H0407pm 09

H0407pm 09

British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)

Fourth Session, 38th Parliament OFFICIAL REPORT OF DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY (HANSARD) Monday, April 7, 2008 Afternoon Sitting Volume 29, Number 9 THE HONOURABLE BILL BARISOFF, SPEAKER ISSN 0709-1281

PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Entered Confederation July 20, 1871) LIEUTENANT-GOVERNOR His Honour the Honourable Steven L. Point, OBC FOURTH SESSION, 38TH PARLIAMENT SPEAKER OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Honourable Bill Barisoff EXECUTIVE COUNCIL Premier and President of the Executive Council ............................................................................................................Hon. Gordon Campbell Deputy Premier and Minister of Education and Minister Responsible for Early Learning and Literacy...................... Hon.

Shirley Bond Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation ........................................................................................................ Hon. Michael de Jong Minister of Advanced Education and Minister Responsible for Research and Technology ........................................... Hon. Murray Coell Minister of Agriculture and Lands.......................................................................................................................................................Hon.

Pat Bell Attorney General and Minister Responsible for Multiculturalism............................................................................... Hon. Wally Oppal, QC Minister of Children and Family Development ................................................................................................................Hon. Tom Christensen Minister of State for Childcare ........................................................................................................................................................Hon.

Linda Reid Minister of Community Services and Minister Responsible for Seniors’ and Women’s Issues........................................... Hon. Ida Chong Minister of Economic Development and Minister Responsible for the Asia-Pacific Initiative and the Olympics.................Hon. Colin Hansen Minister of Employment and Income Assistance ...........................................................................................................Hon.

Claude Richmond Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources .......................................................................................................Hon. Richard Neufeld Minister of State for Mining......................................................................................................................................................Hon. Kevin Krueger Minister of Environment and Minister Responsible for Water Stewardship and Sustainable Communities ...............Hon.

Barry Penner Minister of Finance.......................................................................................................................................................................Hon. Carole Taylor Minister of Forests and Range and Minister Responsible for Housing ............................................................................. Hon. Rich Coleman Minister of Health ......................................................................................................................................................................Hon.

George Abbott Minister of Labour and Citizens’ Services ......................................................................................................................................Hon. Olga Ilich Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General and Minister of State for Intergovernmental Relations............... Hon. John van Dongen Minister of Small Business and Revenue and Minister Responsible for Regulatory Reform............................................ Hon.

Rick Thorpe Minister of Tourism, Sport and the Arts ......................................................................................................................................Hon. Stan Hagen Minister of State for ActNow B.C. ............................................................................................................................................ Hon. Gordon Hogg Minister of Transportation...........................................................................................................................................................Hon.

Kevin Falcon LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Leader of the Official Opposition .........................................................................................................................................................Carole James Deputy Speaker ....................................................................................................................................................................................Sindi Hawkins Deputy Speaker ...........................................................................................................................................................................

Katherine Whittred Assistant Deputy Speaker.....................................................................................................................................................................Sue Hammell Deputy Chair, Committee of the Whole................................................................................................................................................. Harry Bloy Clerk of the Legislative Assembly .........................................................................................................................E.

George MacMinn, OBC, QC Clerk Assistant.........................................................................................................................................................................................Robert Vaive Clerk Assistant and Law Clerk .......................................................................................................................................................Ian D. Izard, QC Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees ....................................................................................................................................... Craig H.

James Clerk Assistant and Committee Clerk ..........................................................................................................................................Kate Ryan-Lloyd Sergeant-at-Arms............................................................................................................................................................................. A.A.

Humphreys Director, Hansard Services ...................................................................................................................................................................Jo-Anne Kern Legislative Librarian ..................................................................................................................................................................................Jane Taylor Legislative Comptroller...............................................................................................................................................................................Dan Arbic

Party Standings: Liberal 46; New Democratic 33 ALPHABETICAL LIST OF MEMBERS Abbott, Hon. George (L) .................................................................... Shuswap Austin, Robin (NDP)............................................................................. Skeena Bains, Harry (NDP).................................................................. Surrey-Newton Barisoff, Hon. Bill (L)..........................................Penticton–Okanagan Valley Bell, Hon.

Pat (L) .............................................................Prince George North Bennett, Bill (L) ........................................................................ East Kootenay Black, Iain (L) ............................................................ Port Moody–Westwood Bloy, Harry (L)................................................................................Burquitlam Bond, Hon. Shirley (L).....................................Prince George–Mount Robson Brar, Jagrup (NDP).....................................................Surrey–Panorama Ridge Campbell, Hon.

Gordon (L) .........................................Vancouver–Point Grey Cantelon, Ron (L)..............................................................Nanaimo-Parksville Chong, Hon. Ida (L) .................................................... Oak Bay–Gordon Head Chouhan, Raj (NDP) ...........................................................Burnaby-Edmonds Christensen, Hon. Tom (L) ................................................. Okanagan-Vernon Chudnovsky, David (NDP) ......................................... Vancouver-Kensington Coell, Hon.

Murray (L) .....................................Saanich North and the Islands Coleman, Hon. Rich (L)...........................................Fort Langley–Aldergrove Conroy, Katrine (NDP) .......................................... West Kootenay–Boundary Coons, Gary (NDP) ....................................................................... North Coast Cubberley, David (NDP)............................................................Saanich South de Jong, Hon.

Michael (L) ...................................Abbotsford–Mount Lehman Dix, Adrian (NDP) .........................................................Vancouver-Kingsway Evans, Corky (NDP).................................................................Nelson-Creston Falcon, Hon. Kevin (L) .......................................................

Surrey-Cloverdale Farnworth, Mike (NDP) ...............................Port Coquitlam–Burke Mountain Fleming, Rob (NDP) ..............................................................Victoria-Hillside Fraser, Scott (NDP) ..............................................................Alberni-Qualicum Gentner, Guy (NDP).......................................................................Delta North Hagen, Hon. Stan (L) ................................................................ Comox Valley Hammell, Sue (NDP) ................................................... Surrey–Green Timbers Hansen, Hon.

Colin (L) ..................................................Vancouver-Quilchena Hawes, Randy (L).......................................................... Maple Ridge–Mission Hawkins, Sindi (L) ............................................................... Kelowna-Mission Hayer, Dave S. (L) ................................................................ Surrey-Tynehead Hogg, Hon.

Gordon (L).....................................................Surrey–White Rock Horgan, John (NDP)......................................................Malahat–Juan de Fuca Horning, Al (L)........................................................... Kelowna–Lake Country Ilich, Hon. Olga (L)...............................................................Richmond Centre James, Carole (NDP).......................................................Victoria–Beacon Hill Jarvis, Daniel (L)..................................................

North Vancouver–Seymour Karagianis, Maurine (NDP) ........................................... Esquimalt-Metchosin Krog, Leonard (NDP)......................................................................... Nanaimo Krueger, Hon. Kevin (L) .....................................Kamloops–North Thompson Kwan, Jenny Wai Ching (NDP)........................... Vancouver–Mount Pleasant Lali, Harry (NDP)........................................................................

Yale-Lillooet Lee, Richard T. (L)....................................................................Burnaby North Lekstrom, Blair (L).............................................................. Peace River South Les, John (L)........................................................................ Chilliwack-Sumas Macdonald, Norm (NDP).................................... Columbia River–Revelstoke MacKay, Dennis (L)....................................................

Bulkley Valley–Stikine Mayencourt, Lorne (L).......................................................Vancouver-Burrard McIntyre, Joan (L).................................................West Vancouver–Garibaldi Neufeld, Hon. Richard (L) .................................................. Peace River North Nuraney, John (L).............................................................Burnaby-Willingdon Oppal, Hon. Wally, QC (L).......................................... Vancouver-Fraserview Penner, Hon. Barry (L)...........................................................

Chilliwack-Kent Polak, Mary (L) ....................................................................................Langley Puchmayr, Chuck (NDP)...................................................... New Westminster Ralston, Bruce (NDP) ............................................................. Surrey-Whalley Reid, Hon. Linda (L) ................................................................ Richmond East Richmond, Hon. Claude (L).............................................................

Kamloops Robertson, Gregor (NDP) ................................................Vancouver-Fairview Roddick, Valerie (L).......................................................................Delta South Routley, Doug (NDP)..................................................... Cowichan-Ladysmith Rustad, John (L) ........................................................

