. It's a matter of somebody having the leadership to say that if you want to go and produce electricity from coal-fired sources, you have to put those components together.

For example, in Florida there's a several-hundred-megawatt coal-fired generation plant where they gasify the coal before the combustion process takes place. By gasifying the coal, they have the opportunity to hive off the different components of that gas. If they had been required to do so, they could have captured that CO₂.

In the case of the plant in Florida, which was built in the mid-'90s — it's not particularly new — they weren't required. There were no regulations pertaining to the capture and storage of CO₂ emissions during the combustion process for generating electricity by burning coal.

We are changing that. By virtue of this bill — which I hope the opposition will support, unlike some of the other climate change initiatives which they've opposed — we're saying to proponents: "If you want to bring forward a plan to combust coal so you can produce electricity for British Columbia, you're going to have to meet a new standard — the first in North America. You're going to have to find a way to capture it and sequester it."

Now, the opposition critic also said that there's been no research done on this, that this is too pie in the sky or somehow too vague. But then he was corrected by the official opposition Energy critic, who quite rightly noted that in fact there has been research done.

You don't have to go very far. I just walked down the end of the hallway a moment ago to the library to pick up this 2005 book called Sustainable Fossil Fuels by Dr. Mark Jaccard. Most people will know that he's a professor of resource management at Simon Fraser University, and he's also a lead consultant to governments around the world on the electricity sector.

He notes in his book — and he goes into some detail, starting on about page 188 about — how different forms of carbon capture and sequestration have been done in different industries in the past and how it's time for someone to step up and say: "If you want to do it in the future, in terms of coal generation, you're going to have to find a way to capture the carbon and sequester it."

I'm going to read a small passage here, because the Environment critic said that he didn't understand how this would work — page 189 for the member's reference.

Quite helpfully, he goes on in the next couple of pages to provide a couple of diagrams about how you can separate out the CO₂ gases either post-combustion or probably, and more promisingly, precombustion, as is the case in the gasification process that I mentioned in Florida. When you gasify the coal prior to combustion, it's more feasible to separate out the CO₂ without resulting in energy inefficiency arising.

Now, that's not the only source, of course, of information on the whole process and concept of carbon capture and sequestration. Also just down the hallway in the Legislative Library the member would find something called Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage. In fact, I think there are 400 pages in this document. It's from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, published in 2005.

One of the members of the Climate Action Team that the Premier has appointed to help guide us in identifying additional policies to reduce CO₂ emissions and greenhouse gas emissions generally is the lead author of this report. Dr. David Keith of the University of Calgary is one of the lead authors of this very weighty 400-page analysis of the technical challenges and opportunities in capturing carbon and sequestering it from coal generation and from other fossil fuels.

That's not the only document you could find if you walked down the hallway to our Legislative Library.

There's a newer one, 2007, called Climate Change 2007: Mitigation of Climate Change. It, too, is from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, working group 3. It provides an update to the previously referenced 400-page 2005 report that I just talked about.

I'm going to just quote from it briefly, because I think it illustrates why the electricity sector is so important for us to get our hands around in terms of putting in place the right policy signals to would-be producers of electricity. Quoting from page 282 of the 2007 document:

We know, going forward, that electricity is going to play an increasingly important role in meeting our overall energy needs in British Columbia and sustaining our economy. That is why our government is committed to energy self-sufficiency — particularly electricity self-sufficiency — and why we think it's important to get on with generating new sources of electricity. We're not content to rest on our laurels. It also illustrates that we want to do it in a clean way that won't have unfortunate implications for the environment.

The members opposite in their comments — I think, again, it was the Environment critic — waxed eloquently about that glorious B.C. Hydro system. He referenced the vision of W.A.C. Bennett in pursuing the establishment of B.C. Hydro and building those large hydro dams. I note that back in that era, the NDP actually opposed what the previous government, the Social Credit government of the day led by Premier W.A.C. Bennett, was doing.

If you don't want to take my word for it, you need only, again, walk down to that wealth of information in the Legislative Library and get a book written by David Mitchell, W.A.C. Bennett and the Rise of British Columbia. If you turn to page 313, he writes that when the Social Credit government of the day introduced the bill to establish B.C. Hydro and to put together the various components from the previous B.C. electorate, "opposition MLAs were outraged, and the strange spectacle of socialist politicians defending the rights of B.C. Electric shareholders was the feature of an eight-hour debate on March 23."

Back then they were opposed to the vision of W.A.C. Bennett. Today they wax eloquently about it and say: "Why don't we have vision today?" Well, we do have vision today. It's on this side of the House where we're proposing not just electricity self-sufficiency once again for British Columbia after that slipped away in the 1990s when the NDP was in office, but we want to do it in a clean, green, sustainable way which does not contribute additional greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere.

The NDP has spent a fair bit of time this afternoon saying very few things. Their comments were largely repetitive, clearly designed to try and delay a little bit. I look forward to us getting to committee stage debate where we can answer some of the specific questions the members may have. But before we do that, they may just want to take a walk to the library and brush up a little bit about carbon capture technology and sequestration.

Contrary to what the members have said, there is a lot of scientific information about this technology. The B.C. government has put in place the innovative clean energy fund, and we've asked people to bring forward their ideas, including if they have ideas around carbon capture technologies. If they want to bring forward those ideas, we stand ready and able to consider those proposals and to see if there's some way that we can help them.

Second reading of Bill 31 approved unanimously on a division. [See Votes and Proceedings.]

Hon. B. Penner: I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 31, Greenhouse Gas Reduction (Emissions Standards) Statutes Amendment Act, 2008, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 36 creates a new provision in the Motor Vehicle Act prohibiting smoking or holding lighted tobacco in a vehicle when a child is present. It also provides that any violation of this prohibition be treated as an offence.

There are an estimated 650,000 smokers in B.C., and the Canadian Cancer Society estimates that as many as one in five children in Canada is exposed to secondhand smoke while riding in a motor vehicle. Secondhand smoke contains more than 4,000 chemicals, including carbon monoxide, nickel, formaldehyde and arsenic. It has also been measured to be significantly more toxic in the enclosed space of a vehicle than in a home.

Secondhand smoke is dangerous to anyone, but it is particularly hazardous to children who are at greater risk due to their smaller lungs and the fact that their bodies are still developing. Secondhand smoke is also considered to be a major cause of childhood illnesses, including ear and lung infections, resulting in breathing problems and chronic coughing and wheezing.

This legislation protects the health of our children by banning smoking in motor vehicles where anyone under the age of 16 is present. The legislation applies whether the car is in motion or not, regardless of whether any doors, windows or other features of the motor vehicle are open or not.

Bill 36 makes smoking in vehicles when children are present an offence. In order to ensure compliance, this offence will be included as one of those for which police may issue a violation ticket under the Offence Act. Any driver or passenger acting contrary to this provision may be issued a ticket.

While the new violation will not lead to penalty points, it will have tough sanctions. Individuals who received a violation ticket for smoking in a vehicle with children present, but who have not paid the fine will be unable to obtain a new driver's licence or a new vehicle licence.

The legislative amendments provide authority to exempt classes of persons, providing government with the flexibility to deal with circumstances that may require more detailed consideration. For example, the definition captures recreational vehicles and motorhomes. These vehicles may also be used as a temporary shelter or long-term personal residence and are potential candidates for exemption under certain conditions. Consequently, the powers in this bill give government scope to consult on this specific aspect for the purpose of creating an exemption regulation if it is deemed necessary and appropriate.

In conclusion, this legislation keeps the promise made in the Speech from the Throne and is another step forward to decrease the exposure of our children to tobacco smoke so that they can have the healthy beginning they deserve.

Hon. G. Abbott: I rise to add just a few comments to the comments provided by the Solicitor General in respect of Bill 36. I am very pleased to have the opportunity to speak today to the amendments to the Motor Vehicle Act that will protect children under the age of 16 from breathing secondhand smoke while they're passengers in motor vehicles.

Our throne speech commitment to introduce this legislation recognizes that children are the future of this province and that we want to do everything possible to protect their health and to ensure they get the best start in life. This legislation isn't about penalizing parents, grandparents or caregivers who smoke. Instead, the introduction of this bill is recognition of the importance of children's health and an acknowledgment of the right of all children in this province to breathe smoke-free air when they are passengers in a motor vehicle.

This legislation isn't about government trying to control the private lives of British Columbians, but we know there is no safe level of exposure to secondhand smoke. Every year tobacco use kills approximately 6,000 British Columbians, and more than 100 of these individuals will be non-smokers who will die from inhaling secondhand smoke.

The Canadian Cancer Society estimates that as many as one child in five in Canada is routinely exposed to secondhand smoke while riding in a motor vehicle. This legislation recognizes that more must be done to protect the health of these children. A child has no way to escape secondhand smoke in a vehicle, and we believe that all children deserve the best chance for a healthy future. That is what this legislation is about.

Statistics make it clear that secondhand tobacco smoke can have devastating effects on children's health. Exposure to secondhand smoke can compromise a child's health, and the effects may be long-lasting. This exposure is heightened in a small enclosed space with air circulation like a motor vehicle. Secondhand smoke levels in vehicles are about 23 times greater than secondhand smoke levels in a house. Smoking just one cigarette in a parked vehicle with the windows rolled up will produce a concentration of secondhand smoke up to 11 times higher than would be encountered by an adult in a smoky bar.

Secondhand smoke is poisonous and contains approximately 50 chemicals that are known to cause cancer. A child inhaling secondhand smoke will be subjected to twice as much nicotine and tar as the actual smoker inhales. As a result of this secondhand smoke, a child's carbon monoxide levels may be increased by up to five times, causing a decrease in oxygen supplies. Secondhand smoke affects a child's health, and these effects are generally not lessened by opening a window, because any change in air flow can cause the smoke to blow directly back toward the child.

Research also shows that children who are routinely exposed to secondhand smoke may score lower on tests in reading, math, logic and reasoning. These are sobering facts, and that is not all. Children who are exposed to secondhand smoke are at greater risk of long-lasting health complications, because their lungs and other organs are still developing and are more easily damaged.

Exposure to tobacco smoke is also considered to be a factor in sudden infant death syndrome, also known as SIDS, and is a major cause of serious childhood illnesses including asthma and other respiratory problems, certain cancers and chronic ear infections.

These amendments to the Motor Vehicle Act are an important and substantive step forward for British Columbia and are critical to the health of children who are currently being exposed to secondhand smoke in vehicles. This legislation complements our existing tobacco control strategies to reduce tobacco use and ensure a healthier environment for all British Columbians.

As part of our focus on the health of British Columbians, as of March 31, 2008, public spaces and workplaces in the province are smoke-free. We've also established a three-metre buffer zone around all doorways, open windows and air intakes. Recognizing that the majority of smokers start before the age of 18, we've implemented new measures to limit youth access to

tobacco and to restrict tobacco promotion and the display of tobacco products in retail environments that are accessible to youth.

Since September 2007 all public and private schools and school grounds in B.C. are tobacco-free, and all health authority facilities in the province will implement smoke-free policies by October 2008.

Our efforts towards reducing tobacco consumption are working. B.C.'s smoking rate continues to be the lowest in the country at approximately 16.4 percent.

This legislation is a great step forward in protecting the health of children in this province, and this is a move that is welcomed by many British Columbians. That is why I am very pleased to support the amendments to the Motor Vehicle Act which the Solicitor General has put forward today.

L. Krog: I am just delighted today to stand up and speak in favour of this bill. That was a most wonderful and impressive performance from the Minister of Health, and his monologue in this chamber will go down in history as one of the greatest epiphanies since Paul was on the road to Damascus, I'm sure.

Why, it wasn't so very long ago when I myself introduced into this Legislature — I believe it was just last fall, as a matter of fact — a bill that would do exactly the same thing. The government had every opportunity to step up to the plate and say this was a good idea. But did I get a phone call from the Minister of Health? Did I get a thank-you? Did I even get a whispering e-mail sent out when he was a little tired? No, hon. Speaker. Not one peep from the government side saying this is a good idea.

Indeed, as late as November 30, in the words of the Minister of Health himself: "I'm not quite sure society is ready to accept a government dictum that they cannot smoke in their cars or in their homes. I think that's a major step forward and not a step I'm prepared to take at this time."

Well, well. I don't want to go into a long math lesson, but you know, we got through the month of December. Maybe it was the spirit of Christmas that moved old Scrooge. I have no idea. Maybe it was a new year's celebration, another epiphany. But by February 12, the day of the throne speech, goodness gracious, right there in the throne speech in big black and white letters, coming from the lips of the Lieutenant-Governor himself, we heard the announcement that the government is going to bring in a bill to ban smoking in cars. My goodness. That's a U-turn faster than you'd see in The Dukes of Hazzard.

The minister today waxed so eloquent. He referred to it as a great step forward. I think he was quoting Chairman Mao. I'm sure that's what I must take from his previous remarks. He talked about government dictum. I think the minister has decided that government dictums and Chairman Mao may in fact be — how shall I say? — the parliamentary classmates of the government benches.

But I don't want to attack the minister too much. If he's heard, in his own words, the sobering facts, if his judgment was previously impaired on this issue and he has finally come to the right conclusion, how would it be for me, a lowly member of the opposition…?

L. Krog: Churlish, my friend says. It would be churlish of me to criticize the minister for finally coming around to the right conclusion.

Hon. Speaker, when you look at this bill, which is almost verbatim what the private member's bill that I put forward was, you have to ask yourself what it is that's changed. I mean, did the facts suddenly emerge from somewhere?

Perhaps it was the Minister of Environment. He's big on libraries. We heard him wax eloquent today about wandering down the hall to the Legislative Library. He brings stacks of books into the chamber. He's a regular schoolboy with his packsack on his back. Maybe he sent the Minister of Health down the hallway to the Legislative Library, where he could read a little bit of those sobering facts about smoking and children and health.

You would have thought that just maybe the Minister of Health might have had this information available to him in November — not November 1909, not November 1959, not November 1999, but November just last year — when he couldn't find it within his healthy concern for British Columbians to actually stand up and support a bill that would do exactly what this bill does. The facts haven't changed.

Suddenly today the Minister of Health is talking about it being another step forward, as if there had been this long list of changes this government has brought in, and he'd just discovered that this was the most reform-minded, health-conscious and child-centred group of politicians ever to occupy the government benches. It's really quite remarkable.

You know, being born again is a good thing — to come out of your shell, to realize something, to have the epiphany strike you. That is good news. I am delighted that the Minister of Health in this House today actually had that kind of rebirth — that born-again, that steel, that zeal, that ability to grab the moment and stand up and support this legislation and support his colleagues.

I offer my sincere congratulations to the Solicitor General, who brought this bill forward. He is to be congratulated for doing the right thing by British Columbia's children. He shows political courage by stepping forward.

Obviously, he must have had a terrible argument, a horrible fight in the government executive wing over there — in the west wing of the palace we all practise in here — to actually convince them in no more than two months that this had to form a major part of the throne speech of British Columbia. In just over two months the Solicitor General convinced his colleagues, including the Minister of Health, that this was the right thing to do. That is a marvellous event, and I want to

again offer my compliments to the Solicitor General. That is a worthy step forward. Clearly, he packs big influence inside executive council, big influence in cabinet, and he's to be complimented for doing that.

Seeing the Minister of Finance with a smile on her face today, I just suspect that maybe she might have also offered her wisdom and her intelligence and her thoughtfulness on this issue to the Minister of Health to bring him around as well. I just know those debates must have been harsh and hard and long for the government to reverse a course in so short a period of time.

On the other hand, cynical people might suspect that maybe they actually did a little polling. We know the government on occasion does a little polling — you know, checks things out with British Columbians, gets a sense of where the political winds are and how things are blowing. I would have thought that instead the government simply, with all the facts at its fingertips….

I'm sure the Minister of Environment, with all the books he obviously reads and the time he spends in the library, was there giving them wise counsel on this issue in the fall, when the bill was introduced. I'm sure they all had the opportunity to consider the position of the government on this. The concept of being born again is something that this government comes to, well, fairly frequently.

Back in the '90s — what the folks on the other side of the chamber refer to as the dismal decade — it was a New Democratic government that said: "Let's take on the major corporations of the world. Let's take on big tobacco. Let's tell them we're going to sue for the damage to the health of British Columbians, for the billions and billions of dollars that have been expended by taxpayers in British Columbia to try and fight the harmful, deadly, home-destroying, soul-destroying and life-destroying effects of smoking tobacco." Did we get any support from the Liberals? No, not a hope.

But here we are today, with the Liberal government stepping forward with its rather inelegant title, I might say. This is not worthy of the draftspeople in the Attorney General's ministry, the Motor Vehicle (Banning Smoking When Children Present) Amendment Act, 2008. I would have thought, for a bill that was so progressive and important, it gets a separate statute — which smells just a tiny little bit like something the public affairs bureau might have participated in — as opposed to just sliding this into one of the miscellaneous statutes amendments acts or some other provision….

I would have thought if they were going to spend that much time working on the title to this bill, surely with all the brilliance and ability and the masses of public servants available, even the Attorney General personally could have come up with a name for a statute that was — well, I won't say sexier — more lyrical, more appealing, more uplifting instead of this incredibly, if I may say so, pedestrian title Motor Vehicle (Banning Smoking When Children Present) Amendment Act. Gosh, Mr. Speaker, if you look at the substance of the bill, the title is not a heck of a lot shorter than the whole act, and we're here debating one single bill to accomplish this whole end.

Why wasn't this part of the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act? The Attorney General is a capable guy. We all know that. He's nodding sagely and lifting up his hands as I say that, delighted to have a compliment. He hasn't had a lot of them lately. Surely, somebody could have slid this into one of those statutes. Would it have been that difficult? But no, hon. Speaker. That's because what this bill represents on the surface is progress, but beneath the surface of progress we know is the crassest kind of political cynicism possible.

The government pollsters looked around, discovered they were way out on this issue, way wrong on this issue, completely lacked credibility on this issue and in fact decided that they would boost their chances of re-election by coming up with not an amendment, as I say, that is tacked onto some other bill but an amendment that comes by way of its own separate bill.

The bill — and I don't consider it a prop when I refer to legislation; I don't think I breach any rules here — doesn't even fill one page. Not one single page. Goodness, for a government considered to be fighting greenhouse gas emissions and not wishing to waste anything and increase our carbon footprint unnecessarily, you would have thought that on principle alone the Minister of Environment would have been stamping his feet in cabinet up and down and saying that we've got to stick this onto another bill and save a little paper, save a little legislative drafting time.

But no. We end up instead with an entirely separate bill, because this government deserves its reputation for not being trusted by the public. There's a certain political cynicism out there, and it's no better reflected than in this piece of legislation. It's when you have to draft up a separate bill all on its own to try and look good in the public eye….

Looking back to the fall when the government clearly, in the words of the Minister of Health, couldn't support this legislation, you've got to ask yourself what is different. What could possibly have happened in that period of time? What could possibly have changed the government's mind? What could have led them to the sensible conclusion that those people who work in the health care sector have known for years?

Guess what that is. It's a shocking revelation. Smoking isn't good for you. Smoking is actually bad for your health.

Now, I appreciate that for some people with mental illness, smoking actually provides some comfort. I'd be the last person in the world to take away their ability to do that, if it provides some medicinal benefit to them. Sometimes you've got to weigh the medicinal benefit versus the benefit of not smoking.

L. Krog: Some of the members suggest that I'm attacking the member for Nelson-Creston.

I just want to say that my own sainted mother smoked till she was 83. I'm sure the Minister of Health wouldn't want to take me on over my mother — would he?

Many people in the past have smoked. There was a generation of British Columbians, generation after generation, who smoked, who took it as part of life. It looked good in movies. If Bogart wasn't doing it or Lauren Bacall wasn't doing it, everybody was doing it. Now we know that the big tobacco interests pay movie stars and movie companies to stick character actors in there who smoke to encourage us, and particularly children, to take up this noxious habit to fuel their profits, which we the public end up paying for because we bear the cost of health care. It's a shocking thing.

I would have hoped the government would have seen all this last fall. I think this knowledge was well known. They could have stepped up to the plate and done it then. For a long time now in British Columbia thinking British Columbians have said that this needs to be supported. Public health officials — including the Vancouver Island chief medical officer, Dr. Richard Stanwick — have called for a ban on smoking in cars while children were present. Wolfville, Nova Scotia, was the first jurisdiction to step up to the plate and deal with this issue.

As I said in this House when I introduced my private member's bill, it was a group of grade 11 and 12 students from Nanaimo District Secondary School who staged a die-in at the hospital in May of 2007 who were the inspiration for me. That particular die-in got a fair bit of publicity. Skye Breen-Needham, who was the leader of that group, said with the wonderful eloquence of her age: "It's important, because the kids have no choice right now, and they need the support from other people to protect their health and their future health. Hopefully, this will make government start thinking about it. "

To Skye Breen-Needham today — from Gabriola Island, British Columbia, one of my constituents — I say good on you, because you not only got your MLA to listen and to make this an important issue, you got the whole government of British Columbia to step up to the plate and listen to people not just like yourself but like Dr. Stanwick — people who have spoken across this country about the importance of banning smoking in cars where children are present. It couldn't be more sensible.

It's interesting to look back over the record of where we've come on this issue. As I said, having grown up in British Columbia, there were generations who smoked without questioning it. Indeed, there were doctors in the '50s who advised women, if they were gaining too much weight, to go ahead and light up. My, what a long way we've come. We've come a long way.

In the '90s — referring again to the '90s, as it's only fair to do — it was this government, as I say, that took up the battle and took on big tobacco, that wanted to take them on. B.C.'s tobacco strategy took a number of different approaches, including tough new laws to prohibit the sale of cigarettes to minors. British Columbia became the first jurisdiction in the world — I repeat, for the benefit of those members on the government side who don't remember, the first jurisdiction in the world — to require tobacco companies to disclose both the ingredients and additives in cigarettes and the chemicals in tobacco smoke.

Those reports were made public in December 1998 on the website. The NDP in the '90s showed courage. They didn't take on some little industry. They didn't take on some weakling in the street. They took on one of the biggest corporate bullies in North America. They took on the tobacco industry itself. That took political courage.

In January 1999 the NDP brought in stronger penalties for retailers who sell cigarettes to minors. They launched a new education and prevention program for students in grades 6 and 7 all across B.C. schools, because we knew, the NDP knew, that tobacco companies were focusing on the youngest amongst us to encourage them to start smoking. What the statistics showed was that older smokers were quitting.

People like my own mother, who's going to be 92 this year, quit when she was 83 after 62 years of smoking. [Applause.] The members clap.

A whole generation started to quit, and big tobacco saw its profits and its market disappearing. So they started to focus on younger people. They can pretend they didn't, but we know they have. And smoking ain't sexy. I'm sorry. It ain't sexy, but it's terribly, terribly dangerous to the health of society and to the health of our youngest people. When kids get hooked, they stay hooked for a long time. It's a tough habit to break. Anyone in this chamber — and I'm not amongst them — who has ever smoked and tried to quit knows how difficult it is to quit.

The B.C. government under the NDP and the World Health Organization hosted a major meeting of public health experts in international tobacco control — again, more progress. Back in the '90s…. "If the government could do all those good things, if the government knew what was happening," some members will say, "why didn't you ban it back then?" I have to ask the question: why did this government oppose bringing in this kind of legislation just last fall? Here we are in the spring, a few months later, and this government wants to support it.

The government, if it really, really wants to make this succeed, is not just going to ban the smoking of tobacco in cars with children. This government is going to actually put some money into a genuine advertising campaign. This government is going to take the kind of steps that the NDP took in the '90s, because mere prohibition in and of itself without public education hasn't worked.

We know that about the use of illicit drugs of all kinds in our society. We know that if you make the product available and you don't educate, people are going to use it. So to a government that is now

addicted absolutely to gambling money, for instance — about $1.2 billion a year, which most British Columbians may find to be a shocking statistic — and to a government that's addicted to revenue from alcohol and revenue from tobacco sales, I say let's step forward and take some money and not just prohibit the smoking of cigarettes in cars with children.

Do something further. Engage in a really vigorous campaign. Couple it with a campaign to deal with drugs as well. Try and create a generation of British Columbian children who will grow up healthier and live longer and live better because the government did the right thing.

The opposition is going to support this bill. We are thrilled to see that the Minister of Health in particular has discovered that the health of children is more important than the attitudes of the parents who get to vote in elections. That's a great step forward. You've got to give a person credit when they figure out that the health of children is more important than mere votes. The Minister of Health is now willing to take on people who smoke, and good on him.

More importantly, good on the Solicitor General for bringing this forward. Good on the Solicitor General. I hope he'll actually quote me in his next campaign brochure — that if he did nothing else in his time in this Legislature, he did the right thing. Of course, I am absolutely convinced that, being the gentleman he is, he'll refer to the fact that it was the opposition that suggested the idea first.

M. Farnworth: It's my pleasure to take my place in this debate, not for a long time but for a brief time, and to make some remarks and observations. I felt compelled to speak after hearing my colleague the member for Nanaimo. I want to refute some of the things that he said, because I don't agree with some of the things he said.

I was going to be nice, but I was going to say that no, he's being too cynical to suggest that the government has tabled this piece of legislation strictly out of polling or that it should have been done in a miscellaneous statutes bill. He's wrong in that regard.

The reason this bill is here is because of the hard work of the member for Nanaimo. It reflects my optimism in this chamber that the individual member can make a difference. The individual member, bringing forth a good idea, even though it's not adopted at that moment in time, can make enough of an impression that government can see the light and make change that benefits everyone in the province of British Columbia. That's what this piece of legislation does.

My colleague from Nanaimo, I have to disagree. I was compelled to stand up and put on the record that it's your hard work that we are here today debating — this particular piece of legislation.

I do have a couple of questions that I hope the Solicitor General can answer. The first is: does it apply to convertibles? Second: does it apply to motorcycles? I think that the minister should be prepared to answer those questions, because there will be those who ask that question.

I know that there are some chuckles from that, and I guess that's appropriate, but I ask it because this is a very serious issue. This is an issue that succeeding Health Ministers in this province have wrestled with over time, over the years, as more and more research has shown the dangers of secondhand smoke, particularly to young children and particularly in confined spaces.

We all know the almost never-ending list of dangerous chemicals and compounds contained in secondhand smoke. We know the link between those compounds and those chemicals and early childhood development.

We know increasing evidence — in terms of the long-term health, the long-term lifestyle habits and healthy habits — that impacts at childhood last a long, long time, both not only in terms of behavioral but also in terms of physiological. It's crucial from a health perspective that we recognize and make changes, when it's appropriate, that deal with ensuring that kids in British Columbia have the best possible start to a long and healthy life. Key in that are those issues and those habits where there is that element of choice.

With smoking there is that. We know that it's an addiction, but we also know that if parents choose to smoke in a car with their kids, then clearly that has an impact on those kids. It's in the long-term interests of the province and of families and of those kids themselves that we recognize the harm that secondhand smoke does.

That's what's so important about this legislation, and that's why I'm happy to stand up in support of this particular bill. It is an important step. It sends an important message out to the public that the province takes health care seriously.

I think the comments that the member for Nanaimo made, particularly with regards to an advertising campaign, are well-founded. The government could do a lot worse than to put some advertising into the issue around secondhand smoke in cars and the change that this legislation will bring in vehicles and confined spaces so that people are aware of the new regulations and the importance of them. I think that would be a very positive thing to do.

The other point I'd like to make, again, is something that was touched upon, and that is that cigarette smoking is on the decline in this province and has been for a number of years. We have, I think, the lowest rate of cigarette smoking of any province in the country.

M. Farnworth: The member for Nelson-Creston, even though I know he's not speaking from his seat, wants me to leave him out of this story.

I want the member for Nelson-Creston to know that his colleagues in this House and on the other side of the House care enough about his well-being and long-term health that we're having this debate, taking that opportunity to remind him of the importance of ensuring the long-term health of every British Columbian — whether newborn or nearer, my God, to thee, as some people are.

Member, that includes you, and we know that you take the words seriously because we know that when you were Health Minister, you were very actively involved in the promotion of anti-smoking programs in the province. That's something you should take credit for. I'm happy to stand here and include you in my remarks on what is a very, very serious issue.

What we forget is that this has been a long time coming. We've seen smoking rates decline, except that there has been a disturbing trend in years. As has been stated, older smokers are either choosing to quit or are for health reasons being forced to quit. Tobacco companies know that they have to get a new generation of smokers. One of the areas where that has been happening, or where the trend has gone the wrong way, has been amongst teenage girls, and that's something I think should concern us in opposition and in government. That is something we have to address.

One of the ways that people are most impressionable is when they're kids. In terms of in a car, in a smoky vehicle…. As a child, if you see your parents engaged in behaviour, no matter how many times…. I know, because I have relatives who said: "I may smoke, but don't you dare smoke." It's much easier to get the message across if you're not engaged in that activity.

So much time is spent in vehicles driving around that it really makes sense. It makes sense in the message that we want to get in as a society. It also makes the most sense from the perspective of health care, from the perspective of the long-term health of a child and families in British Columbia.

This is an important piece of legislation. I'm glad that it's on a stand-alone bill. I, too, share the concern, with the member for Nanaimo, that they could have come up with a better title. The "Leonard Krog" act would have been a good title.

Mr. Speaker: I mentioned to you not to refer to members' names in the House.

M. Farnworth: That's right. the "Leonard Cohen" act, or the "Member for Nanaimo" act.

Anyway, regardless of what the title is, this is a worthwhile piece of legislation that we on this side of the House are happy to support. As I said earlier, at the beginning, it is one of those things and why I always am an optimist in this chamber. That is that the work of an individual member can and will be recognized with good ideas.

There are other bills in this chamber that I urge the government to look at. Malahat–Juan de Fuca has one. I know that the member from Port Moody's bill was recognized at one point. The execution left a little bit to be desired, but the intent was good in terms of getting it brought forward. There are other bills. I have also had an occasional private member's bill.

My message to the government is: don't reject those private members' bills out of hand. Look at them. Incorporate them, if you must, into your own legislation, and they will be supported by the opposition.

With that, I make way for others of my colleagues who may have a few remarks on this particular piece of legislation before we vote on it.

A. Dix: I, too, want to say a few words about the contribution of all members of the opposition caucus — of course, my colleague from Nelson-Creston, an advocate for public health for many years, and my colleague from Surrey-Whalley here. He's a great contributor on these issues.

Of course, today in particular, I want to pay tribute to my colleague from Nanaimo, who has done an extraordinary job in bringing forward an idea whose time has come and that has considerable force. I want to acknowledge, on behalf of my constituents, the really exceptional work done on this issue and on this bill by the member for Nanaimo. It's a further contribution — hon. Speaker, you would agree with me, I'm sure — to the development of effective public health policies in British Columbia.

I just want to reflect on that, because it wasn't, as the member for Nelson-Creston knows, a direct road between where we are today and where we were on the issue of smoking, particularly on the issue of secondhand smoke in British Columbia. Members will know the extraordinary measures taken in the 1990s and their real impact on smoking rates, an impact that's had longstanding effect, I think, right up to the present day.

When we talk about legislation here that bans smoking in cars when children are present, I think it's part of that effort that has been developed by people who believe in public health and effective actions and measures to improve public health over a period of decades in British Columbia. It's why we have the lowest smoking rates in Canada, and that has huge benefits for us in terms of public health costs and, more important than public health costs, in terms of the health of our constituents and of the people of British Columbia.

Think of what happened in the 1990s — a tobacco strategy that took a series of different approaches. I remember that. One of the remarkable things about the tobacco strategy involving young people in the 1990s was the central role that young people played in the development of those strategies, particularly the

communication strategies where we had ads and communications campaigns designed by young people for young people that I think set the standard in terms of anti-smoking ads and anti-tobacco ads directed at young people, not just in Canada but in North America. It had an enormous effect.

We were the first jurisdiction in the world to require tobacco companies to disclose the ingredients and additives in cigarettes and the chemicals in tobacco smoke. We made these reports public in December of 1998, during a decade where enormous advances in public health took place.

In January 1999 the government of the day brought in stronger penalties for retailers who sold cigarettes to minors. We launched education programs — again, in many cases designed by youth for youth — that targeted particularly students at a vulnerable age, grades 6 and 7, in all B.C. schools. The consequence of that over a period of time was in fact to reduce smoking rates.

We also, of course, against much cynicism of the then opposition, brought in legislation that allowed us to recover the damages caused by the tobacco industry and the health care costs of that damage in British Columbia. As you know, we and the WCB at the time took strong action, consistent with what we see in this legislation, to protect employees, workers, from the effects of secondhand smoke.

Now, I mention bumps in the road. The member for Nanaimo knows this as an innovator in this area who brought this idea, which the government, because of the extraordinary public campaign he and his constituents, also young people, brought forward…. He will know that there are bumps in the road — that there are people we had to convince of the dangerous impact of secondhand smoke. There were, and that's why today is another achievement in a list of efforts that have been brought forward.