Prince George–Omineca Sather, Michael (NDP).........................................Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows Simons, Nicholas (NDP) ...................................Powell River–Sunshine Coast Simpson, Bob (NDP)..................................................................Cariboo North Simpson, Shane (NDP) ....................................................Vancouver-Hastings Sultan, Ralph (L) ....................................................West Vancouver–Capilano Taylor, Hon.

Carole (L).....................................................Vancouver-Langara Thorne, Diane (NDP) .................................................Coquitlam-Maillardville Thorpe, Hon. Rick (L).......................................................Okanagan-Westside Trevena, Claire (NDP) ..................................................................North Island van Dongen, Hon. John (L)............................................ Abbotsford-Clayburn Whittred, Katherine (L)........................................

North Vancouver–Lonsdale Wyse, Charlie (NDP) .................................................................Cariboo South Yap, John (L)...................................................................Richmond-Steveston LIST OF MEMBERS BY RIDING Abbotsford-Clayburn....................................................Hon. John van Dongen Abbotsford–Mount Lehman .......................................... Hon. Michael de Jong Alberni-Qualicum..........................................................................

Scott Fraser Bulkley Valley–Stikine ...........................................................Dennis MacKay Burnaby North ...........................................................................Richard T. Lee Burnaby-Edmonds........................................................................Raj Chouhan Burnaby-Willingdon................................................................... John Nuraney Burquitlam.......................................................................................Harry Bloy Cariboo North..............................................................................

Bob Simpson Cariboo South..............................................................................Charlie Wyse Chilliwack-Kent ..................................................................Hon. Barry Penner Chilliwack-Sumas............................................................................... John Les Columbia River–Revelstoke................................................. Norm Macdonald Comox Valley........................................................................ Hon.

Stan Hagen Coquitlam-Maillardville..............................................................Diane Thorne Cowichan-Ladysmith ................................................................. Doug Routley Delta North ...................................................................................Guy Gentner Delta South ............................................................................. Valerie Roddick East Kootenay................................................................................

Bill Bennett Esquimalt-Metchosin.........................................................Maurine Karagianis Fort Langley–Aldergrove ..................................................Hon. Rich Coleman Kamloops.....................................................................Hon. Claude Richmond Kamloops–North Thompson ............................................Hon. Kevin Krueger Kelowna–Lake Country.................................................................. Al Horning Kelowna-Mission ......................................................................

Sindi Hawkins Langley ...........................................................................................Mary Polak Malahat–Juan de Fuca .................................................................. John Horgan Maple Ridge–Mission ................................................................ Randy Hawes Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows ..................................................... Michael Sather Nanaimo......................................................................................

Leonard Krog Nanaimo-Parksville .....................................................................Ron Cantelon Nelson-Creston .............................................................................Corky Evans New Westminster .................................................................. Chuck Puchmayr North Coast....................................................................................

Gary Coons North Island ...............................................................................Claire Trevena North Vancouver–Lonsdale................................................Katherine Whittred North Vancouver–Seymour..........................................................Daniel Jarvis Oak Bay–Gordon Head ........................................................... Hon. Ida Chong Okanagan-Vernon......................................................... Hon. Tom Christensen Okanagan-Westside..............................................................Hon.

Rick Thorpe Peace River North.......................................................... Hon. Richard Neufeld Peace River South..................................................................... Blair Lekstrom Penticton–Okanagan Valley .................................................Hon. Bill Barisoff Port Coquitlam–Burke Mountain ............................................Mike Farnworth Port Moody–Westwood.................................................................... Iain Black Powell River–Sunshine Coast ...............................................

Nicholas Simons Prince George North.................................................................... Hon. Pat Bell Prince George–Mount Robson ............................................Hon. Shirley Bond Prince George–Omineca................................................................ John Rustad Richmond Centre......................................................................Hon. Olga Ilich Richmond East........................................................................Hon.

Linda Reid Richmond-Steveston...........................................................................John Yap Saanich North and the Islands ............................................ Hon. Murray Coell Saanich South ........................................................................ David Cubberley Shuswap............................................................................Hon. George Abbott Skeena.......................................................................................... Robin Austin Surrey-Cloverdale............................................................... Hon.

Kevin Falcon Surrey–Green Timbers ................................................................Sue Hammell Surrey-Newton............................................................................... Harry Bains Surrey–Panorama Ridge.................................................................Jagrup Brar Surrey-Tynehead ....................................................................... Dave S. Hayer Surrey-Whalley...........................................................................Bruce Ralston Surrey–White Rock ............................................................Hon.

Gordon Hogg Vancouver-Burrard..............................................................Lorne Mayencourt Vancouver-Fairview.............................................................Gregor Robertson Vancouver-Fraserview .................................................Hon.

Wally Oppal, QC Vancouver-Hastings .................................................................Shane Simpson Vancouver-Kensington.......................................................David Chudnovsky Vancouver-Kingsway ......................................................................Adrian Dix Vancouver-Langara ........................................................... Hon. Carole Taylor Vancouver–Mount Pleasant........................................ Jenny Wai Ching Kwan Vancouver–Point Grey ................................................Hon.

Gordon Campbell Vancouver-Quilchena.........................................................Hon. Colin Hansen Victoria–Beacon Hill...................................................................

Carole James Victoria-Hillside ...........................................................................Rob Fleming West Kootenay–Boundary........................................................Katrine Conroy West Vancouver–Capilano...........................................................Ralph Sultan West Vancouver–Garibaldi ........................................................Joan McIntyre Yale-Lillooet..................................................................................... Harry Lali

CONTENTS Monday, April 7, 2008 Afternoon Sitting Routine Proceedings Page Introductions by Members ....................................................................................................... ............................................ 10959 Point of Privilege (Speaker's Ruling).......................................................................................... ......................................... 10960 Introduction and First Reading of Bills........................................................................................ ....................................... 10960 Electoral Districts Act (Bill 19) Hon.

W. Oppal Statements (Standing Order 25B) .............................................................................................................................. ........... 10960 50th anniversary of Ripple Rock explosion C. Trevena Vaisakhi D. Hayer Leonard Antoine D. Routley Water rescue awards R. Lee Reading initiative at Ecole Marigold D. Cubberley Proposed elementary school in Burnaby H.

Bloy Oral Questions................................................................................................................. ....................................................... 10962 Funding for Royal Columbian Hospital C. James Hon. G. Abbott C. Puchmayr Surgical services at Kelowna General Hospital A. Dix Hon. G. Abbott Agricultural land reserve regulations L. Krog Hon. P. Bell Investigation into ICBC vehicle sales H. Bains Hon. J. van Dongen Sale of school lands D. Cubberley Hon. S. Bond J. Brar D.

Routley Petitions...................................................................................................................... ............................................................. 10967 J. Horgan Tabling Documents.............................................................................................................. .................................................. 10967 Office of the provincial health officer, annual report, An Ounce of Prevention Revisited: A Review of Health Promotion and Selected Outcomes for Children and Youth in B.C. Schools

Committee of the Whole House................................................................................................... ........................................ 10967 Labour and Citizens' Services Statutes Amendment Act, 2008 (Bill 13) (continued) K. Conroy Hon. O. Ilich L.

Krog Report and Third Reading of Bills .............................................................................................. ......................................... 10970 Labour and Citizens' Services Statutes Amendment Act, 2008 (Bill 13) Committee of the Whole House................................................................................................... ........................................ 10970 Utilities Commission Amendment Act, 2008 (Bill 15) J. Horgan Hon. R. Neufeld J. Kwan S.

Simpson Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room Committee of Supply............................................................................................................ ................................................. 10994 Estimates: Ministry of Advanced Education and Minister Responsible for Research and Technology (continued) Hon. M. Coell R. Fleming B. Simpson C. Wyse S. Fraser C. Trevena B. Ralston

10959 MONDAY, APRIL 7, 2008 The House met at 1:34 p.m. [Mr. Speaker in the chair.] Introductions by Members C. James: I have an announcement rather than an introduction at this point, if I may. One of the members of the press gallery is particularly grumpy today. Now, everyone might say that the press gallery is always grumpy. Interjections. C. James: I was going to add that. There's one member who's particularly grumpy today because he's struggling with a change in hi s life. I think all of us in this House would like to say a very happy 40th birthday to Sean Leslie. Hon. G.