Everyone remembers, in 2001-2002, one of the most significant bumps in the road. In fact, there was an intervention, a reversal of WCB's policy protecting workers from secondhand smoke in workplaces. The worst of all possible solutions was found. There was a special group of government backbenchers, and the worst of solutions was found.

Why was it the worst of solutions? Because it was a silly idea. It took us back in the area of public health, and it forced a lot of businesses to build rooms which the government would then ban no less than five years later. Not only did they set back public health, but the very people they were supposed to be acting for paid a huge price for that step.

I know I speak for the member for Nelson-Creston and my friend from Cariboo South on this question, because we are delighted today that the good sense shown at that time and then overturned by the current government in 2002…. Now they've come back in '06 and '07 with tobacco changes.

These tobacco changes in '08 are consistent with the view that we have to protect from the impact of secondhand smoke those who don't have a choice. Children driving in cars do not have a choice. Children under 16 do not have a choice. The potential impact…. We know because the evidence is clear — study after study after study, a mountain of evidence — that this is the right thing to do and that secondhand smoke can negatively affect the health of children.

It's true, as well, of workers, I would argue, who equally have no choice sometimes. They should be afforded the same protection when we have a mountain of evidence. It's one thing to say there's dispute about the evidence. In this case, there is no dispute about the evidence. Secondhand smoke is dangerous, and it's particularly dangerous to children.

It's why I think we have to admire the work of the students in particular. We've spoken of the extraordinary work of the member for Nanaimo in this area. I don't think we can emphasize that enough, but he would be the first to admit and say that it's not about him and it's not about his work but about the work of students in his community particularly, who brought this idea forward. What a remarkable thing.

We should be writing and including this notion — I think the member for Nanaimo would agree — in high school textbooks about how to influence public process in a positive way. Here's what they did. They raised this issue, and because they have an MLA who has an ear so close to the ground in Nanaimo that nothing happens in that constituency, I would suggest, without him knowing, he listened and he understood.

So the result of that…. Oh, and there were more bumps in the road. The Health Minister said: "Aw, it's impractical and everything else." Because it was an idea whose time had come, because it was brilliantly presented by the member for Nanaimo, because young people in Nanaimo felt it was compelling and needed to happen, here we are with legislation today that bans the smoking and holding of tobacco in a motor vehicle that is occupied by a person under 16 years of age.

It makes sense. It's about the evidence. It's about a good idea brought forward by young people who believed that the political process could bring about change that they wanted to see. It's an expression of an MLA who saw that vision and made it public. Now today we have a change that will mean something real for children across British Columbia. They will not, in that confined space of the motor vehicle, be subjected to secondhand smoke, and if they are, there will be consequences for those who are going to force them to ingest secondhand smoke.

It's an excellent bill. I recommend it to all my colleagues in the Legislature. I assume that it will pass unanimously with a good heart across the Legislature. I congratulate, once more, the efforts of my colleague from Nanaimo, who has on this and so many other issues understood the concerns of his constituents and put them forward in a way that brings about change — not just putting forward big ideas that are difficult to implement but real, concrete ideas for change that can improve the lives not just of the people of Nanaimo but of people across British Columbia.

C. Evans: This won't take very long. I've been listening to people talk about when the initiative started about anti-smoking. I was actually there. It was 1991. The then Minister of Health, Elizabeth Cull, and the then Premier, Mike Harcourt, being convinced, I think, by a minister of the Crown, Tom Perry, decided that this Legislature should investigate the tobacco industry.

In those days there was actually some collaboration, some belief on the government's part that opposition and government could work together. They created a standing committee on the sale of tobacco to young people.

I volunteered to be on that committee, because it made me grumpy — what I thought was a holier-than-thou attitude in society — and I wanted to be in the room to see if the tobacco police that my colleagues represented would not be unduly judgmental about society. The things I learned in that committee stopped me cold and, I think, everybody else. I just want to point out, essentially, the change that we've come to in the last 20 years.

At that time in British Columbia tobacco companies were attempting…. As members have said earlier, older people were giving up smoking. The tobacco companies, as a strategy, decided to addict young people, especially young women. Cigarettes were being sold in British Columbia in packs of five at the time in order to be affordable to a child's allowance. Cigarettes were being decorated at the time with colourful designs, rather like lipstick or perfume, in order to attract young girls.

In the hearings held in this building, Dr. Bass brought store owners from this town to testify on the record that they had been instructed by the tobacco distributors to put packages of cigarettes at display level outside the counter where the clerk could not see the cigarettes.

When the owner of the store said that people would steal them, the tobacco distributor said: "That's the point, you idiot. We will provide the free cigarettes. Phone me every time the display gets empty." It was the intention in this town to addict people by placing product where it would be stolen, in packages that would attract young people. Imagine where we've come from in — what? — 18 years.

Those very same companies have now made the same kind of corporate decision to addict poorer countries around the world. That's essentially what's happening. We are a little bit holier-than-thou. Oh yeah, we're great, but our stock portfolios are essentially still buying stock in the companies which have decided: "Okay, we'll addict the children of Africa and Asia."

This building started down this road, thanks to very wonderful, brave people like Dr. Fred Bass who, when it wasn't popular, decided to try to convince us. They certainly did convince me. I don't like the feeling in this room that this group of people deserves some kind of credit for grappling with a tough issue. A very different group of people a long time ago decided to take on some of the richest, most powerful and lawyered-up corporations on the planet. It started over there in what we call the little House, in committee rooms about 17 years ago.

I thank the minister and all the speakers for what they're doing here today, but I'd simply like to point out that it wasn't legislators who brought this poison to our attention. It was brave citizens out there, before it ever occurred to us.

Hon. J. van Dongen: I want to thank all the members for their comments on Bill 36. I just want to mention for the interest of the members that there was a question raised by the House Leader for the opposition with respect to convertibles and motorcycles and whether or not those are motor vehicles. Both those types of vehicles are motor vehicles under the Motor Vehicle Act, and certainly the convertible car would be under this legislation. Motorcycles — there may be a consideration about that.

That is why, in my second reading comments, I talked about the regulation-making authority in the bill so that if it's considered that any particular type of motor vehicle, such as a motorhome, under particular circumstances should be considered for exemption, then that would be part of the consultation that takes place around this bill.

Similarly, the issue of motorcycles could be treated in that discussion. They're considered to be legally encompassed by this bill — both those types of vehicles raised by the Leader of the Opposition.

I should also mention for interest's sake that a bill like this, banning smoking with children aged 16 in vehicles, was originally passed in January 2007 in a place called Bangor in the state of Maine. They banned smoking in cars with children in the car. It was originally also passed by the town of Wolfville in Nova Scotia, who made that decision on November 22, 2007.

Since then, there have been certain other states…. Certainly since the decision by the city of Bangor in the state of Maine in January '07, there have been decisions by certain other states to ban smoking with children in the car.

Hon. J. van Dongen: I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 36, Motor Vehicle (Banning Smoking When Children Present) Amendment Act, 2008, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. S. Hagen: I call second reading of Bill 27, intituled the Local Government (Green Communities) Statutes Amendment Act, 2008.

Hon. I. Chong: I'm pleased to move second reading of Bill 27, Local Government (Green Communities) Statutes Amendment Act, 2008, and offer the following remarks.

All of us in this House and throughout British Columbia acknowledge the importance of our environment and the importance of working together to make our communities more sustainable places to live and to work. This is the purpose of Bill 27.

This bill supports work currently underway throughout the province, which supports the efforts of local governments to become carbon neutral in respect of their operations by 2012, to measure and report on their communities' greenhouse gas emissions profile, and to create self-sustaining, compact, more energy-efficient communities.

"So why is this necessary?" you may ask. Well, it's because climate change is a serious problem that requires immediate action. Local governments have agreed. In fact, 125 out of 188 local governments have signed on to the B.C. climate action charter committing the province, UBCM and interested local governments to work together on strategies and action.

That is what the B.C. climate action charter is about. It's about strategies and actions that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions, conserve energy and improve air and water quality.

The climate action charter is central to the work we are doing with local government. As minister responsible for local governments, it is my role to introduce legislation that further assists local governments to continue to be leaders within their communities.

This legislation requires local governments to think, plan and build green, and I know they want to do that. It supports the development of compact communities with affordable housing and lower greenhouse gas emissions.

This is certainly what has been mentioned and connected to the 2007 and 2008 Speeches from the Throne as well as the Premier's annual address to the UBCM convention, particularly last fall. As a government, we must rise to the challenge before us, and we must tackle these important issues head-on. But we know we cannot work in isolation.

Local governments, as much as individuals, have a role to play by using creative solutions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, to conserve energy and water, and to use less land for development. Local governments can and will do their part.

Bill 27 offers local governments the flexibility to find solutions that work for them. This bill does not tell them how to get results. Rather, it provides local governments with the framework to get those results.

We know that what works for Nanaimo may not work for Prince George. While they can share experiences and exchange ideas, their communities may have to take different approaches. We recognize that, and we are providing local governments with tools to make long-lasting decisions that will benefit their communities and their residents.

Take official community plans and regional growth strategies as an example. Local governments will have to adjust the way they approach these very important planning documents. They will be required to include targets, policies and actions that assist in the reduction of greenhouse gases through land use decisions.

As well, this legislation provides more options for local governments with respect to off-street parking, development permit areas and development cost charges. Local governments will now be able to use funds from off-street parking to fund alternative transportation infrastructure such as public transportation and pedestrian or bicycle paths.

Through changes to development permit areas, local governments can mitigate environmental impacts and greenhouse gases of new development through energy conservation, greenhouse gas reductions and water conservation.

With development cost charges…. Currently local governments charge developers for the cost of critical infrastructure needed by new development. Now with Bill 27, local governments will be able to waive or reduce these charges if the developer is building affordable rental housing, undertaking small-lot development that reduces greenhouse gas emissions or building a development that has a low environmental impact.

Bill 27 is legislation that exempts development cost charges on units smaller than 29 square metres, which is roughly 310 square feet. There are very few units like this being built, and without this relief, very few would ever be built. So this is an important opportunity, an opportunity to develop more affordable housing.

With these changes, local governments will be better able to think, plan and build green. They will have the authority and flexibility to set targets and strategies. But again I remind members that Bill 27 does not tell governments how to reduce their emissions. Instead, we want local government leaders to determine how to move forward to work with their citizens, move forward to bring about the best possible changes, and we will continue to encourage them through our existing programs and services.

The Local Government (Green Communities) Statutes Amendment Act, 2008, brings new ways for local governments to work towards sustainability. I ask that all members lend their support to this very worthwhile and necessary piece of legislation, and I look forward to comments from members opposite.

C. Wyse: I appreciate the applause from both sides of the House. I'm sure it will remain there after I finish providing my comments from this side of the House.

It is indeed my pleasure to stand up and speak on Bill 27, the Local Government (Green Communities) Statutes Amendment Act, 2008. This is one more in a list of government bills that have a theme that runs through them of greenwashing the importance of this particular issue of providing for the environment.

When we looked at previous legislation with regards to the fuel tax…. All the right imagery. However, upon careful examination of it, many questions were raised. Likewise, when the legislation was introduced on cap-and-trade, many questions were raised.

There are some questions that arise around this particular piece of proposed legislation, which I would like to discuss. The minister relatively quickly moved by the aspect of the mandated development cost charge being removed for the small-unit housing aspect of it. Local government is dependent in many cases upon this particular source of revenue in order to look after the provision of services such as water, sewer and other types of developments within their particular community.

Now, it is quite laudable that the government in their wisdom has determined that local government should take that cost and apply it to their particular projects. They should use their revenue in order to achieve targets that have been set here in Victoria. Local government has limited revenue sources for looking after the basic needs that their particular communities demand of that level of government.

When we look at small-unit housing, it falls into this broad category of supportive housing. I was just at a meeting, as my colleague was, with the Lower Mainland Local Government Association, which talked about the issue of supportive housing and the downloading of responsibility for that issue onto local government. They passed resolutions that looked for the provincial government to stop doing that download — of providing for responsibilities that should be done here in Victoria, onto the local government.

The issue of revenue for local government is quite significant. A community like Burnaby, for example, raises about 13 percent of their revenue from the development cost charges. So there is that issue, and it is very significant for local government.

The minister puts emphasis upon the "not mandatory" aspect of this part of the legislation. She looks at where local government can, at their discretion, determine to waive the development cost charges in and under certain rules that they themselves have decided. I'm going to come back to that aspect of it, because contained in that passing on of responsibility onto local government…. It does raise some questions that local government is going to need to address when they look at the regional growth strategies and their official community plans.

The minister did refer, quite rightfully, to her legislation in which there will be required reduction targets and policies and actions developed by local government in both of those areas. I will return to the complexity that this particular issue passes on to local government a little later on in my discussion. But at this moment in time I wish to concentrate my remarks around this area of the size of the units and relation with the development cost charge themselves, because the legislation also contains within it the availability and the possibility for the government or the minister to change the regulations at some time in the future.

At this moment in time it is set, as the minister has referred to, for about 29 square metres, but the ability to come and make changes to those regulations is also provided here within the legislation. Likewise, the legislation provides the opportunity for redirecting funds from those funds raised by local government from parking spaces. It becomes enabling legislation once more, with the requirements from these funds now to be expanded to cover such things as walking, bicycling, public transportation or other forms of transportation.

There is concern that has been raised by letter from a community group centred in Vancouver about this particular aspect. I am going to refer shortly and specifically to their particular concerns. It fits into the overall context of not having the availability in a reasonably timed fashion to bring forward their concerns.

As we have experienced here in the House this session, the government likewise has brought forward a very large number of pieces of legislation in a very short period of time towards the tail-end of the session. Then it has expected this House to give due diligence to all of those pieces of legislation and at the same time to have allowed the public at large, which actually monitors us here in the House, the opportunity to bring forward their concerns in a reasoned and timely fashion so that their concerns have a chance to be incorporated within our legislation and our debate.

I think at times here in the House we tend to forget that the Legislature is the place where we do the business of the people. This is the place where we pass the laws that the people then have to live within. They do require the opportunity, in order to be able to give a response to the legislation, to have input in a timely fashion.

The correspondence from the Neighbourhoods for a Sustainable Vancouver was sent to the Premier on this particular bill, and I know it was copied to myself as well as copied to my hon. colleague on the other side. I wish to put on record directly some of the concerns that have been raised by this group.

This group consists of about 31 community groups that exist in Vancouver. There are changes contained within this legislation for the Vancouver Charter that have an effect upon them directly. They, frankly, were somewhat shocked to find out that legislation that has quite an effect upon how they see things will unfold in Vancouver and with the limited opportunity to respond to the bill directly. So I'd like to refer and put on record some of the comments from this particular group.

To give you an idea of some of these membered groups by name, they include the Arbutus Ridge–Kerrisdale-Shaughnessy CityPlan Vision Implementa-

tion Committee, Dunbar Vision Implementation Committee, East Fraserlands Committee, Hastings Sunrise CityPlan Vision Implementation Committee, Norquay Neighbours, Victoria Fraserview Killarney CityPlan Committee, Victoria Park Group and West Point Grey CityPlan Vision Committee Liaison Group — simply to name some of the over 30 community groups that have these concerns contained in this letter.

That issue of public hearing and consultation is a part of our process here in British Columbia that is very important, and at the local level of government it is very, very important.

Municipal governments have very limited options for raising funds that cover civic infrastructure and amenities. These include property taxes, user fees, development-related levies and density incentives. If the province uses these options to raise funds for provincial responsibilities such as transit and schools, it takes away from civic funding. This is a form of downloading from senior governments, which we oppose. It adds to the existing problems that municipal governments are facing due to ongoing downloading, such as social housing and other social services.

The fees paid by developers for each required off-street parking stall that they do not provide should go towards civic infrastructure and amenities, not to the provincial responsibilities of providing transit.

The last point I wish to make on behalf of this group is that they are alarmed that Bill 27 is moving forward at an extremely fast pace without any consultation or opportunity for public input. So for the record, I believe it's important here in the House that we recognize that even a bill that is as innocuous as this one does raise some concerns about how we are enabling and empowering our local governments to carry on doing their business.

It has been mentioned by myself about the provincial responsibility of looking after such things as transportation and affordable housing. We have local governments as a group that wish to ensure that what is passed on to them by this level of government stops interfering with their ability to look after the basic needs and services that that level of government is required to provide.

We have also heard from local community groups and representatives that likewise are asking us in the Legislature to provide the same type of situation, an ability to provide local government. The ability to simply move on certain items without providing them the financial resources and the backup is alarming.

I also mentioned earlier that there is a new, additional responsibility contained within the legislation that requires further examination. That falls under section 20, as an example, where it mandates local government to set the reduction of targets, policies and actions dealing with greenhouse gases.