Campbell: With the Leader of the Opposition, let me just inform the House that I still think of Sean as Sean "the Kid" Leslie. D. Cubberley: If I could, I'd like to introduce a couple of guests who are joining us today on the occasion of a rally that was held earlier this morning on the steps of the Legislature regarding the sale of surplus school lands. [1335] There were many people in that rally, but a couple of guests, I believe, have joined us for deliberations here today. They are Irene Lanzinger, president of the British Columbia Teachers Federation, representing the 41,000 teachers in the province.

Joining with her, I believe, is Sylvia Bishop, who is an a ssistant director in the com- munications and campaign s department. Would the House please join me in making them welcome. Hon. C. Hansen: I'm pleased to be joined in the House today by three constituents. Peggy Alca, who is here, is a leader in the PAC at Lord Kitchener Elemen- tary School, and she is joined today by two of her chil- dren, Milton and Emery. Will the House please make them very welcome. J.

Horgan: I, too, have constituents in the precincts today that were here on the steps of the Legislature this morning concerned about schools in their community. From the Cowichan Valley, joining us today are Heatherann Macintosh, Naomi Barclay, Rayna Hyde-Lay, Caroline Kirman and two youngsters who are looking forward to single-track French immersion in the Cowichan Valley, Adam Hyde-Lay and Sam Mellemstrand. Would the House please make them all very, very welcome. R. Sultan: In the precinct today we have 20 grade 5 students and four adults, including their teacher M.

Thierry Tacail, of Ecole Française Internationale de Vancouver. The French International School of Van- couver is affiliated with a network of 410 French schools around the world. Would the House please welcome them by saying bonjour. Some Hon. Members: Bonjour. N. Simons: I t g i v e s m e p l e a s u r e t o w e l c o m e t o t h e House today seven participants in the Powell River youth ambassador program. They are Maria Bryson, Kaylah Coopman, Nicole Whitley, Kristie Egan, Michelle Hamoline, Heather Gamborski and Isabel Villeneuve.

Joining them are Kim Miller, the manager of the cham- ber of commerce in Powell River; Maggie Hathaway, my constituency assistant; and Randi-Lynn Egan. Would the House please make them welcome. J. Yap: The Yap s are in t own. I' m very happy to wel- come to the legislative precincts some family visiting from far away. I have visiting us in Richmond and today in Victoria my cousin Kenneth Yap. He's actually in the public gallery as we speak, and he's here visiting with his family.

That is his wife Joanna Yap and Rupert Yap and another son Toby Yap from Braintree, which is in Essex c o u n t y i n s o u t h e r n E n g l a n d . T h e y t e l l m e t h e y h a v e v i s - ited the mother Parliament in Westminster but would like to see how we do things here in one of the former colonies. Also with them — not in the public gallery but tak- ing in the sights with family — is the most important person in my life, my partner for life, my spouse, my wife Suzanne Yap. Would the House make all of them very welcome. D.

Routley: Also joining us in the House for the purposes of joining the demonstration outside are some very dear friends of mine: Duncan Brown, chairperson of the Community Alliance for Public Education; Eden Haythornthwaite, a local school trustee in district 79; Alastair Haythornthwaite, her husband; and one of my very dearest friends, David Halme, who is the president of the Lake Cowichan Teachers Association. I think all of us have friends who have known us all the way along, and as our circumstance and context change, they keep us with two feet on the ground and remembering what our purpose is.

That's David for me. I want to appreciate him and all those people. [1340] Hon. W. Oppal: In the House this afternoon are John Hunter, QC, president of the Law Society of Brit- ish Columbia, and Tim McGee, chief executive officer of the Law Society. I wonder if the House could make them welcome. G. Robertson: Joining us today in the House is one of my constituents from the sunny shores of False Creek, Kathleen MacKinnon, a lifelong and steadfast advocate for public educat ion who's here today with the BCTF to support our pu blic schools and the lands that they are on. B.

Bennett: I'd like to introduce a new coalition of groups here in B.C., and they happen to be with us this

10960 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES M ONDAY, APRIL 7, 2008 afternoon here in the House. It's the B.C. Wildlife Coa- l i t i o n . I t ' s m a d e u p o f t h e B . C . T r a p p e r s A s s o c i a t i o n , the B.C. Guide Outfitters Association and the B.C. Wildlife Federation. In the gallery today we have Alison Beal with the B.C. Trappers. Darren DeLuca is with the Guide Outfit- ters Association of B.C., and Dixie Hammett is the president of the Guide Outfitters Association of B.C. We've got Mel Arnold, who's with the B.C. Wildlife Federation; he's the vice-president. We've got Mike Morris, who's with the B.C.

Trappers; Patti MacAhonic, who is the B.C. Wildlife Federation executive director; Rod Wiebe, who is another vice-president of the B.C. Wildlife Federation; Scott Ellis, who is with the Guide Outfitters Association; and Wilf Pfleiderer, who is the president of the B.C. Wildlife Association. Please help me make them all welcome. Point of Privilege (Speaker's Ruling) Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, on April 1 the member for Cariboo South sought to raise a matter of privilege alleging that the Minister of Small Business and Reve- nue had misled the House during estimates debate in Committee of Supply.

On April 3 the minister made a statement in response. It should be noted at the outset that an allegation that a member has deliberately misled the House is a serious accusation and ought not to be made lightly. The member for Cariboo South did not accuse the min- ister of deliberately misleading the House but rather chose to use the charge of misleading the House.

In considering a similar situation on May 5, 1998, Speaker Brewin quoted th e following passage from Joseph Maingot, QC, in Parliamentary Privilege in Canada, second edition, at page 241: "To allege that a member has misled the House is a matter of order rather than privilege and is not unparliamentary, whether or not it is qualified by the adjective 'unintentionally' or 'inadver- tently.' To allege that a member has deliberately misled the House is also a matter of order and is indeed unpar- liamentary.

However, deliberately misleading state- ments may be treated as contempt." I have reviewed the Hansard transcripts quoted by both members. It is clear that they disagree as to the facts that they were debating — a disagreement, in essence, of debate. There is no evidence before me that would indicate that the minister deliberately misled the House. Accordingly, I cannot find a prima facie case of breach of privilege that has been made out. Introduction and First Reading of Bills ELECTORAL DISTRICTS ACT Hon. W.

Oppal presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governo r: a bill intituled Elec- toral Districts Act. Hon. W. Oppal: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now. Motion approved. Hon. W. Oppal: I'm pleased to introduce Bill 19, the Electoral Districts Act. This bill enacts the new electoral districts for the province of British Columbia. It would create an electoral map of 85 districts. The bill implements Motion 39 of the Legislative Assembly.

Specifically, it would enact a majority of the recommendations of the Electoral Boundaries Commission except as modified by appendix P of the commission's report. The commission's final report recommended 83 electoral districts for the province. This includes a reduction of one district each in the north and the Cariboo-Thompson regions. Appendix P of the commission's report contained alternative scenarios for the north and the Cariboo- Thompson regions of the province. Under these scenarios those two regions would maintain their existing number of electoral districts rather than have them reduced.

This is what the bill would enact. [1345] The bill contains two schedules. The first lists all the 85 districts in alphabetical order. The second

schedule provides for the areas and boundaries of those districts. In the past years the boundaries were described using lengthy verbal narratives known as metes and bounds. New advances in digital mapping technology have made physical land surveying unnecessary for this pur- pose. The commission took advantage of these methods, and therefore, in the circumstances, the

schedule defined these boundaries as published by the commission on two official disks. The disk s are now on file with the province's Chief Electoral Officer. I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today. Bill 19, Electoral Districts Act, introduced, read a first t i m e a n d o r d e r e d t o b e p l a c e d o n o r d e r s o f t h e d a y f o r second reading at the next sitting of the House after today. Statements (Standing Order 25 B) 50th ANNIVERSARY OF RIPPLE ROCK EXPLOSION C.

Trevena: Anniversaries are a good chance to celebrate and honour those involved. Campbell River marked the 50th anniversary of the explosion of Ripple Rock on Saturday and did just that. The city celebrated, and those involved in the explosion were honoured. The twin peaks of Ripple Rock stood just three me- tres below the surface at Seymour Narrows, just north of Campbell River, described by Captain Vancouver as one of the vilest stretches of water in the world. Ripple Rock damaged or sank more than 120 vessels and claimed the lives of 114 people.

MONDAY, APRIL 7, 2008 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 10961 Attempts to destroy the shipping hazard from above were tried in the 1940s, but it took another 15 years to develop the plan and the successful explosion from underneath. It was a feat of engineering described by one person as the world's biggest root canal, effect- ing the largest peacetime non-nuclear explosion. Some of those involved in the events were in Campbell River to mark the 50th anniversary.

They had the opportunity to see a re-creation of the explosion from a barge off Robert Osler park — another feat of engineering, because people said it did look like the blast of 50 years ago. No fancy fireworks but an orches- trated explosion of greys and blacks, which looked something like a maple leaf and was very quick. The day continued with the screening of a docu- mentary and the unveiling of an information sign about Ripple Rock at the Seymour Narrows lookout. Then there was a lecture at the museum, also celebrat- ing its 50th birthday, and the telling of the story for children through puppets.

For those who wanted a sense of the place, there were commercial boat tours to the site and a guided four-hour hike along the Ripple Rock hiking trail. It was a worthy event to celebrate. The significance of the removal of Ripple Rock is huge. Without that, much of the shipping and most definitely the cruise ships would not be sailing through the passage, and that has an impact not just for the North Islanders but for the province as a whole. It was also an engineering feat which brought the country together.

It was broadcast nationwide on CBC TV, the first time a live even t had been broadcast from coast to coast. VAISAKHI D. Hayer: For four weeks South Asians throughout the world will celebrate Vaisakhi, the time of harvest, time to appreciate the fruits of labour, and time to recog- nize the rewards of effort and accomplishment. Vaisakhi is a time of the year which marks cultural and spiritual importance to many South Asians living around the world. I spent the past weekend visiting with the students of Kwantlen Pa rk School, and I was most impressed by their presentation of Vaisakhi Mela 2008.

I am looking forward to the Vaisakhi gala, which is being held in Surrey on Wednesday, April 9, at the Bombay banquet hall in the Surrey convention centre. Vaisakhi is an important event, and many communities across British Columbia and throughout the world will hold Vaisakhi celebrations. These celebrations are not new to our province. One of the biggest celebrations of Vaisakhi in North America will be the one put on by the Khalsa Diwan Society in Vancouver, established 101 years ago.

This event will be held on Satu rday, April 19, and will be attended by thousands upon thousands from every race, every ethnic group, and from our incredibly di- verse communities. That is what makes this festival so important. It brings together everyone regardless of their race, colour and creed. It truly is an international festival in which everyone can and does participate. Vaisakhi is not a recognition of an event that happened half a world away. It is a gathering of British Columbians and of all people, regardless of their race or ethnic back- ground.

It is the melding of ethnic diversity that is as- tounding and perhaps unique in the world. [1350] I urge everyone in this House to join the festivities, particularly your community Vaisakhi festival, that cele- brate the incredible diversity of our different cultures, freedom, democracy, respect, harmony and peace, which makes our province the best place on earth. LEONARD ANTOINE D. Routley: Growing up in the Cowichan Valley, I came to know a great many first nations people — friends in school.

It was playing road hockey that I would meet their parents and their grandparents, but it was when my family was in great upheaval that I be- came aware of the gentle touch and the guidance of the elders. So it's with a great sorrow today that I rise to speak of the passing of a graceful and wonderful man named Leonard Antoine. Leonard Antoine was born September 20, 1928, and he passed away April 3, 2008. In between these dates, which give us context to his beginning and his end, is a dash. That dash is where all the meaning is in all of our lives.

In Leonard's life that dash meant grace, dignity, service, commitment and humour. We will always remember Leonard walking through town. He would tell us that he walked because he'd run into more people, and that way he could talk to more people. That was Leonard. We know there are less than two dozen fluent speakers of the Hul'qumi'num language, and Leonard was one of them. Seventy percent of Cowichan Tribes people are 26 years or younger, and they all looked to people like Leonard.

They all looked for that grace as he attempted to save the language, as he passed the lessons of snuw uy'ulh — original teachings — to the young people. So many young people saved by the influence of men like Leonard Antoine. We all look at him, and we know that he was humble, but he was proud. Leonard Antoine was as we should be — humble but proud. WATER RESCUE AWARDS R.

Lee: On March 29, I had the privilege to attend the 96th honour and rescue awards ceremony with His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor Steven Point, recog- nizing committed Lifesaving Society volunteers and heroic individuals who have put their lives on the line during water rescues in British Columbia. Michael Anderson, Bren t Blackmore, Shane Nicol and Glen Watts were acknowledged with the silver medal for bravery for their rescue efforts in January at the Millstone River in Nanaimo. Other silver medals for bravery were awarded to Jon Bula, Troy Dalton, Richard Juryh and Graham Tu tti for rescue actions in a

10962 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES M ONDAY, APRIL 7, 2008 kayak incident at Porteau Cove; to Sean Deakin for his heroic attempt to pull a man out of the water in Cam- eron Lake and to William McKinnon for helping Sean; to Donald Gough for saving the life of a man whose car went into the Similkameen River; to Blair Haaf and Larry Rivard for saving a woman from her sinking vehicle in Okanagan Lake; and to 11-year-old Kyle Jenkins for saving his schoolmate's life at the Hyde Creek Recreation Centre in Port Coquitlam. The prestigious George A.

Brown Memorial Medal was awarded to nine-year-old Andrew Choi, who saved his three-year-old br other from drowning in Whistler last September. Young Andrew also received a bravery medal from the Governor General. The Governor's gold medal for the most heroic res- cue of the year was presented to a Burnaby resident, 14-year-old Caleb Gillett, who pulled an unconscious non-swimmer out of the bottom of a Burnaby apartment pool last June. Would the House please join me in recognizing the contributions of the volunteers and staff of the Lifesaving Society and all these brave British Columbians.

READING INITIATIVE AT ECOLE MARIGOLD D. Cubberley: Every month in British Columbia is education month as schools, families, teachers and kids seek to impart and acquire the tools for lifelong learning. Recently, I learned of a novel approach to this noble call- ing at my neighbourhood school, Ecole Marigold, that celebrates learning by building improved literacy. The tool — the Marvelous Marmot Millionary Reading Club — is a collective effort to read a million pages this school year. That means every student and staffer has to read at least ten pages every day.

Marigold's first goal was to read 100,000 pages as a s c h o o l b y O c t o b e r 3 1 , a g o a l i t e a s i l y m e t , i n o r d e r t o celebrate the possibility of success. [1355] There is, of course, another agenda here, which is to bolster the habit of daily reading as a way of rooting the Reading Power program th at teachers are using to improve comprehension. Re ading Power, a program developed by Lower Mainland educator Adrienne Gear, helps students become fluent decoders and teaches them to develop an awarene ss of their thinking while they read, in turn deepening their experience.

The five reading powers — connect, question, visu- alize, infer and transform — enable readers to extract the meanings embedded in words, introduce sequen- tially the power to liberate learners to comprehend and to draw their own conclusions. The brainchild of Mrs. Colleen Pommelet, a grades 3 and 4 teacher who is also a teacher-librarian, the Millionary Reading Club brings fun and celebration to a serious subject.

By being inclusive, creating an at- mosphere of fun and engagement, offering possibilities of tailoring to individual and grade-level needs, giving recognition and rewards for group effort and impart- ing powers and skills that contribute to confidence and competence, the Ecole Marigold initiative is an inspir- ing example of growth and behavioral change in a community of young learners. PROPOSED ELEMENTARY SCHOOL IN BURNABY H. Bloy: It's a great pleasure to rise in the House to- day. Last Friday after many years of waiting, a new ele- mentary school was announced at Burnaby Mountain.

I was honoured to be there to announce this new elemen- tary school for a growing neighbourhood. I was thrilled to be part of Simon Fraser University Community Trust, the university community and the Burnaby board of educa- tion working together for the betterment of our children. We already know that UniverCity is an interna- tional showcase for innovation and creative approaches to sustainable planning and new urban development. This new elementary school will be an integral part of that development. I would also like to recognize the foresight of the Burnaby board of education.

By keep- ing a close eye on where en rolment was expanding in their district, they've been able to direct funding to this growing area. It was a powerful partnership, and it has been great to be part of the team that made it happen. I was joined at the open ing by my colleague from Burnaby North; by Gordon Harris, president and CEO of UniverCity trust; by Warren Gill, vice-president, Simon Fraser University; and by Kathy Corrigan, chair of Burnaby board of education. But the most important guests were the five youngsters representing the class of 2010 who will be attending that school when it opens.