That is a very laudable and important thing for us to be considering here in British Columbia. But where will the resources be to support local government in developing those particular documents, official community plans and regional growth strategies? Both those items are things that our local levels of government are relatively familiar with developing, particularly under the old and former rules.

But there is a new twist that has been brought into the arena of developing those things. What I'm referring to here particularly is the Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement that this government entered into quietly by cabinet quite secretively, which they announced in April of 2006. It came into effect April 1, 2007.

In actual fact, there is a very large number of groups — including legal opinions, including the UBCM — and their legal opinion is that to move under TILMA at the local government level is going to be an exceptionally difficult task, if not something that will not be achievable under this particular agreement.

It is concerns of that nature that, when we look at the legislation and its practicality and its probability of achieving the results that are being proposed here in the legislation, must be looked at in that particular light.

Now, to tie this directly to the discussion, I wish to point out that I will have some follow-up questions with the minister around this item as well as with items around the development cost charge area. The bill is supportable, but there are areas, in our opinion, that can have improvement provided to it. Likewise, in our opinion, there are a number of questions that we'll be seeking advice from the minister on as we move through this at committee stage and we're looking at it clause by clause.

At this moment I want to return to the point that I raised: how an agreement signed by this government — the Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement — now comes into play underneath this particular piece of legislation. I will have questions of the minister of what advice and what supports she'll be providing to local government should this legislation pass in the form that it is in.

In TILMA, underneath article 6, it states: "Legitimate objectives" — and I'm going to centre in on 6(1)(b): "A Party may adopt or maintain a measure that is inconsistent with Articles 3, 4 or 5, or Part II(C) provided that the Party can demonstrate that" — and then going to (b) — "the measure is not more restrictive to trade, investment or labour mobility than necessary to achieve that legitimate objective."

It is that particular statement that has raised many, many legal opinions, including the UBCM legal opinion — the challenge that they will have in achieving targets for greenhouse gas reductions. It is not excluded underneath TILMA. Article 6 requires that the least restrictive measure be taken to achieve a legitimate objective. It is the one that has the potential to get in the way of actions taken by local governments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Under this bill, local governments have to put strategies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions into regional growth strategies and official community plans. Local governments also have the discretion to create rules defining what developments are eligible for what waivers or reductions to development cost charges.

It's possible that an Alberta company or others could come to B.C. and claim that a particular municipality's rules are restrictive to trade or that they're designed to favour local companies. Anything innovative that local government want to do on climate change will be vulnerable to challenges under TILMA — unlike the government here, which has the funds to set up a secretariat with the only limitations on the secretariat for support being how much money the government wishes to put into it.

What resources will they put into it to ensure that the challenges do not develop or at least reduce the possibilities for those challenges to occur? Where does a local government such as Clinton get the resources to do such? How about Prince George? Or even Vancouver? And the list goes on.

There are concerns that are contained in this particular bill in achieving the targets being challenged by another hand of what this particular government has done.

We have two aspects, then, that are contained within this bill and that raise questions around the bill. They raise some concerns about the bill itself. There are questions, as I've mentioned, that I will likewise be coming back to during committee stage, and as usual, I'm certain that the minister will provide answers to those particular questions.

At this moment, I have raised the points that I wish to around the bill. I will, then, turn it over to my colleagues, who also have some points to bring forward.

S. Simpson: I'm pleased to have the opportunity to join the debate around Bill 27, the Local Government (Green Communities) Statutes Amendment Act, 2008.

I guess at the outset the observation that I would make about Bill 27 is that the concerns around this bill may be more about what isn't in the bill than what is in the bill. There are pieces in the bill around development cost charges, around approaches to regional growth strategies and their requirement to contain greenhouse gas reduction targets, which are all fine. But there is an issue here around what isn't in the bill and what supports don't appear to come with this bill.

What we know is that the role of local government is going to be fundamental in any success that we're going to have around the climate change strategy. It's fundamental from a number of aspects.

First of all, you could probably make the argument that about 70 percent of emissions that we see in some way link to local governments. They link to local governments through buildings, through local area planning, through transportation, through where we build our neighbourhood centres, through how we develop our communities and through how we manage sprawl in the case of our urban communities.

All of these are issues that will play a core role in how we respond to the question of climate change and, certainly, to what role local governments may play in that. So we have this situation where about 70 percent or so of the emissions link to local governments.

We also know that local governments have a capacity that senior levels of government, the provincial and federal levels of government, aren't so good at, and that comes around planning. It certainly is my view that when you look at local planning, when you look at regional growth strategies, when you look at sustainability planning and all of those issues, local governments — certainly, from my experience in Metro Vancouver, the Greater Vancouver regional district — have a capacity to plan around those initiatives that don't necessarily belong, that aren't necessarily well addressed at the provincial and federal levels.

I think that that has much to do with the size of federal and provincial governments. They are large, large organizations. Ministries often tend to function within silos. While I know there are efforts at the deputy and ADM levels and at director levels to attempt to get cross-ministry coordination on issues, they're not necessarily really good at doing that all the time.

Local government has another capacity. They are very, very effective, I find, at planning. I look at plans like the GVRD plans around the livable region strategic plan — a very good plan — that move forward and that I know Metro Vancouver was evolving into the sustainable regional initiative, which was an advancement on the livable region strategic plan and a very good advancement in terms of beginning to look at ways to make that community, the Metro Vancouver area, more sustainable.

They're able to do that because they have the planners on the ground. They have people actually engaged with the local communities. They have an ongoing discussion.

Also, a key piece of this is that people in local communities have access to their political leaders at the local level in a way that they don't have access to us. Certainly, collectively they don't have access to us.

Unlike what happens here or what happens in the federal parliament, clearly citizens in a given community always have the opportunity to go on Monday night or Tuesday night or whatever night is council meeting night and raise their questions or raise their concerns directly with their mayor and their councils. They have that ability, if the local government is bringing forward bylaw changes or changed development plans, to come forward and sit down and raise those concerns directly with councillors.

I know that the many members — I think, on both sides here — who have sat at the local government level would all tell the rest of us about public hearings and about the role of public hearings and the hours and hours spent in public hearings listening to their constituents at the local level provide their views. So it's a level of access that simply isn't available at the provincial or the federal level.

I believe that that has an effect on how you engage communities. I believe that if it's done well…. I certainly know that in the case of Metro Vancouver, Vancouver proper, there is a lot of attention played through the social planning department in learning how to engage communities in the most effective ways and ensuring that that engagement occurs and, hopefully, trying to ensure that when final reports are written after consultation, the voices of citizens are heard in those reports as they move forward for council consideration.

You have local government, which has this significant capacity to be able, I believe, to actually engage communities, garner public input and begin to craft solutions. Local governments are going to have a challenge. We now know, of course, that not only do they have a challenge around the fuel tax…. Clearly, we've been hearing from communities around British Columbia as to their view of the fuel tax. They also have a challenge because the Premier and government are telling local governments that they need to find their way to carbon neutrality by 2012.

It's not a bad thing at all to put that challenge in front of local government. But to put it in front of local government without an effective community engagement process that brings those local communities together and allows them to engage with provincial officials, elected officials and civil servants in determining how that might best work in their communities and having some confidence that there actually might be some resources available from the senior levels of government to support the application of those initiatives, it becomes increasingly challenging.

That's part of the problem that I think we see here. I think we've seen this reflected in — I use as an example — the fuel tax that the government has brought forward. We have seen municipal association after municipal association pass resolutions raising concerns about the fuel tax. These are resolutions from people that….

When I speak to these elected officials at the local level, I know what they're telling me. They're not saying that they don't see the compelling problem around climate change that needs to be addressed. They're not saying to me that they don't understand that there's a cost to be applied here and that there will be a cost for their communities. They understand that, and they certainly don't say….

To a person they say that they want to be part of that solution, but also to a person they raise a frustration about the lack of consultation and discussion in their community and the lack of information and resources to allow their communities to have a discussion with confidence even among themselves.

The challenge and the frustration they face is that when they go forward to look at a regional growth strategy, if they're looking at how they get carbon neutrality by 2012 and at what they're facing, they are going into discussions with their citizenry not even being confident that they have the information from the federal and provincial level, in particular, that they can have a conversation about what those parameters might be and about what supports they might be able to garner from senior levels of government to help them accomplish the objective of reducing emissions.

It's something that we all share a responsibility in, but something that local government, quite frankly, is going to be at the forefront of actually accomplishing — more so than the provincial or federal levels is my view. Yet they have to be supported with resources, and at this point, they're not seeing those resources.

I'm also being told by many of those elected officials that they're also not having the dialogue with either elected leadership of government members here or with senior officials of the government to help them best understand how they can do this in a partnership.

So that raises a big concern. I know the concern. I read this in the newspaper — I guess maybe it was today. This kind of exacerbates and highlights the problem and the challenge that those communities are feeling. We know that in the northern communities, the Premier went and spoke to the municipal association.

These are the communities in British Columbia that have raised the most concern in regard to the issue of the fuel tax, and if the news reports are to be believed, the Premier got up and gave his presentation and spoke to those municipal leaders and did not talk about this tax at all. He did not give any of those municipal leaders an opportunity to engage him in a discussion about their concern about the tax. Absolutely nothing.

That has to raise a level of frustration for local leaders when the Premier, who clearly is the leader and should be leading on this issue….

S. Simpson: It is the issue that he put forward. If, in fact, what was reported is accurate….

S. Simpson: Well, I will trust the reporters more than I will trust the government side. There's not much question that, if my choice is to trust Ian Bailey in the Globe and Mail or trust these two esteemed ministers, I'll be calling Ian up to ask him what the facts are.

S. Simpson: So that's part of the frustration that local governments feel. It is inexplicable to me why the Premier, on this issue that is clearly so important to him, would go to the northern communities when he knows this is one of the most pressing issues they have. I understand they had about 50 resolutions in total to deal with, of which at least seven of them dealt with this question of the gas tax. Yet this was an issue that the Premier — if the Globe and Mail is to be believed — simply did not find important enough to talk to our local community leaders about.

We need to start talking to our local leaders, and we need to start talking to them about the things that we will support. We need to start talking about what a plan looks like if we're going to get at the issue of greenhouse gas emissions and get at climate change.

We need to start to engage that discussion about what we know is a pressing issue for local government, which is improvements in their infrastructure — their ability to make changes to increase the efficiency of public buildings and their ability in cooperation with federal and provincial governments to engage in strategies that help individual British Columbians in those communities to also improve the efficiencies of their own properties.

That would mean actually having a discussion about retrofits, about how we engage those retrofits and about how we bring forward some resources to allow those communities to, in fact, begin to move forward.

As we all know, budgets tend to be where policies actually get applied. When I looked in the budget — and this was going to be the green budget — I was pretty hopeful I was going to see a whole lot of money for real, green initiatives. So I looked through that budget for that infrastructure retrofit program for local governments.

I kept looking and looking. I didn't see much there. There still are some dollars coming through federal gas tax dollars that get down through the UBCM to local government. It's a good thing for them to be able to use that money, but I didn't see the province putting its money where its mouth is on this — as they should have done — and beginning to provide that support. That didn't happen.

Also, we know that local governments invest significant time and effort in developing growth strategies. I know that in my communities around the Lower Mainland and Metro Vancouver, as it's now called, there are huge investments of time and great cooperation to put the livable region strategic plan in place and to move forward on the sustainable region initiative.

Yet this government dismissed the livable region strategic plan in its own plans. They have not engaged the community in a satisfactory way. How do you do that when you're trying to find ways to create solutions? Unfortunately, it didn't occur.

It's a very troubling situation when that occurs because if we're going to be successful…. If Bill 27, the Local Government (Green Communities) Statutes Amendment Act, 2008, is to be successful, it needs to bring consultation, real engagement with local government, to the table. It needs to bring its expertise to the table to support local government officials.

In some larger communities — in the Vancouvers — they have staff and resources, but in many smaller communities they have limited staff and resources. The province could bring big resources to the table to support their planning. Absolutely, they could do that. They could begin to put some resources on the table and say: "We will do this as a cooperative venture. Together we will find those solutions as a cooperative venture."

Leadership is about saying: "Here is the objective we need to accomplish, and this objective is not going to change. That's our objective, but we are going to work together to make those solutions successful." On climate change, there is no more important issue, I believe, for that collaboration, but that's not what we're hearing.

We're hearing: "There's kind of a target out there to reach, and we will tell you from edict on high what those things are that you will do." That appears very much to me to be what we're facing from the government, because that has been a trend that has gone through all of the legislation, all of the pronouncements related to climate change.

It has been consistent. The secrecy and the autocracy of these decisions has been the consistent thing with this government on every climate change initiative — this "we know best" approach from the cabinet table — and that's part of the problem.

How do local government officials have confidence — whatever the minister might say about "We're not going to tell them what to do" — when every other example has been exactly about telling them what to do? That's the problem.

That's why I know that many local government officials are concerned that this just builds on the download on local government — that it will reinforce that and begin to frame the way tax breaks will be found through changes in development cost charges to the development community. They are concerned, and I think they have reason to be concerned.

I think I'm getting that look. I see that hon. Speaker look that I'm coming to know well. With that, I would reserve my place and move adjournment of debate.

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

I think it's important that people watching or listening or reading Hansard do have some opportunity to refer to other documents that we may not get a chance to refer to, in terms of additional information that supports the work that the ministry is doing, and that enlighten them in terms of the direction the ministry is going. I do want to just reference a few of those so that the people have that reference point.

Certainly, the recently released MCFD action plan Strong, Safe, and Supported does set the overarching direction for the ministry moving forward, with a stronger focus on early intervention and a needs-based approach to supporting and protecting vulnerable children and youth through a strong and integrated system. That action plan is supported by a good-practices operational plan that sets out a number of priorities over the next five years and time lines for achieving various milestones as we work forward in strengthening services to children and youth and families across our province. Both of those plans are on the ministry's website and are available for the public to see.

As well, I want to note that collaboratively with the Ministries of Health and Education, we have developed a framework for action for children and youth with special needs, which really does provide a way that the ministries are working together at the provincial level but, more importantly, at a regional and local level, to ensure that we can strengthen services for children with special needs and their families.

In speaking with families, we identified pretty quickly that there are a range of programs available — almost 90 programs across the three ministries at a cost of over half a billion dollars a year — but that families face challenges in accessing those services and in identifying what service may be appropriate for their children. So the ministries have embarked on a process, developed a framework that enables us to work much more closely together. Certainly, early indications are that that is a very welcome development and is something that we're looking forward to seeing evolve.

As well, at the end of March the province released a ten-year provincial plan for FASD to build on the earlier plan that was in place. Again, that brings together work of nine different ministries across government and does set a strong framework for collaborative work to address the needs of children and families who are dealing with the challenges brought by FASD.

Mr. Chair, 2008 marks the fifth and final year of implementation of the child and youth mental health plan. That's a plan that has seen the province double the resources to child and youth mental health across the province. We will be undertaking a review of the progress made as a consequence of that five-year plan to assist us in looking at where additional work needs to be done, where the successes have been and where the challenges still lie in addressing the needs of children and youth with mental health issues across the province.

I can certainly tell you that we have seen a dramatic increase in the number of children and youth that are accessing services — almost double, to about 20,000 children and youth that are receiving MCFD outpatient, community and mental health services. As I say, that's about double what it was when the plan started. We have seen in the last two years of the plan a significant focus in terms of aboriginal children and youth and of outreach to those communities, which has been sorely lacking up until this point.

As well, I want to highlight some of the progress made since estimates last year in terms of the sexual abuse intervention program. As members may know or will have heard, funding to that program was increased by 50 percent this year. That allows us to implement stronger standards and accountabilities for that program across the province and to have greater confidence that the program is able to meet the needs of children and youth in all parts of the province with a strong system, based on standards.

It's unfortunate that that is a program that, once it was initially introduced in the early 1990s, really did not receive any attention for the ensuing 15 or 18 years, until it was reviewed by government over the last couple of years. A significant additional investment was made, again, based on ensuring strong standards across the province.

We have seen, as well, significant shifts in how we're working with families. We've seen a dramatic increase in the use of a family development response in terms of protection matters, a dramatic increase in family group conferencing and dramatic increases in the number of mediations that the ministry is participating in with families — all in an attempt to move away from what has historically been a very adversarial process in child protection matters to one where we are working

more collaboratively with families to try and address some of the underlying challenges they may face that may be impacting their ability to properly care for their children.

The number of those more collaborative processes that we are engaged in has increased dramatically. I think that is very good news for families. It certainly is something that is a welcome development for our front-line social workers, all of whom are very committed to working with families, as opposed to being placed in a position where they're having an adversarial relationship with families.

Finally, the last thing I'll highlight, before my friend dives into his questions, is that I'm very pleased that we've been able to announce and get the funding support to move forward with development of an integrated case management system. Information is at the heart of what child protection work and children's services are about. Our front-line workers need good information if they are going to better assist families and ensure that children are safe.

We are moving forward over the next four years with an approximate $115 million investment in a new integrated case management system that I believe will revolutionize the way we are able to connect with families and deliver services in a much more supportive way to families. That is certainly a very welcome development for me and one that, as I say, I think will revolutionize the way the ministry delivers services into the future.

With that, I will turn it over to my friend. I'm sure he has a few questions, at least.

N. Simons: I'd like to just say thank you to the minister and to the staff who are all here. Sarf and Lesley, I know you, and I know a few in the back row, I'm sure. It's good to see you.

My intention in this process is to attempt to get the baseline information that will help me as a critic to keep the government accountable and everything. It's all part of the job, and I appreciate the minister offering those introductory words.

I'd like to start, if possible, focusing on child protection and maybe spend this afternoon, if we have that time, to talk about staffing, programming and direction for the ministry.

Specifically, if I can just launch right into it, I'm wondering if the minister can describe or outline the current child-in-care statistics. How many children are there in care? How many are with the ministry and how many are in first nations delegated agencies' care? And if there could be a breakdown in terms of the legal arrangement for that care, in terms of whether it's a court order, voluntary care, kith and kin, child in the care of others — a breakdown for legal status.

Hon. T. Christensen: I appreciate the member's question, and I appreciate the member actually pointing out that I neglected to introduce my staff, for which I apologize.

I am joined today by a number of very capable folks from the Ministry of Children and Family Development. First, my deputy minister, Lesley du Toit; on my left, ADM Sarf Ahmed; at the back, Assistant Deputy Minister Sandra Griffin; ADM Karen Dellert; ADM Mark Sieben; and ADM Deb Foxcroft. They will certainly provide assistance here.

In terms of the member's specific question — and this will be as of April 2008 month-end — there were 3,239 aboriginal children in care, and there were 4,431 non-aboriginal children in care, for a total of 7,670. That's in care of the ministry. Then there are 1,529 children in care of delegated aboriginal agencies, so the total for aboriginal children in care is 4,768, and the total for children in care overall is 9,199.

In addition — again, this is the end of April — there are 102 aboriginal children in kith-and-kin agreements and 80 non-aboriginal children in kith-and-kin agreements. There are 139 aboriginal children under youth agreements and 427 non-aboriginal children under youth agreements. There are 592 aboriginal children under supervision orders and 685 non-aboriginal children under supervision orders. Then in terms of out-of-care options, under sections 35(2) and 41(1) of the act, there are 74 aboriginal children and 95 non-aboriginal children.

N. Simons: If I may just seek some clarification. Is it section 52? Or 52(2)? Did he say 32? Anyway, it doesn't matter. We'll get to that later.

I know it's a snapshot — end of April. How many are in continuing custody? How many are in temporary care? How many are waiting for an order?

Hon. T. Christensen: Now, these are end of March numbers. They go up and down a little bit each month, but they won't be dramatically different in terms of a percentage of caseload. As of the end of March of 2008, there was a non-continuing custody order caseload of 4,031. These are either temporary orders, in care by agreement or where they're awaiting an order early on.

In comparison, the continuing custody order caseload at the end of March was 5,240.

N. Simons: Does the minister have the figure on how many of those 5,240…? What type of placements are they in, like in terms of foster care placement? Are they group homes, levelled homes, regular, restricted?

Hon. T. Christensen: I'm not to break down or to distinguish for the member between continuing custody orders and what may be temporary orders or voluntary care arrangements. But I can break down for the member the type of placement overall so that you get some sense between the different levels of foster homes and group homes, etc.

So this, again, is as of March 2008. There were 841 children in care in level one care foster homes, 1,896 in level two, 1,324 in level three, 482 in regular family care and 749 in restricted family care — for a total of 5,292.

There were a further 169 children in care in a group home setting and a further 875 in other contracted resources.

N. Simons: How many foster homes does the ministry currently have on their list?

N. Simons: Can the minister describe the current status — whether that's not enough or too many? Obviously, there's always a need for more, I understand. But in terms of previous years' numbers, is that showing an increase or is it showing a decrease, and what type of increase or decrease would that be?

Hon. T. Christensen: That is a slight decrease from March of 2007, and previous years were relatively consistent with March of 2007, fluctuating a little bit up and down.

The member is certainly correct that it remains a challenge in terms of attracting foster parents and ensuring that we have sufficient foster homes in all different parts of the province. The challenge is a little greater in some places than others, but the reality is that the ministry very much welcomes more British Columbians to apply to be foster parents and to take on both the challenge and the very rewarding opportunity that it provides to make a difference in a child's life.

N. Simons: Does the minister have statistics on how many kids are actually staying in a motel or a hotel situation right now with a child care worker?

Hon. T. Christensen: I don't have definitive numbers, and the numbers are very small. Sometimes it'll be zero; sometimes there may be two or three. It tends to happen on the weekends more than during the weekdays, and it tends to be an after-hours placement. There might be a situation that's somewhat of a crisis late at night, and a child is taken into care, and that's really the only option.

It's certainly not a preferred option, but it is one that tends to come into play when we're dealing with adolescents who are often trying to run away or some other particular challenge. But as I said, it's certainly not a preferred option, and they tend to be very, very short term.

N. Simons: I've just heard from some social workers about that being used more regularly, and I'm wondering if there's a specific crisis in foster parenting in the greater Vancouver–Fraser Valley area and whether that has met with any specific, targeted attempts to recruit foster homes in those regions.

Hon. T. Christensen: There has been recently some small increase — that's sort of anecdotal, actually; so that may be what the member is hearing — in terms of having to place youth very temporarily in a hotel- or motel-type of setting with a social worker. Those are largely driven by particularly difficult youth who run if you place them in a foster home setting. So for their own safety — on a temporary basis, at least — they're being placed with a social worker in that type of setting.

It is also fair to say, though, that in terms of foster parent recruitment it's a much more competitive market to find people who are willing to take somebody into their home. I say competitive because what we are competing with often is foreign students who are coming to do a homestay in British Columbia.

People will open up their home to somebody coming from a country around the world, whereas in the past they might have looked at opening their home to a British Columbian child that was in need of a foster placement. We're also seeing challenges in recruiting the very highly skilled and experienced foster homes that are necessary for some of our highest needs children. So those are our challenges that we are actively working to address.

As well, particularly in the Lower Mainland, we're recruiting on an ongoing basis. We've also undertaken some additional efforts over the last couple of years to reach out to some of the ethnic communities that historically we haven't had a strong connection to. That's to look for potential foster homes in their communities so that we have a pool of foster homes reflective of the pool of children who come into care now and again and so that we can try and match children with the most familiar and appropriate homes.

N. Simons: I was asking specifically because I had heard a story about, I think, an 11-year-old and a five-year-old placed in a motel with a child care worker. I wonder, first of all, whether that was at all typical. I was told that it was not often that you would have children that young. Is it indicating a crisis of a greater proportion than we're being told with respect to resources available to children at risk?

Hon. T. Christensen: I will take some exception to the description of a crisis. We certainly don't believe there's any crisis. Unfortunately, we tend to throw words out now and again and not really understand fully or mean their full intent, so the member may not have meant that.

This is only speculation, but it is most likely that if there were a situation where siblings, an 11-year-old and a five-year-old, were put up in a hotel with a social worker rather than placed in a foster home immediately, that would be done because there wasn't a foster home that could take both of them at the same time. So it would likely be an after-hours placement, either late at night or over a weekend. Every effort is made to keep siblings together, recognizing that if they are being removed from their home, they're already experiencing a pretty traumatic event. We do try to keep them together as best we can.

As well, I can advise the member that the ministry's operational plan identifies the need for additional work

around recruitment and, importantly, retention of foster parents as an important need — really on an ongoing basis. As we have foster parents retiring — and the demographics tell us that we will, just like in any other endeavour these days, see those pressures — we are finding additional homes that are prepared to be home for children who are coming into care.

The ministry is in the midst now of a three-year cycle of increased rates for all foster parents to try and ensure that the rates for foster parents are increasing in a timely manner to at least alleviate some of the fiscal pressure that might be there.

N. Simons: Just to clarify, I was just asking if it was indication of a significant crisis or a crisis, but I mean, I think in this particular ministry we're often dealing with people who are obviously in need of some assistance and some involvement, so in a way it's almost as if there's a crisis on a regular basis.

Now, specifically to the issue of foster homes and foster parent recruitment. Who in the ministry is expected to do the recruitment of foster parents?

Hon. T. Christensen: There are a number of ongoing efforts in terms of recruitment of foster parents. We primarily contract with the B.C. Federation of Foster Parent Associations in terms of ongoing recruitment.

Here on the Island it's actually a separate contract with the Foster Parent Support Services Society, on the lower Island in particular. We also contract with the aboriginal foster parents society in terms of recruitment within the aboriginal community.

Suffice to say that the reality is that our staff, on an ongoing basis, are identifying people that might become foster parents, as are the delegated agencies. We have found, historically, that our best success in recruiting foster parents really is through word of mouth. That's why we do provide some funding to these different organizations that are representative of existing foster parents in terms of really spreading their network of influence to identify additional people who will consider being foster parents.

N. Simons: Do these organizations have any expectations or deliverables for outcomes on those contracts?

Hon. T. Christensen: Certainly, the contracts have deliverables but perhaps not in the sense that the member may be thinking. It's not a deliverable such as: "You must produce 25 new foster parents or 125 new foster parents." Rather, it's a deliverable in respect of the activities that we expect them to undertake and the training that we expect them to provide to potential foster parents.

Hon. T. Christensen: They would certainly be available through freedom of information, and my expectation would be that there's very little of them that couldn't be made fully public.

N. Simons: My understanding is that when foster homes are recruited, it's the resource social worker who engages with that person and sets up that home. I'm wondering how many social workers are classified as resource social workers in the province.

Hon. T. Christensen: Certainly, resource social workers are a critical part in approving new foster homes. In some cases, we contract with community-based agencies which may be assisting us in identifying and vetting foster homes, although ultimately a resource social worker is going to have to give a final approval. But the workload can be spread out somewhat by engaging with different community-based agencies.

Unfortunately, I don't have a number for resource social workers specifically. What I have is a number for non–child protection social workers, which is a combination of adoption workers, resource social workers, mental health workers and special needs workers. I can give you that number, but it may not be exactly wanted. That number is 704. That's an increase, through last year, of about 110 over what it was at the beginning of 2007. The 704 is as of the end of December of 2007.

N. Simons: Could the minister tell me how many district offices there are in the province?

Hon. T. Christensen: The total of community and regional offices is 161. In addition, there are about another 50 co-locations with other ministries in different communities.

R. Chouhan: With us today are Mrs. Heather Kuelker and Dr. Eric Kuelker and Mrs. Jodi Tucker and Mr. Blair Armstrong from Kids Matter Canada. Please welcome them.

N. Simons: Can I just get clarification? Were those 50 co-locations included in the 161 or separate?

N. Simons: All right. So within that 709 — up 110 — of social workers who are non–child protection, that leaves how many child protection social workers? And will the child protection number include those who are called family development response workers, etc.?

Hon. T. Christensen: As of the end of December 2007 it would be 1,255, and yes, that would include family development workers.

N. Simons: If I may pursue that — the family development response social worker versus the child protection social worker. Can the minister explain how family development response is any different from in the past when social workers met with families and tried to identify family members who could be supportive and, at times, engaged in mediation through the court or did family case conferencing? Can the minister explain how this is any kind of shift?

Hon. T. Christensen: The critic is a social worker, so he can probably relate to some of the history here a little better than I, because I'm not a social worker and don't profess to be one.

Firstly, the member's reference to how social workers used to do their work is appropriate. I am advised that back prior to the ministry moving towards more of a risk assessment–based model, which occurred around 1998, social workers were in a position to have much more of a collaborative relationship with families to try and identify some of the underlying challenges they were facing and head those off, in the interest of keeping the family together and providing the types of supports that would avoid the need for a child to be taken into care to ensure his or her safety. That is the type of practice that we want to be moving towards.

In 2003 the ministry adopted family development response standards to try and guide the work of social workers in that type of more collaborative approach with families. At their heart, that type of approach is, as I said, more collaborative and focused on identifying the reasons that a child may be suffering from neglect or something that might otherwise be impacting the health and safety of a child in his or her family.

What has happened since those standards were developed is that, typically, different offices around the province, depending on their size, have either had individual family development response workers who are dedicated to that type of approach — the families where it was identified that that was a more appropriate approach than the historic investigative and more, I guess, court process–related approach would be served by those workers — or in some offices, and I've certainly seen this in offices that I've visited, they'd have a particular team within the ministry office that was dedicated to a family development response type of approach.

When a report of a child in need of protection came in, very early on they would try to identify whether it was most appropriately handled through the family development response team or whether it was more consistent with a very rigid risk assessment and the more court process–related approach.

Although we've seen more of the family development response type of approach over the last few years, we have not seen near the uptake in that that we would like as a ministry. We do want to see more of that collaborative work ongoing. That is identified in the ministry's operational plan — to expand the use of the family development response and approaches that are consistent with that. Moving forward, we're looking at different options about how we might do that.

N. Simons: So what is currently the alternative to family development response when a social worker receives a call indicating that a child may be in need of protection?

Hon. T. Christensen: The alternative is a full investigation under section 16 of the act, which tends to focus very much on a rigid risk assessment model as opposed to more comprehensive work with the family. Certainly, as I think I indicated in my previous answer, since 1998 the ministry has been very much driven by that full investigation type of approach.

What FDR, or family development response, recognizes is that while there will always be situations where a full investigation is warranted and necessary, there are also circumstances where it may be more appropriate, as envisioned by section 16 of the act, to assess the overall situation and refer the family to family services that might help them deal with some of the underlying challenges that they face.

Certainly we would be more than happy to arrange for a more fulsome briefing and discussion with the critic, if he so desires, around family development response and the value that the ministry sees in that.

N. Simons: Well, I appreciate that. What I think is really at issue is that "family development response" is simply a new term for family support service, family mediation. Looking for a new…. To me, it indicates that there's actually a shift when in fact it's simply, really, another word for what has already existed, and maybe it's a stronger focus.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but every call also requires an investigation prior to engaging in a family development response routine.

Hon. T. Christensen: As I indicated earlier, I'm not a social worker, and I'm not going to get into the intricacies of social work practice. But essentially what the family development response contemplates is what in some other jurisdictions is referred to as a differential response, where very early on we attempt to identify whether the situation is one where we can be working collaboratively with the family at the same time that we're gathering information, but focused on both the risk to the child and determining what other types of supports we can put in place to support the family to be looking after the child in a healthy manner.

That contrasts with what I will call a purely investigative approach, where the primary interest of the ministry — and perhaps the sole interest, some would argue — is gathering information in terms of only assessing risk to the child and not looking at the family in a more holistic or a strength-based way.

We believe that certainly there's more opportunity to be working with families than has been the practice over the last decade, in particular. But the member is correct — I think he at least inferred, if he didn't say outright — that elements of this are consistent with what we have expected social workers to do historically and what has been seen as best practice of social workers historically.

Unfortunately, what I'm led to believe occurred in about 1998 and in the years following that was that the ministry became very focused on a pure risk assessment and "investigation for the purposes of gathering information about risk" approach rather than also looking to identify the strengths that a family had and how we could be working with that family to ensure that the child was safe.

We would like to take that latter approach more than we have done over the past decade. It's one where we can demonstrate that…. We are starting to take that approach more, but as I said, we certainly believe that there's much more opportunity to do that than we have taken advantage of to date.

N. Simons: Just as a point of clarification, in the 1990s there were a number of studies that were undertaken with community groups, both first nations and non-aboriginal people across the province, which were beginning to make changes in the ministry. Then along came the tragedy of Matthew Vaudreuil and the Gove report. The Gove did have a backlash on social workers, and the number of children in care did spike temporarily.

What I have issue with is that there's this illusion that somehow we're spending more time keeping families together, when in fact that isn't the case. In fact, if you look at the statistics since 2001, you'll see a continual decline in the number of family service files that are open. Meanwhile, the number of calls remains the same, and the number of child protection concerns remains the same.

How can the minister explain that the number of family service files is going down and the number of families that the ministry is working with is going up?