You know, since 2001, the province has invested over $65 million in the Burn aby school district to com- plete seven capital projects. While the design for the new school has not been finalized, we know that it will be green. It is truly an exciting time for education in British Columbia. Oral Questions FUNDING FOR ROYAL COLUMBIAN HOSPITAL C. James: Last week the opposition raised concerns about the crisis at Royal Columbian Hospital in New Westminster. We highlighted a letter by Dr. Granger, a surgeon. He said that the hospital was in crisis and patient care was being compromised.

What was the response from the Minister of Health? He called Dr. Granger an alarmist. Well, one of Dr. Granger's patients contacted us. Donna Donald has stage 4 colon cancer. She's been told she has to wait until the end of May to get her surgery. My question is to the Minister of Health. Does he stand by his words that Dr. Granger is an alarmist, or will he admit that Royal Columbian is in crisis and patients are being put at risk? Hon. G. Abbott: I like to let the facts speak for themselves. If one looks at the surgeries performed at

MONDAY, APRIL 7, 2008 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 10963 Royal Columbian Hospital in 2007, there were, on average, 736 surgeries being performed on a monthly basis at Royal Columbian. This year it's 790 surgeries being performed on a monthly basis. [1400] I received the same e-mail letter as, obviously, the Leader of the Opposition did. I received it at my constitu- ency office, apparently, at 9:30 p.m. on Friday evening. We received it in my office here in Victoria about an hour ago. We're attempting to look further into the case of Ms. Donna Donald to see what exactly the story is there.

But I need to advise the Leader of the Opposition that the urgency of a surgic al procedure is not defined by this Legislature or this He alth Minister. It is defined by the physician and surgeon that serve the patient. Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a supplemental. C. James: The Minister of Health seems to have forgotten someone in all his talk about throwing statis- tics around. He's forgotten the patients. That's who the health care system is supposed to be here for — the patients. This isn't simply about one patient.

This isn't the first time that we've seen the Minister of Health brush off concerns by doctors. In fact, doctors came to the minister in 2006 from Royal Columbian and said that there was a crisis, and he brushed them all off then. In his letter last week Dr. Granger said: "We are having cancers and urgent elective surgeries cancelled continually for lack of resources." Now, those aren't simply numbers. Those are pa- tients, and one of those patients is Donna Donald. So my question is to the Premier.

Will he tell his Minister of Health to listen to the concerns of doctors at Royal Co- lumbian Hospital and actually make sure they get the resources they deserve to meet the needs of patients? Hon. G. Abbott: I n f a c t , i t ' s t h e L e a d e r o f t h e Opposition that's not listening. There were 736 surgeries per month at Royal Co- lumbian last year and 790 this year, per month, at Royal Columbian Hospital. That is over a 7 percent increase year over year in the number of surgeries be- ing performed at Royal Columbian Hospital.

That speaks to me of a great hospital and a great health care system, not a shortage of resources. Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Members. Hon. G. Abbott: British Columbia has the best management of cancer in the nation. In fact, British Columbia has one of the best cancer agencies. Whether it's treatment, whether it's prevention or whether it's research, British Columbia leads Canada and in many ways leads the world on cancers. To take this case…. Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a further supplemental. C.

James: Wha t doe s it tak e t o g et this Mini ster of Health to actually listen to the people in the system who are talking about the system being in crisis? Patients, their families, doctors, nurses, health care providers — everyone knows the system is in crisis except the government over there. It takes families hav- ing to e-mail the minister's office to try and get him to recognize the crisis that this hospital is in. Who caused the pressures that we have? The Liberal government caused the pressures. It was the B.C. Lib- erals who closed and demoli shed St. Mary's Hospital.

That was a surgical hub with 71 acute care beds. What's the result? Royal Columbian is overcrowded, surgical cancellations are ro utine, and the doctors are calling it a crisis. On Friday Dr. Granger's assistant contacted our office. She said that they had to cancel another case, and she left at the end of her day in tears because of the pressures that she's facing because of this government's direction. These are professionals in the system.

They're doing an extraordinary job under very difficult circumstances and getting absolutely no support from this minister, who in fact is just accu sing them and calling them names. That's his response to the health care crisis. So my question is to the Premier. Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Members. C. James: Will the Premier and his government stop picking fights with the professionals in the system, listen to families and do so mething about the crisis in health care? [1405] Hon. G.

Abbott: Again, I know that this opposition leader and the opposition He alth critic constantly be- moan the excellent health care system that we have in British Columbia. The fact of the matter is…. And we regret anytime there is a postponement of a surgery because a more urgent or emergent case gets in front of it. We regret that. But the fact of it is that there will be a record number of surgeries done at Royal Columbian Hospital this year, 2008, just as there were in 2007 — a record number of surgeries. As far as the Canadian cancer issue goes, they don't need to take it from me.

The Cancer Advocacy Coalition of Canada says British Columbia has the best cancer care in the nation. We should be proud of that. We have the best treatment, we have the most timely surgeries, and we have a wonderful cancer care system in this prov- ince. All members of this Legislature should be proud of it. C. Puchmayr: Well, let's have a look at what hap- pened in New Westminster — why the minister takes credit here for increased surgeries at Royal Columbian. He closes a hospital that services 1.6 million people in the region and puts the pr essure on Royal Columbian

10964 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES M ONDAY, APRIL 7, 2008 and stands here and boasts about the increasing surgeries. I ' v e s p o k e n w i t h D o n n a D o na l d , a n d I s p o k e w i t h her family, and they are appalled. A fourth-stage colon cancer should be dealt with immediately. The cells are now multiplying, and they are posing a greater risk to her organs. Donna tells me that she is expecting to become a great-grandmother for the first time this fall, and she desperately wants to be there to be a great-grandmother. This is an extremely advanced case of cancer.

The min- ister can stand up here and talk all he wants about the service being provided, but it isn't…. The doctors are speaking out — not only Dr. Granger. Dr. Matishak, Dr. Morton — all the doctors are speaking out. It is a crisis at the Royal Columbian Hospital. To the Minister of Health: does he believe that eight weeks is an appropriate time to wait for a stage 4 colon cancer? Hon. G. Abbott: I appreciate the member's ques- tion, because it goes to the heart of the matter.

Would the member have politicians concluding what the ap- propriate period was for treatment, or would he like to have physicians and surgeo ns form those judgments about what the appropriate times are? Dr. Granger, I am presuming, is vitally concerned with this patient. I presume that he has oriented surgi- cal times appropriately, based on what he believes are the best medical interests of the patient. But it's ironic. This member talks a lot about rein- vestment in Royal Columbian Hospital. It's interesting. In the 1990s this former government made no rein- vestments in the health care system.

In terms of cancer care, the biggest step forward we will see in 2008 is the opening of the Abbotsford re- gional hospital and cancer centre — a $355 million in- vestment promised for ten years, never delivered. Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental. C. Puchmayr: I'm puzzled. He talks about the '90s, and yet it was in 2005 that they closed St. Mary's Hos- pital, not in the '90s — 2005. He talks about lack of in- vestment, and what does he do? Closes a hospital. Doctors have been communicating the crisis of sur- geries at Royal Columbian Hospital since the demoli- tion of St.

Mary's Hospital, and all they get from this Health Minister are accusation s that they are alarmists. Is this really what the minister believes — that those hard-working, dedicated professionals are merely alarmists? [1410] Hon. G. Abbott: If the member wants to talk about closing hospitals, I can tell him about the two community hospitals that were closed in the 1990s in my constituency of Shuswap. Enderby Hospital and Armstrong hospital — both closed by an NDP government. These sancti- monious folk across the floor might want to think a little bit about that. Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Members.

Minister, just take your seat for a second. Continue. Hon. G. Abbott: Only 17 percent of the patients that went through St. Mary's were from New Westmin- ster. As the member well knows, the Eagle Ridge Hos- pital was upgraded in order to meet that additional capacity demand. This is a government that annually makes $700 million to $800 million of investments in hospitals across this province. That is a huge departure from the past. The strong economy we have here, the great planning we have here and the great health pro- fessionals we have here put us in an opportunity to make those kinds of investments.

SURGICAL SERVICES AT KELOWNA GENERAL HOSPITAL A. Dix: M y q u e s t i o n i s t o t h e M i n i s t e r o f H e a l t h . Last week 600 Kelowna patients waiting for orthopedic surgery were told their surgeries had been cancelled — perhaps 600 more reasons for the Minister of Health to feel unsuccessful. Their wait times have been extended because this government's for-profit health care scheme in the area collapsed. The head of surgery at Kelowna General Hospital says treating patients this way is "un- acceptable." What is Interior Health's solution?

Well, keep the operating rooms at Kelowna General Hospital open and play catch-up for the next year for those pa- tients. If the solution is to perform more surgeries and empty operating rooms in th e public system, then why has he been raiding public resources to fund unsuc- cessful for-profit health care schemes? Hon. G. Abbott: What a load of nonsense once again from this so-called opposition Health critic. What a load of nonsense. It's typical of the fearmongering that this member does on a constant basis around the province. Fearmongering and calling for more and more spending — that's all he can do.

The fact of the matter is…. The member knows it well, and if he doesn't know it well, he should have talked to th e Interior Health Authority and got the facts before he shoots off and tries to scare people about their future. This, in fact, stems from a contractual dispute be- tween the Interior Health Authority and a proponent for minor surgical services in the Okanagan. The un- successful proponents sent out a letter to some of their patients saying that they would have surgeries delayed. There is no reason to believe that. I spent much of the weekend with the Interior Health Au- thority.

We discussed this matter. They are going to ensure that every one of those 600 patients gets their surgeries on a timely basis, regardless of the fear- mongering of this member. Interjections.

MONDAY, APRIL 7, 2008 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 10965 Mr. Speaker: Members. Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Members. Member has a supplemental. Interjection. Mr. Speaker: Member. Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Members. A. Dix: So 600 surgeries cancelled; 600 surgeries delayed. A health care scheme that costs more money…. Interjections. A. Dix: The surgeries are delayed. They all got a letter. Those surgeries are delayed. No one is fearmon- gering. What causes fear is when patients get letters delaying their surgeries; that 's what causes fear. Their scheme costs more money.

They cancel 600 surgeries, and the Minister of Health declares victory. Presumably, he and his erstwhile friend the Premier will put him in charge of the convention centre next. My question to him: when will he finally acknowledge that the only threats to th e sustainability of public health care in British Columbia are the policies of the Premier and the Minister of Health? [1415] Hon. G. Abbott: One of the things that I will never do, which this member does constantly, is go around the province sowing the seed s of fear in people where it is absolutely not true or not necessary.

This is a member of a party that has no policies. I used to think it stood for something else. Now I think NDP stands for no discernible policies. No discernible policies. Never have they articulated a single policy. All this member can do is go around the province and try to scare people. Why don't they put out some policies? Why don't we hear what the NDP would like to do with the health care system? Spend, spen d, spend or more fear, fear, fear, because they've got no policies. They're ashamed of it, so all they can do is spread fear around the province. Interjections. Mr.

Speaker: Member, you can just take your seat for a second. Member for Nanaimo. AGRICULTURAL LAND RESERVE REGULATIONS L. Krog: I'm delighted to talk about a little policy here today. As the investigation into the land dealings in Chilliwack continues, British Columbians are con- cerned that these types of ac tivities could be occurring in other areas of our province. People are worried about the loophole that seems to allow ALR lands to be subdivided into two-acre estates without ever having to go to the Agricultural Land Commission.

So before more food land is lost forever, my ques- tion to the Minister of Agri culture is very simple. What is he actually doing to close that loophole? Hon. P. Bell: If the member opposite would do a little bit of research, he would know that the ALC actu- ally has a full compliance and enforcement regime. They do monitor on an ongoing basis the decisions that have been made and the uses of agricultural land around the province. In fact, we've had an extensive compliance and enforcement regime going on in the Fraser Valley over the last year or so. So again, no research.

If they'd take the time to look at it, they'd understand that there are the appropriate mechanisms in place, and there is a current investiga- tion going, as was announced last Friday by the ALC. Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental. L. Krog: There may be an enforcement regime in place, but it doesn't seem to have stopped what the problem is before British Columbians today, which is the subject of the investigation. Since 2002 local governments have been able to be delegated the power to make decisions around subdivi- sion applications and non-farm use of land.

Without proper controls and oversight, this could lead to increased problems such as those we've seen in Chilliwack. As all across the province agricultural land is being developed, why should British Columbians trust that farmland will be protected when the government re- fuses to even look at closing the two-acre loophole? Hon. P. Bell: The member should pay attention to the rules in the Agricult ural Land Commission.

He would know that all of the de cisions made, if there is a delegation agreement in place — and there are only a few delegation agreements in place — are reviewed and o p e n t o t h e r e v i e w b y t h e A g r i c u l t u r a l L a n d C o m m i s - sion. They're very committed to making sure that there is only appropriate use of agricultural lands, and there is an active investigation ongoing at this time. INVESTIGATION INTO ICBC VEHICLE SALES H. Bains: Another late Friday afternoon, another scandal, another resignation from the Premier's inner circle.

This government has done everything it can to keep the public in the dark. My question to the minist er responsible for ICBC is quite simple. We now know that there was an ICBC internal investigation completed into the car-wreck resale scandal. Will he release the result of this investi- gation so that the public can see what was going on,

10966 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES M ONDAY, APRIL 7, 2008 how long it was going on for, and who knew what and when? [1420] Hon. J. van Dongen: I w a n t t o a s s u r e t h i s H o u s e that I have continued my due diligence on this matter over the weekend with a two-hour meeting with the chairman of the board on Saturday and a further meet- ing with the whole board of directors this morning. I can assure the member that all of the internal investiga- tion, the results of that and the work of Pricewater- houseCoopers — the independent external auditors — will be made available to the public.

But I also want to confirm for the member that on Friday, the RCMP confirmed that they were doing an assessment of all of these matters from a criminal per- spective. Any release of information has to be subject to the request of the RCMP to make extremely limited comment at this point. Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental. H. Bains: I think the minister's response can be de- scribed as this: "We have kept the public in the dark, and we'll continue to keep the public in the dark." The public have had enough of the secrecy.

How can we have any confidence in this government when the min- ister won't even release the terms of reference of the investigation by PricewaterhouseCoopers? Will the minister tell the public exactly what is being investigated at ICBC and what powers the investigators have, and will he release that basic information now? Hon. J. van Dongen: I can confirm for the member in this House that all of the results of the investigation done by ICBC were released, starting on March 19. All of the information that they could release, they have released. As I said, there is an ongoing external review being done of that.

I want to assure the member that the board of direc- tors of ICBC, their CEO and this government are of one mind — that we will release all of the information that we can possibly release as quickly as possible, subject to the investigation of the RCMP, subject to the law and subject to matters of freedom-of-information and privacy issues. We are of one mind to continue to do that. I also want to assure the member that in my own due diligence, I requested a lot of documents from the CEO.

They were promptly produced, and I can assure the member that I support the work of the board of directors and the CEO in initiating a prompt investiga- tion — a thorough investigation — when they became aware of these issues. SALE OF SCHOOL LANDS D. Cubberley: Hundreds of students, parents and teachers are here at the Legislature today calling on this government to stop the sell-off of school lands. Since 2001 this government has closed over 150 public schools, with another 45 schools on the chopping block as we speak. These buildings and green spaces should be a lasting legacy in our communities.

Instead, this government is forcing school districts to sell these lands in order to help fund future buildings. Will the Minister of Education reverse this short- sighted policy and end the liquidation of this community- owned resource? Hon. S. Bond: Well, I can tell you that one thing this side of the House is extremely proud of is that under this government, we have the highest level of funding ever in British Columbia for education. In fact, our record on capital investment is clear. Under this government, since 2001 we've added over $1.3 billion to build new schools in British Columbia. [1425] J.

Brar: They have closed 150 schools, and this min- ister will not take the responsibility for that. Hundreds of students, parents and teac hers are here. They're ask- ing to stop the sale of school land, and this minister will not take responsibility for that as well. They're also closing a school called Fleetwood Elementary School in Surrey, the fastest-growing community in the province, and this minister will not take responsibility for that as well. Many parents believe that the school in Surrey is being closed because of the funding cut this ministry has for the school district of Surrey.