Hon. T. Christensen: In fact, the number of family services files is actually going up quite dramatically. Since 2002-03 when it was 14,079, it has steadily increased to 16,311 as of March of 2008.

Now, the member may be in possession of some data from what's called the MARS system which suggests otherwise. What these numbers reflect is additional work to identify the actual files that are there. We'd be happy, again, to provide a fuller briefing to the member in terms of the information available around that.

As would be expected, if we're working more closely with families, the number of family services files should go up. That's clearly what has happened, certainly over the last five years.

N. Simons: Then how can the minister explain the discrepancy? Are all the MARS statistics invalid?

Hon. T. Christensen: I'm advised that we don't, certainly, rely on MARS with any exclusivity in terms of gathering information. We tend to actually look behind the data that it presents, because it does not provide a fulsome picture.

As I indicated, I think, in my opening comments, one of the things that I'm very pleased the ministry is moving forward with is a very significant information management system development and integrated case management system development over the next four years. We have very much recognized that although that's an expensive endeavour over the next four years, it is critical to ensure that we have much stronger data that we can rely on in terms of its face value and not be in the position where we are having to look behind what a particular report says to actually ensure whether or not we have data that we're prepared to rely on.

Hon. T. Christensen: Certainly, the MARS system is dependent on the data that is fed into it, and some of the feeder systems are more reliable than others. For example, we have relatively good confidence in the MARS system in terms of the financial data that it can provide to us. Certainly, if ADMs and others in the ministry are observing particular trend lines that the MARS system is showing, what it leads us to do is to look behind those trend lines and then try to identify exactly what is going on, to see if it is reflective of the true trend or not.

It is a useful tool, provided that its limitations are recognized. Again, we have recognized that we would like to have information systems that are much more reliable on face value, and that's very much part of this significant investment being made over the next four years to replace our information systems with, really, what should be state-of-the-art technology.

N. Simons: In effect, unless you can look behind those statistics at the raw data, those statistics are in fact useless. That appears to be the response. Because we don't know if the data is indicating that the number of children in care is going down. We don't know if the data on the number of children or youth who are receiving youth agreements is going up or down.

There are graphs, there are pictures, and there are numbers and dates on it. Every social worker is encouraged to look at them. Are they told that the data is unreliable? Are they told what's reliable and what's not

reliable? What's the point of collecting the research, if it's not in itself able to influence and inform practice?

If there's one thing that needs to happen, it's to learn from the practice that's been undertaken. Statistics are proudly put on the ministry website indicating that the number of non-aboriginal children in care is going down. Those come directly from the MARS statistics. What are we supposed to believe when we are looking for statistics on the ministry?

Hon. T. Christensen: As I've indicated, we've identified very clearly the need to have systems that we can rely on wholly. The MARS system serves a purpose. It is imperfect. It provides certain data, and depending on what you're looking for, it provides a snapshot in time, but it is not something that is relied on exclusively in terms of developing policy, because its limitations are recognized. That is why the ministry is proceeding with a $115 million investment over the next four years to replace information systems, to ensure that we have the types of systems in place that are going to give us the most reliable data possible.

Typically, we do not publicly publish the MARS data, because we do have issues, depending on which data it is, about how reliable it is. It is available on the intranet, internal to the ministry, in terms of providing a snapshot of certain information in a period of time, but again, it's not relied on exclusively in terms of developing policy based on that information. We tend to actually look behind it and gather additional information to guide how policy is developed.

N. Simons: I'm sorry. That just adds…. I mean it makes it very difficult for any observer of the ministry, or anybody who's trying to assess the effectiveness of programs from without the ministry, to make any conclusions. I think that it would….

You know, $115 million on a new system — to do what this system was supposed to do, I might add…. I remember being briefed on the MARS system and how it was going to be extremely useful to social workers. Now we find out — after how many years? — that it has never been effective.

N. Simons: Oh, if the minister wants to tell us how it has been effective, I would be appreciative of that. Can the minister maybe, in that answer, tell me how many family service files there are and how many child service files there are?

Hon. T. Christensen: As of March 2008, as indicated earlier, the number of family service files was 16,311. The number of children in care at March 31 was 9,237.

In terms of the MARS system, it is essentially a data management system. It provides certain data that our staff then use to compile reports about the number of children in care, about different trends. That enables staff to look beyond simply the data that MARS is producing to ensure that they are compiling a report that is reflective of what's going on in the ministry. Those reports are then shared with staff within the ministry and otherwise.

In the member's comments earlier, he may have left the impression — and I may have as well, in some of my answers — that MARS is something that front-line social workers are using on some regular basis; it is not. It is a data management system that is used largely here in Victoria in terms of collecting overall data around the ministry and then providing a starting point for analysis of that data. Social workers around the province who are working with families are using a different information system called MIS. So that is the one that they would be inputting data into and using on an ongoing basis.

Our full expectation in terms of moving forward with the integrated case management project is that all of these systems within the ministry will be replaced so that we have one very strong, fully modernized case management system that better enables our front-line social workers to retrieve the information that they require, to spend less time inputting data to the MIS system and to instead be better able to focus their time and their energies on the work that they want to be doing, which is with families.

In that sense, I do believe that the new system is going to revolutionize the practice of front-line social workers. Similarly, the new system will much better enable the ministry to identify exactly what is happening in different regions of the province — with different populations, with different offices — in a much more confident manner, to inform a host of decisions that we make.

N. Simons: My understanding was that SWSMIS, the ministry's information management system, was the informing data for the MARS system. We also know that the MIS system in the ministry has suffered from its own lack of internal integrity at times, depending a lot on how workers use the system. So that's understandable.

This new system. We know a lot about what happened with SWSMIS, with how it was introduced and how every delegated agency had to catch up ten years later. Information wasn't shared. Information had to be convoluted. Has the ministry approached the first nations directors, and have they bought into this new information management system?

Hon. T. Christensen: As I expect the member is aware, some delegated agencies are using the MIS system. Others are using a different system that I'm told is called Best Practices. That is one that they have adopted themselves. When this project is complete, the expectation is that they will either be using the system that is developed or the system that they are using will be able to be integrated with the new information system being developed with the ministry.

Delegated agencies have been included in discussions to date around development of the new system. There's a recognition, certainly, that we need to be effectively sharing information, as appropriate, with delegated agencies, and they will continue to be included in our work around the design of the new system to ensure that they are fully included and fully benefit from this undertaking.

R. Chouhan: I have a few questions. Maybe the minister can shed some light on them. What is the minister's view about the Maples assessment of children? That's the first question.

Maybe along the same line the minister can answer: should the CLBC accept the Maples assessment of children?

Hon. T. Christensen: As the member may well know, the Maples Adolescent Treatment Centre is one component of the overall provincial child and youth mental health services. It's a tertiary care centre, so it tends to be that some of the most acute cases go there. I'm not quite sure what the nature of the assessment is, I guess, that the member is getting at, so maybe he can enlighten me a little bit more and then maybe we can better answer the question.

R. Chouhan: The reason I asked this question is that one of my constituents — her son — is going through this situation. This family is going through a very difficult situation. She is struggling with the ministry's district office because CLBC is asking for a new psychological assessment. I wrote a letter on November 20 to the minister and asked for some explanation.

In that letter I indicated that a further assessment would be against this child's interest. A Maples assessment was done earlier. It was thorough and expensive. It cost $30,000. Now CLBC is rejecting it and putting this family through unnecessary stress.

So my question is…. Maples assessment, the whole department, is part of this ministry. Why is CBLC not accepting that assessment which was done on this child?

Hon. T. Christensen: I have some admittedly vague recollection of the member's letter and the circumstances of this particular situation, but I hesitate to respond, because it is somewhat vague. As the member may know, my understanding is that we are going to have folks here from CLBC tomorrow afternoon in terms of estimates. It may be better that we could answer it then. Or if the member wants to sort of provide me afterward with a reminder of the specifics, we could quickly look into it and, hopefully, get a response by tomorrow for the member.

R. Chouhan: It's a new question. It's not a CLBC question. We'll ask that tomorrow, then. Thank you, Minister.

I have another question, because I may not be here tomorrow. During the estimates debates of the Attorney General I asked him a question, and he said this. I'm a bit puzzled, and the only person who can clarify it is this minister. To my question, the Attorney General said…. I was asking how many other programs the Attorney General's ministry was involved with. He said that one of the ministries involved was Children and Family Development.

"We are working with that ministry to explore early childhood interventions for vulnerable refugee children and their families. We have implemented a community-based model that was developed in Surrey. The potential to use a similar process and/or model is being explored with other communities where there are higher concentrations of refugee families."

My question is: what is the Surrey model? Secondly, if it's working with the refugee families…. Burnaby-Edmonds has the highest concentration of refugee families there. Could somebody tell me what's going on? We haven't heard a thing about it in Burnaby-Edmonds.

Hon. T. Christensen: Honestly, to the member: I'm not trying to avoid your questions, but we're not 100 percent sure of specifically what the Attorney General may have been referring to. Certainly, we're aware of a multicultural table that the Attorney General has helped to establish in the Surrey area. I'm not aware of whether a similar table has been established in the Burnaby area. That is one that the MCFD may have been invited to participate at, but we'll look at that and see if we can get the member a more fulsome answer.

Certainly, we recognize…. We do have involvement with refugee families and immigrant families from time to time. There are some unique challenges there that we would work closely on with the Ministry of Attorney General, particularly in their work around settlement services, to try and overcome.

N. Simons: If I could get back to the issue of files. I guess that, indirectly, it's issues around workload. I know that the minister has been saying that over the last couple of years there has been significant hiring of social workers in various regions.

Now, I'm cautious about using statistics — official statistics even. I don't want to step out of line here, but my understanding is that in 2006 the ministry hired 187 new social workers, but the net gain of social workers was actually only 66. Then in 2007 they hired 215 with the net gain of 45.

I'm just wondering if the numbers we've been hearing around 200 actually reflect another set of statistics somewhere: my statistics or MARS statistics — statistics from outer space, in fact.

Hon. T. Christensen: What we've seen over the last three years is a significant increase in the FTEs that the

ministry is allocated. In fact, between 2005-06 through to this year we'll have an additional 804 FTEs.

Now, obviously, not all of those are in child protection work. Those are spread across the ministry. About 128 of those are specific to children at risk. That's FTEs, mind you. In terms of specific employees — in terms of front-line child protection social workers, in 2006 there was a net increase of 78, in 2007 a net increase of 45, and through this year there may be additional ones as well.

N. Simons: How does the ministry determine when to increase the number of social workers and when not to, considering the increased caseload reportedly associated with family development response?

Hon. T. Christensen: Certainly, the allocation of FTEs has historically been based on a workload model that tries to identify what we'll need. As we are looking at expanding the family development response and as we look at what we believe has been our limited success in expanding that and look to what we need to do to expand it further as well as other different ways of working with families, part of that is to identify what additional human resources we require, how we resource those human resources and how we recruit those human resources.

As I'm sure the member will recognize, an increasing challenge, even if you have the FTEs, is one of actually finding the people to fill those positions. That's something the ministry is actively working on in terms of our own human resource planning on a go-forward basis.

N. Simons: I might come back to the issue, if that's okay with the minister.

If I may turn to another issue that is major in the ministry's plan — that is, the recent Strong, Safe, and Supported plan, which appears to be a bit of a rework of the Good Practice Action Plan draft of 2007, I'm wondering if there was any strategy involved in releasing it on the day that the representative released Amanda, Savannah, Rowen and Serena and if that also pre-empted the Auditors General two reports that were coming out a week and a half later.

Hon. T. Christensen: No. As the member may have noted, we didn't release it with sort of a grand fanfare. It is something that we have been working on for a considerable period of time. I think it's fair to say that within the ministry we were all frustrated that it was taking us a good deal of time to follow up on the draft Good Practice Action Plan and actually get a finalized report out.

Quite frankly, we posted it to the Internet as soon as it was available, and we were comfortable that we could do that in an accurate way. I certainly would have preferred to have had it done earlier, but I am very satisfied in terms of the end product and the fact that it provides a strong foundation and a strong guiding post in terms of the work that the ministry is responsible for and how we're going to do that work in the coming years.

N. Simons: Would it not have been appropriate — knowing that the provincial Auditor General was going to be coming out with a report on child protection and the federal Auditor General was coming out with a report on child protection and the delivery of child welfare services to children living on reserves….

N. Simons: I was in the middle of a very eloquent soliloquy, which I've forgotten entirely. So I'll continue, perhaps.

I wanted to talk about Strong, Safe, and Supported and its addressing of concerns that have been raised, I'd say, over the last number of years. Can the minister describe how this document relates to the transformation?

Hon. T. Christensen: Certainly, the Strong, Safe, and Supported plan and, equally importantly, the operational plan, which is posted and goes into more detail in terms of specific actions, aren't intended to reflect everything that the ministry is involved in or will be involved in, in the next number of years. But it does set the course for the ministry's work, or a good chunk of our work, for the next five-year period.

In that sense, it embodies the transformation of the ministry in terms of how we're working with children and families, the role that aboriginal peoples are playing in terms of delivery of service to aboriginal children and families and the more strength-based approach that we want to develop and embrace in terms of how we are working with children and families.

Equally importantly — as the member will know, having read it — a significant component is around the ministry's quality assurance efforts and ensuring that we have the strongest possible quality assurance structure in place for the ministry so that where we have reviews of particular situations, we can clearly see how those are being used to inform practice, to inform improvement, to support learning and, where we have other data, how that is being used to inform practice and support the strongest possible work with children and families across the province.

N. Simons: I'd just like one… Well, not just one, because we're here for a while. But there's one question that I've wanted to ask for a while.

Is the minister implying that until the last couple of years social workers weren't looking for the strengths of families, weren't looking for the strengths of extended families, weren't trying to find somebody local and community-based who would be able to assist? Is there ever an implication in the minister's comments that saying, "We're focusing on strength-based. We're going on to child-focused…?" Is the minister saying that child protection in British Columbia has been not focused on the child or not focused on the family?

I know that the legislation was written in the mid-'90s, and I know that it included a number of changes that specifically spoke to including families, including finding the strengths, including building on the relationships in the community. The legislation spoke to it. So of this, what is this new strength-based thing? Is it looking for strengths where none existed before?

My question specifically: if the minister is saying that the transformation is to a strengths-based model, what model did it come from?

Hon. T. Christensen: Certainly, I would agree with the member that when the Child, Family and Community Service Act was drafted and passed by the Legislature in the mid-1990s, the guiding principles of that legislation were consistent with a strength-based approach to working with families.

I think it's fair to say that what we have seen in subsequent years, as that legislation became implemented and as various things occurred, is that the ministry became very focused on risk aversion, perhaps to the detriment — as many front-line social workers will tell me — of taking a more collaborative approach with families.

We have seen, certainly, an overprioritization of child protection within the overall work of the ministry, to the detriment of work around prevention, around early interventions, around individual assessment of a child's needs or a family's needs. While we certainly recognize and will continue to have a strong focus on ensuring the safety of children within the child protection model, the work of the ministry needs to broaden its focus towards prevention and early interventions if we are going to be more successful in developing stronger outcomes for some of our most vulnerable children and families around the province.

I think that that work is contemplated by the legislation as it was originally drafted, but I also think, based on a number of conversations with people in our offices around the province, that it's fair to say that the original vision of the legislation has not been realized.

The Strong, Safe, and Supported plan better reflects what a vision for supporting children and families in the province should be. It really is the result of a good deal of discussion both within the ministry and with our service providers and a host of folks around the province over the course of the last couple of years.

N. Simons: This focus on keeping families together and finding relatives and community members obviously is something that social workers, I believe…. I speak on behalf of social workers when they say: "When there's time to do the work well, we will always be looking for families. We will always be looking for the least disruptive measure, because we always have to deal with those children, and those children's faces are what we read when we need to figure out what is the safest and most appropriate form of care."

Now, I've been troubled by some statistics on Child in the Home of a Relative which is a Ministry of Employment and Income Assistance program. It's known as CIHR, Child in the Home of a Relative. The minister indicates that the number of children placed with relatives under that social assistance program has gone up 14 percent over the last eight years.

Can the minister confirm that social workers are telling families that an option to prevent their child from coming into care or entering care through voluntary agreement or through a court action, that CIHR is…? I just bungled the question. Can the minister confirm that social workers are suggesting Child in the Home of a Relative to families of children who may be in need of protection?

Hon. T. Christensen: Certainly, the issue the member raises is one that is of concern. It's why last fall, in November, we specifically issued a policy directive through our regional directors that very specifically says that child welfare workers should not refer families to the CIHR program in conjunction with or as a component of a child protection case plan. It is not a child protection response.