My question to the Minister of Education is this. Can the Minister of Education explain to the people of Surrey why her ministry has cut funding in the range of $3.6 million to the Surrey school district when, in fact, the enrolment in Surrey is going up? Hon. S. Bond: Perhaps the member opposite would like to hear the rest of the story. One would expect that being a Surrey representative, he might know that. During the last number of years in Surrey we've seen six new schools. In fact, the list doesn't end there. Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Minister, take your seat. Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Continue, Minister. Hon. S. Bond: I will just quickly finish the list. Not only were there six new schools, there were five re- placement schools, 14 additions and two renovations. D. Routley: On December 27, 1962, the town of Lake Cowichan, their school district, bought for $1 the J.H. Boyd school property fr om B.C. Forest Products. Now that community, because of this minister's policies, is being forced to offer $765,000 to keep that property public. In 1998, $883 was spent per student in capital spending in our sch ools. That plummeted to

MONDAY, APRIL 7, 2008 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 10967 $231 per student in '02-03. T his year it's $545 — still well below what it was ten years ago. The results of these policies are driving our districts to sell properties, and it's that minister who has made it happen. Will she finally stand up and admit that her funding formula is driving these deficits in our class- rooms and forcing our districts to consider selling public property, which our communities object to? Hon. S.

Bond: In fact, around the world today, jurisdictions are grappling with declining enrolment and facing the challenges that British Columbia is facing. Let's listen…. Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Members. Hon. S. Bond: Let's actually listen. Perhaps the member opposite would like to have a conversation with the opposition leader, actually, who was a school trustee. Let's listen to this quote: "There are some schools that have been closed because of dropping en- rolment, and you're always going to see that in this province.

There were schools that were closed under the New Democrats because of dropping enrolment." That's a quote from the Lead er of the Opposition in February of 2005. Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Members. Hon. S. Bond: On this side of the House, the gov- ernment is proud of its record. We will continue to fund education at record levels, and in fact, we will continue to build new schools, where appropriate. We have a record that we can be proud of. [End of question period.] J. Horgan: I seek leave to table a petition. Mr. Speaker: Proceed. Petitions J.

Horgan: I have a petition with 370 names of resi- dents of the Cowichan Valley calling on this Legisla- ture to ensure that Ecole Mill Bay, the only single-track French immersion school south of the Cowichan River, remains open. [1430] Tabling Documents Hon. G. Abbott: I have the pleasure to table the provincial health officer's annual report, entitled An Ounce of Prevention Revisited: A Review of Health Promo- tion and Selected Outcomes fo r Children and Youth in B.C. Schools, that was released this past Friday. Orders of the Day Hon.

M. de Jong: I call, in this chamber, continued committee stage debate on Bill 13 and, in

Section A, continued debate on the estimates — for the informa- tion of members, the continued debates on the Ministry of Advanced Education. [1435] Committee of the Whole House LABOUR AND CITIZENS' SERVICES STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 2008 (continued) The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 13; S. Hammell in the chair. The committee met at 2:37 p.m. K. Conroy: I want to carry on from where we were last week on Thursday. What I want ed to do at the time on Thursday was make an amendment to add

section 8.1 to be read as I provided to the Table on last Thursday. I un- derstand that the amendment is in the orders of the day. [8.1

SECTION 13 is amended (

a) adding the following text, highlighted by underline, to subsection 13 (1): 13

(1) The head of a public body may refuse to dis- close to an applicant information that would reveal advice or recommendations developed by or for a public body or a minister if that information would reveal a suggested course of action for acceptance or rejection in making a decision or formulating a policy. (

b) adding the following text, highlighted by underline, to subsection 13 (2) (a): 13 (2) (

a) any factual material or analysis of factual material, (

c) adding the following subsections: 13 (2) (a.1) any background explanations or analysis for consideration in making a decision or formulating a policy, 13 (2) (a.2) a professional, scientific, technical or inves- tigative opinion or report.] On the amendment. K. Conroy: The reason I put forward this amend- ment is that there was a glaring omission in this Bill 13 that

section 13 of the Freedom of Information Act did- n't have any amendment. I was informed that this would probably be the best place to table this amendmen t, such that

section 13.1 would now clarify that policy advice could only be withheld "if that information would reveal a suggested course of action for acceptance or rejection in making a decision or formulating a policy" and would clarify under

section 13.2 that not only would factual material be exempt from severing under this

section but also "analysis of factual material," and would also add subsections to clarify the background explanations or analysis and a professional, scientific, technical or investigative opinion or report be put on the list of information the government must disclose.

10968 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES M ONDAY, APRIL 7, 2008 I was led to believe that this might be a time to table this amendment and that it 's one that was actually recommended to the minister by the Information Commissioner. It was actually recommended last April. The minister had an opportunity to put that amendment in the bill when it was introduced last year, and it unfortunately wasn't.

Now I see, again, in this bill it was not introduced, and I was hoping that this might be an opportunity to give not only the minister an opportunity to have the ability to support this amendment but also the member for Peace River South, who had expressed great support to this amendment, and hoping that we could, in fact, have this amendment before the House. With that, I table this amendment. Point of Order Hon. O. Ilich: Just on a point of order.

Standing Order 84 governs the proceedings in the Committee of the Whole and states: "In proceedings upon Bills in Committee of the Whole, every clause shall be consid- ered by the Committee in it s proper order, with the

preamble and the title being considered last." [1440]

Section 2: "Any clause may be postponed but shall be taken up before the Bill has been reported to the House." In addition, Parliamentary Practice in British Columbia, third edition, page 171, reads as follows: "The function of a committee on a bill is to go through the text of the bill clause by cl ause and, if necessary, word by word, with a view to accepting the bill as committed or making such amendments in it as may seem likely to render it more generally acceptable." Page 171 also identifies a list of inadmissible amendments, including any amendments that are be- yond the scope of the bill.

Erskine May, Parliamentary Practice, 21st edition, further states on page 491: "An amendment is out of order…if it is irrelevant to the subject matter or beyond the scope of the clause under consideration." Beauchesne's Parlia- mentary Rules and Forms, sixth edition, provides perhaps the clearest direction when it states on page 207, citation 698, subsection 8(b): "An amendment may not amend sections from the original act unless they are specifically being amended in a clause of the bill before the committee." I would also note that Parliamentary Practice in British Columbia, third edition, page 2, clearly identifies Beauchesne as one of the authorities that members and o t h e r s m a y r e l y u p o n t o g u i d e t h e m i n t h e s e a r c h f o r answers to procedural questions.

Madam Chair, since this bill does not address

section 13 of the FOI Act, I would submit that the amendment being proposed is beyond the scope of the bill and the clause cur- rently under consideration and, therefore, is out of order. Accordingly, I respectfully request that you so rule. The Chair: Member, I've had a chance to consider the amendment, and the amendment would add a new

section to the bill which does not relate to other concepts in the bill. Accordingly, the amendment is out of order, as it is beyond the scope of the bill as agreed to at second reading. Debate Continued On

section 9. K. Conroy: Just under

section 9, then, could the minister explain what exactly foreign demand is, underneath the…? Hon. O. Ilich: A foreign demand for disclosure is a subpoena, a warrant, an order, a demand or a request that is from a foreign court, an agency of a foreign state or another authority outside Canada and is for the unauthorized disclosure of personal information to which this act applies. For the information of the member opposite, though, this is a housekeeping amen dment to the act. The act already has this in it. What we're doing is that instead of it saying that….

Right now there's a foreign demand that goes to a public body. A public body can't receive anything, so this is going to a head of a public body. That's the only change that's being made. We're introducing the head of a public body, and so nothing else has changed in this clause. Sections 9 and 10 approved. On

section 11. K. Conroy: In this clause it talks about the concerns around the Patriot Act and th at public bodies and their staff must immediately notify the head of a public body if there is unauthoriz ed disclosure. Would that also lead true, then, that the public would be notified if there was unauthorized disclosure? [1445] Hon. O. Ilich: This clause requires, if there's a security breach, that there is a notification to the head of the public body. There is no subsequent policy here that states that that head of the public body then must notify the public, but I'm told that we do, do that through policy.

But right now there's no requirement for anybody to actually disclose that to the head of the public body. L. Krog: I apologize for being absent when this

section was first brought in the House this morning. "'If a public body, an employer or a public body' and substituting 'if the head of a public body….'" It strikes me that the term "a public body" is a much broader, more en- compassing phrase that would describe the public body. In theory, it would describe everyone who's involved with the public body, etc. In fact, the way I read this section, it is a narrowing, if you will, of the broader definition. I'm wondering if the minister can explain. Am I wrong in my

interpretation, or am I right? Hon. O. Ilich: Could the member opposite just clarify what

section he's on, please? L. Krog: I'm sorry.