Where a child is found to be in need of protection, we have tools in terms of the responses that the Ministry of Children and Family Development can provide either through a kith-and-kin type of agreement or other arrangements that are certainly more appropriate in those circumstances.

Certainly, we had some concern that the CIHR program may have been, at least informally, being used, and that's why we felt it appropriate last fall to issue a clear directive that it wasn't to be used in the context of the child welfare system.

N. Simons: Sometimes the identification of a family member allows for the immediate child protection concern to be eliminated. Essentially, another family member comes along and says, "I'll look after that child; I need a little bit of support," and the ministry is pleased to offer that support for usually a short period of time and maybe even a one-time-only if it's not a ministry program.

Is the ministry aware of cases where families have been asked to look after children without having the necessary resources — perhaps not at first blush, but when it comes down to it, they struggle financially and with, sometimes, the difficulties that children face when they end up living out of their own home? Is he aware of the concerns that many extended-family caregivers have about a system that leaves them entirely alone to look after children, often with some special needs?

Hon. T. Christensen: There are a host of potential arrangements that families will come to on their own for care of nieces and nephews or grandchildren that are quite separate and apart from any involvement whatsoever of the Ministry of Children and Family Development.

Where MCFD becomes involved, as the member knows, is where we've had a report of a child in need of protection, and then we follow up on that report and may pursue an investigation if the circumstances warrant that. Where the ministry finds that a child is in need of protection, then we have tools such as kith-and-kin arrangements or foster placement or some other arrangements that would be pursued in that child protection context.

There will be occasions when a family might contact the Ministry of Children and Family Development when there is no child protection concern, but they have assumed care of their grandchild or their niece or nephew in those circumstances where it's not part of a protection concern. Then we may refer them to the Ministry of Employment and Income Assistance to obtain income assistance through the Child in the Home of a Relative program. That's if it's a financial concern that they've raised with us.

But on, I guess, another front, there are a host of circumstances in which the Minister of Children and Family Development may be contacted because of the special needs of a child, and in that case, it may be the parents who contact the ministry. It may be a grandparent. It may be an uncle or an aunt or some other caregiver for the child.

In each of those circumstances the ministry will provide supports that are focused on the particular special needs of the child, but we don't, in those circumstances, distinguish between the parents contacting us or some other caregiver. So I'm hoping that those various scenarios answer the member's question. If not, I'm sure he'll ask another.

N. Simons: Well, essentially the issue that has been raised is that we often have grandparents who are caring for children suddenly, and often for children who are in need of extra supports, whether they be supports because they have a special need or simply because of the difficulty sometimes associated with looking after children. As grandparents, it's even more complicated.

Do grandparents have any recourse when they come to the ministry and say: "We are unable, with the resources given to us, to provide the care that these children need"? Will they get special attention from ministry social workers to ensure that they remain financially, emotionally and physically capable of continuing to look after their grandchildren?

Hon. T. Christensen: Certainly, if a grandparent who is looking after their grandchildren or grandchild were to approach either this ministry or government generally in terms of income support, the program that's available is the Child in the Home of a Relative program administered through MEIA, as the member has rightly pointed out.

Otherwise, in terms of the types of family support services that MCFD might provide, we wouldn't distinguish between the services that a grandparent might need and some other caregiver of a child who approached the ministry and who was struggling to care for the child — whether that might be an aunt or an uncle or a parent, for that matter — in terms of the types of family support services that might be helpful.

I can advise the member that we certainly recognize, both within MCFD and, I think, more broadly in government, that there are apparently — or we're told, at least, that there are — an increasing number of situations where grandparents are looking after grandchildren. There are some unique challenges, I think, that are attendant upon that, particularly with older grandparents who may no longer be able to be in the workforce, and that obviously has some direct implications.

We have provided a grant to the Parent Support Services Society, together with the UVic School of Social Work, to do some work to identify some of the legal impediments to grandparents looking after their grandchildren as well as other aspects that are unique to that relationship.

I'm certainly looking forward to that work completing, because I think that it will better inform us on a go-forward basis in terms of what the types of supports are that government needs to be looking at to ensure that those relationships function as well as they can and to assist us in reaching that goal of children, if they're not able to be with their parents, certainly being able to remain with extended family and the connections that that creates.

N. Simons: I hope that the review that's been undertaken is going to be considered carefully, because grandparents have for so long been, and they remain, a key to making sure that their children's children are safe.

What I worry about are those grandparents who are given relatively few options or who don't know what the options are and who often find themselves wondering whether, if they don't take them, the child will go into care. When those circumstances occur, I'm wondering if special attention…. I mean, the grandparents will take the children without assistance, but it's the children who suffer from the lack of resources if the grandparents are unable to provide what they may otherwise be able to — if they're on a fixed income, for example.

The amount provided under the Child in the Home of a Relative program for any child is hugely inadequate. When you consider, on top of that, children who are likely to have been somewhat traumatized or have had a bit of difficulty resulting in them not living with their family, I'm hoping that that is seen as one of the most important supports to the child welfare system that can be used.

If I may turn to some of the first nations and aboriginal child welfare issues, specifically to one of the Hughes recommendations, No. 12 — which you know

to be the findings of the Kelowna accord and the need to implement, as much as possible, the recommendations contained therein.

Since 2007, what has the ministry done to implement, essentially, recommendation 12? Of the operational plan that I've seen, it seems that it's been accomplished, and that was all before that date.

Hon. T. Christensen: The question would actually be better addressed to the Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation. That ministry has the lead in terms of the response to that particular recommendation. Having been that minister previously, I can certainly advise the member that in terms of a follow-up to the Kelowna accord, it is that ministry that has been coordinating efforts.

I think really what it speaks to is the issue of poverty and the issue underlying so much that we deal with in the child welfare system. What I've found perhaps a bit lacking, if I may be…. I don't intend any personal insults by anything I say, but the fact is that with the five pillars, one of them wasn't simply child safety. There are so many ways of ensuring a child is safe, not just because of abuse and neglect but other issues around everything from travelling with the child to all sorts of health and safety issues that aren't about abuse and neglect.

So that issue of, specifically, poverty — how is that addressed in the Strong, Safe, and Supported document?

Hon. T. Christensen: Certainly, I would argue quite strenuously that pillar 1 in the plan, which is about prevention, and secondly pillar 2, dealing with early interventions, embody the need to be addressing some of the underlying issues that contribute to children being vulnerable. In some cases, that vulnerability results in a child coming into care. Those vulnerabilities often aren't issues that MCFD alone is going to be successful in alleviating but rather are going to be things that require a cross-government approach.

Referring back to the member's previous question around the Kelowna accord, I think that's very much what the Kelowna accord, at its heart, was intended to address.

The reality is that you're going to need efforts on a number of fronts — in the Kelowna accord, in the context of aboriginal communities — that look at social conditions, economic conditions and health and education, where gaps need to be closed over a period of time, if we're going to see better outcomes for aboriginal people in the province.

That's sort of what the Kelowna accord was driving at. Within the work of this ministry, as we shift our focus more towards prevention efforts, towards early interventions, by necessity that is going to have us look at what some of the significant contributing factors to children and their families being vulnerable are and what it is that we can be doing, both within MCFD and, equally importantly, with our partner ministries across government to try and alleviate some of those contributing factors.

N. Simons: Okay. Getting back to the first nations and aboriginal child welfare circumstances, the minister mentioned that 4,768 aboriginal children are in the care of either the ministry or the first nations delegated agency — in fact, the first nation. Can the minister describe or explain what the original intent of the memorandum of understanding on the Tsawwassen accord was?

Hon. T. Christensen: Certainly, the intent of the memorandum of understanding around the Tsawwassen accord was to have government working closely with the aboriginal community to improve services to aboriginal children and families and to reduce the number of aboriginal children in care. I'm not happy about it, but certainly the goal of reducing the number of aboriginal children in care has not been realized. I acknowledge that we have a good deal of work to do to be working more effectively with delegated agencies and, equally importantly, with aboriginal communities themselves to reverse the disturbing trend around the number of aboriginal children coming into care.

In terms of some of the technical contributing factors to the number of aboriginal children in care, I think we have made some good headway in our work with INAC over the course of this last year. As of the end of last year we were able to confirm with INAC that they would start to fund out-of-care options for aboriginal children on reserve.

What that means is that one aspect of the federal funding formula for on-reserve child welfare funding…. Actually, some would argue that it provided an incentive to take children into care, because the funding flowed when the child was taken into care. That circumstance will, hopefully, be alleviated by the fact that out-of-care options can now be funded through INAC, so at least there isn't that disincentive of no funding for out-of-care options when that type of option may clearly be more appropriate. Hopefully, we will start to see in the coming months whether or not that is making a particular impact.

The other critically important work that we've undertaken with INAC and with first nations is to shift the funding to ensure that it better encompasses prevention efforts. I think the member, based on his own experience, will agree that the federal funding hasn't historically done an adequate job — some would argue not at all — in terms of allowing some focus on prevention efforts and on minimally intrusive options. INAC has committed to that work with this ministry and agencies and aboriginal peoples over the coming months.

I'm looking forward to that, and I was very heartened to hear, in response to the report of the federal and provincial Auditors General last week, that the federal minister was very clear. He felt that there needed to be additional focus on prevention. I think that bodes well in terms of some of the changes that we'll be able to see in terms of our working relationship with INAC and how that, then, better supports both delegated agencies and the ministry in looking at less intrusive options in how we work with aboriginal families, particularly on reserve.

N. Simons: What exactly went wrong with the regionalization program that we're in? It's year 7, I believe. It's on public record from the minister that $39 million is committed to regionalization of aboriginal child welfare. Yet as we look at this scenario now, you have, I think, the five largest first nations on Vancouver Island saying: "We want nothing to do with regionalization."

We're talking about the aboriginal community, the first nations community. We make the distinction of on and off the reserve. It's not the distinction that they want to make. First nations communities have an inherent right to care for their children wherever they reside.

Regionalization started, and the voices of the first nations were left out. Is that going to be rectified, finally, so that instead of waiting to be treated like contractors brought in to discuss regionalization at the final hour, first nations will be given the adequate resources to help to define how child welfare will be practised not just in their traditional territories but in how they practise with their neighbouring first nations — so that they can actually be a driver in this process?

Hon. T. Christensen: Just a clarification. I know that the member today, and in a number of previous conversations about this, has referred to a $39 million figure. I'm not too sure of where that comes from. I think the ministry has committed $22.6 million through to the end of last fiscal year towards the aboriginal component of moving towards regional authorities. It certainly is no small number, but I do think that it's important to correct the record on that matter.

In any event, when the Tsawwassen accord was reached, the First Nations Summit and the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs were present and supported the direction that was chosen at that time to work towards regional aboriginal authorities.

At that time the Joint Aboriginal Management Committee was struck, to be chaired by the Minister of Children and Family Development and a revolving chair, from meeting to meeting, from among the five primary, what would often be called "political," aboriginal organizations in the province, those being the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs, the First Nations Summit, the Assembly of First Nations, the United Native Nations and the Métis Nation B.C.

That committee met on a regular basis since 2002 up until 2007 to discuss the regionalization process and to hear reports back from the various planning committees in the regions. The delegated agencies were represented at that committee meeting. It was a large group of folks, and the…. I won't call it membership. The participants varied somewhat from one meeting to another, but certainly, there seemed to be continued and strong support for the direction that everybody was working in, in terms of regionalization and the establishment of interim authorities with the intent of the eventual establishment of permanent authorities.

Previous attempts were made in terms of enacting legislation that would allow for the establishment of authorities. At one point we thought that might happen last year, in 2007. That wasn't possible. In the lead-up to the 2008 legislative session a working group was established to ensure that in drafting the legislation we had what we hoped would be effective feedback from some of the key aboriginal participants. That working group included legal representation from the planning committees and interim authorities. Initially it included representation from the delegated agencies and representation from the First Nations Leadership Council.

The legislation proceeded to be drafted on that basis. The level of engagement, in hindsight, of all of those participants perhaps wasn't as great as we might try to accomplish at another time, but there certainly was the opportunity to be involved in the drafting of the legislation.

In conversations with individual first nations, with delegated agencies and with different tribal councils over the course of the last year and a half to two years, we have clearly recognized that not all first nations want to participate in an aboriginal authority that is delivering services or could potentially deliver services to their community.

We have tried to be very clear, in a host of conversations over the course of the last year and a half to two years, that no first nation or tribal council would be required to be served by any authority that was established — that in fact, whether or not a first nation chose to participate in an authority, whether they chose to be served by that authority would be a voluntary decision. It's arguable how much success we've had in people hearing that message.

I can tell the member that I have had some very constructive and very recent conversations with some of the significant tribal councils here on Vancouver Island in terms of the option of an authority, what they believe should be the future of services to their children and families. I think those are very constructive conversations. I am 100 percent convinced that we're actually trying to achieve the same thing — "we" being government and first nations — and that is to ensure that first nations have the jurisdiction and responsibility for delivering services to their children and that it's done in the most effective way possible.

That is the sort of guiding principle in the ongoing work. I continue to believe that the model of an authority may be an effective one for some first nations, and I believe that there are a number of first nations that believe that too. We will continue to work with those who have concerns and to ensure that we are taking

those concerns into account in terms of how the eventual model or models will evolve.

I think that if the member reviews the fourth pillar in the operational plan, in particular, it certainly identifies a number of strong commitments in terms of how we want to be working with the first nations and aboriginal peoples and, equally important, how we want to do that work on the governance side, also recognizing that we have significant work that needs to be done in identifying where gaps in services exist and how we can close those gaps so that we can all be confident that aboriginal children and families have access to the same services that non-aboriginal children and families have access to across the province and that we can reach that point where we're seeing better outcomes for aboriginal children.

N. Simons: Just to refresh the minister's memory, the Tsawwassen accord was in June 2002, at which point first nations said to the government, very unequivocally, that they would not participate in what they were calling the blended regional authorities — the blended aboriginal, non-aboriginal regional authorities — and that they were making a request at that time for a first nations director.

I should point out that none of the first nations who are engaged in this discussion expect that this delegation or regional authorities model is anything more than temporary, pending treaty. So these interim measures, whether they be delegated authority through a memorandum of understanding with the federal and provincial governments or through regional authorities, I suppose, is…. It all really has to do with where the voice is of the first nations.

I would say that there were a number of reports that came out. In 2001 the UBCIC, Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs, came out with a report specifically about child welfare. Successive reports have indicated that we understand that the issue is about first nations having autonomy and not having to rely on a system that is really cumbersome and essentially backwards, in that it funds children who are in care and not children who aren't in care. That is nothing new; there's nothing new in that.

There was nothing in the regionalization process or in the Tsawwassen accord or the subsequent MOU that talked about an optional approach. Now, how would an optional approach work if, for example, let's say, a first nations community on the outskirts of a larger town would respond, if the neighbouring community has a delegated agency or if one of the affiliated bands in a tribal council has a delegated agency? One is relying on the regional authority, and the ministry encompasses all three.

I'm trying to figure out how what is before us in terms of regionalization would do anything but complicate the area of child protection. I'm talking about assessing the safety of children here.

Hon. T. Christensen: Certainly, we now have a circumstance where there's a division of responsibility between the ministry and delegated agencies. The expectation, in the event that authorities are established, is that there would be a number of first nations who chose to have the delivery of services to them governed by the aboriginal authority.

It's not necessarily expected — and in many cases, it's not expected — that the authority would actually deliver the services. They would tend to contract with others to actually be delivering the service, but the authority would provide a means for aboriginal peoples to direct how services were delivered to those first nations who chose to be served by the authority.

There is a reason — I think there may be a host of reasons — why, notwithstanding that the opportunity to become a delegated agency has existed for a couple of decades or longer now, we still only have a minority of aboriginal children in the province who are served by delegated agencies. There are a number of delegated agencies doing exceptional work, but of the 24 delegated agencies today, only eight of them are fully delegated to do the full child protection work.

There are going to be first nations that don't choose, for their own reasons, to form a delegated agency to deliver services and who may wish to participate in an authority and have services to their community governed by an authority. The authority would stand in stead of the ministry.

The same standards would apply in terms of the act. The standards of service would remain the same. Really, the authority would provide an option separate from services continuing to be governed by the ministry. It's not expected that there would be a whole-scale transfer of services immediately.

In the event that an authority was established, the authority would determine which services it wished to govern. It may choose to start with some of the prevention services, the early childhood services and build from there towards eventually taking on child protection matters. But it's by no means a given in the early establishment of an authority that it would choose to take on the actual child protection matters.

N. Simons: The document that caused some concern among first nations people was one that called regionalization of MCFD the alternative to non-aboriginal authorities. When first nations directors read the reasons why the ministry wasn't going to the authority model, they wondered why they were required to go to an authority model. I was, of course, speaking to those who had other ideas for aboriginal child welfare governance.

Some of those indicate that what has been learned through regionalizing of other services is a reason not to go to regional authorities. Let me just read it: "…the learned advantages and challenges of governance structure from our experience with CLBC, school districts, health authorities and the community not-for-profit sector. These are reasons for not going to the child aboriginal authorities."

The second is the potential cost to set up the new governance structure. Oh, and that $22 million? Well,

We have also No. 3, "We have yet to experience and analyze the impact of MCFD establishing aboriginal authorities," which is, according to this paper, moving forward at a steady pace.

No. 4: "The belief that our principle can effectively be applied within the ministry." That was the fourth reason.

Finally: "The MCFD is completing a substantial transformation of policy and services within the next three to four years. Creating authorities in conjunction with this, without knowing how the new approaches would work, would affect authorities, is inappropriate and may place children and families at risk."

Is the current process of aboriginal regionalization, because of the resources that that process is taking, in effect putting children at risk?

Hon. T. Christensen: The answer is no. I think the member, in his opening comments, talked about a fear of being required to go to aboriginal authority, and that's the heart of the misunderstanding. The intent is that participation would be voluntary, so if a first nation felt that it was being most effectively served by the status quo, then they would continue to receive service in that manner.

As I think I indicated earlier, we have heard loud and clear from many first nations that they want an opportunity to have a much stronger voice in directing the delivery of services to their children and families. We agree with that. We are looking at different models of how one might accomplish that, recognizing that in a province as diverse as British Columbia, with the diversity of first nations within British Columbia, it's likely to take a number of different approaches to in fact accomplish that goal of enabling first nations to effectively exercise jurisdiction and responsibility for services to their children and families.

We're very much committed and continue to be committed to that work. I certainly believe that first nations welcome that commitment and, notwithstanding that there are differing views on how we ultimately get there, that we will have success.

N. Simons: I guess that the fundamental flaw with the regionalization process for first nations was that the ministry decided to negotiate with off-reserve service providers a right that's protected under the constitution — an inherent right of first nations people to look after their children, wherever they live. If that's the case, wouldn't it be more appropriate if the process of regionalization started with the first nations themselves?

The minister says: "Well, that's what happened in Tsawwassen." I would submit that immediately after the signing of the memorandum of understanding in December 2002, the committees that were formed to establish these five regional bodies were handpicked by the ministry, and they were picked in a way that essentially left the voice of those who have the authority to negotiate out of the picture.

It should be no surprise to anybody in the province that when legislation was about to be tabled that infringed on first nations' inherent right…. Of course, you can't put that legislation on the table of the provincial Legislature.

It wasn't the aboriginal community that asked the government to take away that right. They were given one option. They were given the option of five regions that had absolutely nothing to do with the regions of the first nations in the province. These five regions were just simply transferred from the paper that was used to define the five non-aboriginal regions. How they relate to first nations in British Columbia I don't know, nor do many of the first nations people with whom I speak.

Can the minister tell me which first nations are supportive of the regionalization process as described and as about to be introduced in the Legislature?

Hon. T. Christensen: I find it interesting that the member is suggesting that the legislation infringed rights when the member has never seen the legislation. We didn't have the opportunity to introduce the legislation, which I think is unfortunate, because it would have provided an opportunity to perhaps do away with some of the myths around the proposed legislation.

We may look at other ways of accomplishing that same goal so that we can be talking about what the legislation might have actually achieved, so that those first nations who were supportive of the legislation being introduced may eventually get that opportunity, so that those who were opposed to the legislation may get an opportunity to focus what it is they may have agreed with or disagreed with.

Certainly the legislation did not propose to establish five regions, as the member has just indicated. The legislation, and I've been very clear in any comment around it, was to be enabling. It would enable the establishment of one or more authorities if there was support for doing that from a number of first nations that wish to be served by the authority.

I recognize that certainly…. The member has referred to some of the initial conversations back in 2002, and yes, at that time I think it's fair to say that five aboriginal regional authorities were contemplated. But as I said in an earlier answer, it was very clear that the establishment of any authority would only be successful if the first nations to be associated with that authority supported it. That's why we very much have come to the point where if we're able to move forward with an authority-type model at some future time, it will continue to be voluntary, and it will be intended to serve those first nations who wish to participate in it and will not be forced upon anybody.

The concern…. I'm not the only one that's been led to believe that it was the creation of five authorities. We've had six years of five regional planning groups

getting together. We've had five years of up to $22.6 million spent on a process. Why have the five regions if you're not going to have…?

The enabling legislation was obviously distributed, and the legislation was seen by a few people in the first nations community. They were shocked at the idea that they were going to be governed by Crown corporations — aboriginal, optional Crown corporations. Never heard of that before.

However, they were equally surprised at the legislation that was coming forward. I didn't write the minister the night before the legislation was tabled. They wrote to the minister the night before. So obviously, either they were misinformed or, in fact, the legislation that was coming forward did not reflect their concerns and their needs.

My hope is that, first of all, aboriginal child welfare is not seen as something that ends up being optional because the structure was so bad that it had to turn into optional halfway through. The idea of being optional has only emerged since the draft legislation was sent around in July of 2007 — this past summer. I'll point out, as well, that in 2003 the ministry was made fully aware that delegated agencies were feeling left out. They were made aware, again, through letters from delegated agencies and from first nations councils that the aboriginal regionalization went contrary to their fundamental principles and that they needed to change.

This wasn't a last-minute thing — that the first nations only came at the last minute. The first nations have been saying to the ministry all along that your regionalization model infringes on their inherent right to care for their children, regardless of their residency.

It's not because of me that a first nation has prohibited the Vancouver Island Transition Team from even meeting on their land. It's not because of me that the Nuu-chah-nulth…. The Usma, hugely respected, the first delegated agency in the province, said: "No, that is not the model we want to use." Nor do the folks in Cowichan; nor does the agency Kw'umut Lelum.

These are all public. It's on the record. These are first nations people whose membership also lives off reserve. They're the elected officials for the first nations people who live off reserve as well. I think that if, in fact, we're going to be providing first nations with autonomy over child welfare, pending the resolution of treaty, that that system should be solid. That system shouldn't be thought of as optional, where some people can use it, and some people don't have to use it.

If it's about child welfare and child protection, you want to have a system that has strength, internal strength. In order to do that, we need to assist in the building of capacity, which brings me to my next question.

The only agency in the province that offers training to aboriginal social workers is the Caring for First Nations Children Society. Can you tell me if they've ever received an increase in their funding for training aboriginal social workers since 1999?

Hon. T. Christensen: The member provided a pretty lengthy preamble to his question that raised a number of issues that I just can't let pass — unfortunately for the member, perhaps. I think that the member, in his comments, was attributing a number of elements to the proposed legislation that are simply wrong. I think it does go to the heart of the challenge, and that is: how do you draft legislation in our system, where you're not supposed to share the legislation before you introduce it in the House?

We undertook a process that attempted to ensure that we had agreement around the instructions for drafting the legislation. We were able, relatively late, to share the legislation directly with a very, very small number of leaders, so there are some challenges there inherent in the system.

I would agree, certainly, with the member's comment that the system needs to be solid. These are critically important issues we're talking about — vulnerable children and families. But it's important to recognize that the establishment of any authority or authorities, if it eventually comes to pass, will be one component of a broader system. It will be critical that it's a well-integrated component, but I fully expect, based on what I know today, that there will continue to be first nations who want to be served by delegated agencies that they are currently served well by.

I believe that there are now first nations that would like to have the opportunity to be served by an authority. There may be first nations who choose that they wish to be served directly by the ministry. There may be other models. Certainly, what we're going to continue to strive to do is find a path forward that enables first nations to receive services in a way that they find most effective for their children and families, and that they have a strong voice in how those services are provided.

With respect to the specifics of the member's question in terms of the Caring for First Nations Children Society, they are certainly a significant provider of training to social workers for the delegated agencies in particular. But there are other training efforts, so I don't want the member to leave the impression that Caring for First Nations Children Society is the only training avenue.

There's a new initiative at UNBC, that the member may be aware of, that is specific to aboriginal child protection workers in the north and that has had some considerable success in its first year. There is other training that is provided directly by the ministry from time to time. There's supervisory training that is provided. So there are a number of avenues of training.

With respect to funding to the Caring for First Nations Children Society, I don't have the exact funding numbers. We'll undertake to get those for the member. But certainly, my understanding is that our contract with the society has seen budget increases over the last number of years. We'll get those numbers for the member.

N. Simons: Well, thank you for that. I don't want to dwell on it, but I saw the drafting instructions last year, because they were obviously circulated. I never saw the final draft of the legislation, unfortunately. But I would wonder how different it was from the one

which was reacted to in a vehement way on the part of first nations communities.

Has the minister considered alternatives to this? If it's not regionalization to five regions, are we going to talk about one region or two regions, and the rest of the province will have just the ministry? Are there plans in place to subdivide the regions? Are there new regions that are gaining autonomy?

What I guess I'm asking the minister for is sort of a lay of the land. How are we proceeding from this point where we have one ministry and 24 delegated agencies serving…? Probably 85 percent of aboriginal children in care are members of a band that has a delegated agency, delegated agencies being the primary interim measure before treaty. Of the children in the province who are in care, most are represented by a delegated agency. So where are we going from here?

Hon. T. Christensen: As I indicated earlier, the intent of legislation had been to enable the establishment of authorities. The member is referring to the five regional authorities, and I think that's perhaps where the confusion arises from — or some disagreement. Because we're very much recognizing that there is not support for the establishment of five regional authorities. There is not support for the establishment of what I would consider to be an authority defined by region. Rather, there is support among some first nations for the concept of an authority defined by whom it serves.

I think on that basis the concept of an authority is one that does have the support of first nations, and the concept is one that can coexist with delegated agencies, with treaty first nations who are delivering child and family services within their territory or with other models that may yet come into being.

I think where perhaps some of the misunderstanding continues is with this concept of regions. We have recognized, from our conversations with first nations and with delegated agencies around the province, that that is not a model that would have sufficient support to move forward with. On that basis, we have very much shifted the discussion we've been having over the last couple of years in terms of the role that an authority would play or how it would be constituted.

N. Simons: That's reassuring, actually. I think that people are going to be pleased to hear that. It might take away some of the immediate resistance that I think has been expressed for the last couple of years.

In other words, the effort to try to identify which services in the province, which of the small service-providing agencies are serving aboriginal people versus non-aboriginal people — that disentanglement, I heard it referred to — is no longer on the ministry's agenda?

Hon. T. Christensen: The concept of looking at disentanglement is not driven, by any means, solely by the contemplation of authorities. Certainly, it's made necessary by that, but the whole purpose of looking at disentanglement is very much directed towards better identifying who we're serving — both directly by the ministry and through certain contracts — and what we're doing for them.

We believe that that will assist very much in identifying where some of the gaps in service are, particularly between aboriginal and non-aboriginal recipients of service, and where we have work to do in addressing those gaps. That work will continue, because as has been pointed out by the Auditor General and others, it's critical that we have a clear idea of exactly what services are being provided and whether we're achieving the outcomes we desire.

N. Simons: I'm finding this process helpful. I hope the minister is not finding it too difficult or troubling. You've got a team of qualified individuals behind you, I'm sure.

The next thing I was just going to ask you…. Back to the aboriginal social worker training, the UNBC program, I understand that the students engaged in that program have some sort of debt repayment or grant system in place in order to allow them to take the course and then work for the ministry. I'm wondering if the ministry has corrected what appeared to be a technical issue where these first nations social workers would not have the same benefits from that training if they were to return and work with a delegated agency.

Hon. T. Christensen: The program that enables these students and others to be reimbursed for some or all of the costs of their post-secondary experience is actually a broader public service program, and it's not dependent upon them being aboriginal. If they were non-aboriginal and coming to work for the ministry or for other ministries, they would be eligible for that same repayment. It is part of a new program that has been introduced for the public service and that I think is a very strong program in terms of recruiting people to work for the public service.

We are aware of some concerns expressed by delegated agencies in terms of the impact that that might have on their ability to recruit staff. It's something that we're actively working with them on to identify the number of people potentially impacted and what we might do to try and address that.

The issue that was raised to me was that there was a bit of plundering of available resources from delegated agencies. I think it's good to point out that the delegated agencies…. Many of the first nations families end up leaving their communities, and they sometimes struggle off reserve. I think there needs to be recognition that the allocation of funding can't even just be the same as off reserve.

I think that there needs to be recognition of the historical issues and the economic issues. Instead of being funded federally at 22 percent less than off-reserve funding, in fact, they need to be provided with the capacity to build their own resource networks and to build the strengths of families. If those families leave

the communities, then their need for support might be lessened. I think that it would be an appropriate….

Maybe I should just put it in the form of a question, since this is Jeopardy. Will the minister pay particular attention to ensuring that the necessary involvement of the federal government isn't just a lip service involvement?

I had a lot of dealings with the federal government in first nations child welfare. While they're good people, they need to have the mandate to say: "We can do something else." Every time delegated directors look at the legislation, they have to follow the ministry legislation. They might have other ideas.

They were using voluntary care agreements and restricted foster homes. All 24 delegated agencies have that authority. But then the ministry changed the rule and said: you can't use a voluntary care agreement in those circumstances. So the one preventative program that actually allowed first nations to receive funding was impacted by ministerial, provincial decision-making.

I think that when the ministry enacts new legislative or even regulatory changes, the impact that those will have on first nations agencies has to be really carefully contemplated, because they're required to follow the provincial rules even if they get their money from the federal government. The province and the federal government sit together and talk about what the next rules are going to be.

I'm hoping that the minister will commit to ensuring that the delegated agencies are part of that policy decision-making and that enough effort is put on the federal government to actually change 20-1.

Hon. T. Christensen: I hope this relieves some of the member's concerns. In terms of the work with INAC that has been initiated, both INAC and MCFD very much recognize that that work was only going to be successful if it had significant involvement of the delegated agencies and endorsement from the First Nations Leadership Council.

The First Nations Leadership Council has endorsed the process that has been undertaken. The delegated agencies have representation on the steering committee and are very much involved in the work. I'm sure the member would agree that it is critical if it's actually going to be successful in providing the types of, I guess, policy parameters from INAC that effectively work for those delegated agencies in providing more effective services on reserve.

I have a few questions on a subject that's not currently related to the issue at hand. I just wanted to ask about the Justice for Girls, the group that has for many years advocated on behalf of young women who are incarcerated in our juvenile correctional centre.

As I see a line change is happening, in the spirit of hockey playoffs…. My question is simply this: when will Justice for Girls be permitted, once again, to act as advocates to the young women who are incarcerated in Burnaby and Prince George?

Hon. T. Christensen: There are a number of elements to this that I'm reluctant to put on the record — because I don't want to get them wrong, for one thing. But there are certainly some considerable concerns in terms of the experience with Justice for Girls and their view of their obligations under the Child, Family and Community Service Act. I would be happy to arrange for the member to have a very fulsome briefing in terms of having a full understanding of what has happened there.

I will say that we believe it's important that youth in any of the three youth custody centres in the province have access to appropriate advocacy services. We have contracted with both the John Howard Society and the Elizabeth Fry Society to ensure that such services are available at all three youth custody centres around the province. So we're confident that effective advocacy is available for youth who may find themselves in one of these centres.

I believe that the child and youth representative would have some jurisdiction to provide assistance, as well, to these individual youth.

N. Simons: Just to wrap up. In the meantime, I'm looking forward to that conversation, and I hope that the ministry is still open to some possible mediation around the concerns they've had. I think that there's a history there, and I'm not fully aware of it. I understand there's a need to work through some issues.

Is it appropriate, when an investigation on child welfare occurs within a custodial institution — in a custodial setting — that a child protection worker from inside the institution does their investigation? Or would it be more appropriate in those situations if there were an existing protocol where an outside child protection expert would be called in to investigate?

Hon. T. Christensen: In the circumstances of a custodial setting, if there were a complaint of the nature of an assault or something…. It's actually primarily a police investigation. The police will investigate. The only role for a child protection worker would be to determine whether or not somebody was in immediate need of protection.

In the circumstances that the member is at least alluding to, there were a series of investigations, primarily led by the police. We can certainly include the others in the briefing that we're prepared to provide to the member.

I guess we'll continue tomorrow on the child care in the morning and, hopefully, with CLBC in the afternoon. I'm not sure if we'll have more questions on this area.

With that, I rise to report progress, such as it is, and ask leave to sit again at the earliest opportunity.

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.