Section 9. The Chair: Member, we're on

section 11.

MONDAY, APRIL 7, 2008 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 10969 L. Krog: Thank you, hon. Chai r, and thus my apol- ogy. I'm obviously a little late on that one.

Section 11 approved. On

section 12. K. Conroy: In

section 12 there's a reference to a third party's position. Could the minister define what that would be and give an example of what or who a third party would be? [1450] Hon. O. Ilich: I wonder if the member opposite could clarify where it says that in

section 12 and, spe- cifically, what she's asking for? K. Conroy: Parts of

section 22 that are applied to

section 33 by this amendment…. It talks about: a public body may disclose "if the information is about the third party's position, functions, or remuneration as an offi- cer, employee or member of a public body." Hon. O. Ilich: What we're doing here is listing things that will be routinely disclosed. Right now sec- tion 22 limits the routine disclosure. One of the things that it is going to be allowing, that we will be specifi- cally routinely disclosing, is details of personal infor- mation that right now are held private.

I n t h a t p a r t i c u l a r i n s tance, this amendment will permit public bodies to make routinely available a person's position, function or remuneration as an officer or employee or member of a public body; financial and other details of a contract to supply goods or services to a public body; expenses in- curred by a third party wh ile travelling at a public body's expense; a licence, permit or other similar discretionary benefit granted by a public body, not including personal inform ation supplied in support of the application for the benefit; and details of a discretionary benefit of a financial nature granted by a public body.

These are all things that have been excluded before, and now they will be routinely disclosed. Does that answer the question for the member? K. Conroy: Could the minister actually define, then, who or what a third party would be that would be dis- closing? Hon. O. Ilich: The third party would be different in every single case. It would be a person who is getting remuneration as an officer or a person who is filing expenses to an agency. That would be the third party, and it would be different in every single case. What the member should kn ow is that this is now held private, and this will be now released.

So it's an expansion of what is now meant to be released. K. Conroy: Does that mean that anyone could get access to any contracts that the different ministries might have with outside bodies and scrutinize them for the financial details around those contracts? [1455] Hon. O. Ilich: What we're doing here is making a routine release available. If something would have been normally releasable under a formal access request, we're going to be releasing these things on a routine basis.

Anything that would have been withheld before will still be withheld, but it's going to be released on a regular basis if it could have been released on a formal request. K. Conroy: So for information like that, there no longer will be required freedom-of-information requests? They will just be released to the public on a regular basis from the different ministries? Hon. O. Ilich: The

interpretation of the member opposite is correct. The opportunity will be there. The ability to routinely release information is there. It will still be up to the public body to decide whether they want to routinely release that, but I think the member's

interpretation of that is correct. L. Krog: As I understand it, then, the amendment is going to give the power to disclose financial and other details of a contract to supply goods and services to a public body, which arguably is very good public policy. The public should have a right to know how its dollars are being spent. On the other hand, there are clearly contracts the gov- ernment has entered into and policy around disposition of some Crown assets and other matters where these things aren't made public. I'm just wondering. What's the minis- ter's position on this as a matter of policy?

In other words, does she think this is good policy? Should it apply across the board with government contracts? Hon. O. Ilich: This amendment does permit public bodies to routinely disclose predetermined personal information that can currently be released in response to a formal request. So it will allow public bodies to routinely release information. The third-party aspect of it is that this is personal information, so what we are now allowing is that, for instance, if the director of IM/IT….

If I had a contract with her, what she's paid would be her personal infor- mation, but we will now be allowing the routine re- lease of that information. I think that's what the mem- ber opposite was trying to get at earlier. L. Krog: I've probably not made myself very clear to the minister. As I read

section 12, it will allow a public body, under (f), to disclose "financial and other details of a contract to supply goods or services to a public body." My question is: does the mi nister think this is good public policy? In other words, are all the details of the contract available? Am I missing something in terms of the specificity of the release, or does it apply to every- thing in that contract? [1500]

10970 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES M ONDAY, APRIL 7, 2008 Hon. O. Ilich: We do think — and I do think — that that is good public policy. It will allow much more disclosure of information and provide for a more open government.

There are specific categories of personal information that this amendment will allow a public body to make routinely available: a person's position, function or remuneration as an officer, employee or member of a public body; financial and other details of a contract to supply goods or services to a public body; expenses incurred by a third party while travelling at a public body's expense; licence, permit or other similar discretionary benefit grante d by a public body; and details of a discretionary be nefit of a financial nature granted by a public body.

These are things that we believe we can disclose routinely and won't be needing an access request. L. Krog: My specific question to the minister is: does she believe that this is an appropriate approach for government to take with respect to all contracts involving the provincial government? Hon. O. Ilich: I think, in talking about

section 12…. I believe we are expanding the disclosure that we rou- tinely do. We are very plea sed to be supporting this part and think that's a good public policy. Other issues that we are not routinely di sclosing…. Obviously, it's outside the scope of

section 12. L. Krog: I'm asking this question. I mean, I appreciate that we're talking about this section. But I'm asking the minister: with respect to this

section and its implications for government policy, does she agree that this is the ap- propriate approach to take with all government contracts? Hon. O. Ilich: We're debating

section 12 here. My per- sonal beliefs about what we should do with the FOI Act aside, what we're talking about here is

section 12. We're asking questions and answering questions on

section 12, so I think that I've answered the member's question. K. Conroy: I just have one more on that section, then. I just want to confirm. All public bodies will now automatically release this information. But could a public body choose not to if , for whatever reason, they decided they didn't want to release it? Will this amendment now make it so all public bodies will automatically release the information? Hon. O. Ilich: Right now it's prohibited, so should a p u b l i c b o d y w a n t t o r e l e a s e t h i s o n a r o u t i n e b a s i s , they're not allowed to.

This clause will in fact allow public bodies to do that on a discretionary basis, should they choose to do so. Sections 12 to 33 inclusive approved. Title approved. Hon. O. Ilich: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment. Motion approved. The committee rose at 3:05 p.m. The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair. Report and Third Reading of Bills LABOUR AND CITIZENS' SERVICES STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 2008 Bill 13, Labour and Citizens' Services Statutes Amendment Act, 2008, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed. Hon. C.

Richmond: I call committee stage of Bill 15, intituled Utilities Commissi on Amendment Act, 2008. The hon. Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. Committee of the Whole House UTILITIES COMMISSION AMENDMENT ACT, 2008 The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 15; S. Hammell in the chair. The committee met at 3:07 p.m. The Chair: We'll have a short recess. The committee recessed from 3:07 p.m. to 3:12 p.m. [S. Hammell in the chair.] On

section 1. J. Horgan: I am pleased to participate in committee stage debate of Bill 15, the Utilities Commission Amendment Act. We have a number of questions for the minister and a number of amendments as well, which the Clerk is reviewing and which I'm sure we'll get to the minister and his staff as quickly as possible. With respect to

section 1, the addition of some new

definitions, I'm wondering if the minister could help me out with "demand-side measure," particularly sections (a), (

b) and (c) — (

a) being "to conserve," (b) "to reduce" and (c) "to shift." Hon. R. Neufeld: Before I start, I'd like to introduce the folks that are with me today. Deputy Minister Greg Reimer is on my left. Shelley Murphy is a director of electricity policy in the ministry, and behind me is Les McLaren, ADM for electricity and alternative energy. The three items, (a), (

b) and (c): (

a) is obviously to reduce greenhouse gases wher ever they can, and they should take that into acco unt while they're reviewing projects that come before them. I think that one is pretty straightforward.

MONDAY, APRIL 7, 2008 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 10971 Then "(

b) to encourage public utilities to take demand- side measures." The energy plan says that we want to actually meet 50 percent of our growth, going forward, through demand-side measures, and it's to actually take that into account. And "to encourage public utilities to produce, generate and acquire electricity from clean or renewable sources" is something that has been a bit of a debate over the last while within this chamber and outside this chamber.

We want to make sure that the commission actually reviews those in a way that we can maintain the 90 percent average we now have today in the province of British Columbia with energy generation from clean sources. J. Horgan: I thank the minister, but as I read those

definitions, he made reference to greenhouse gases, and I don't see that anywhere in this section. Maybe he can point me to it in his response. [1515] One demand-side measure that I know the govern- ment and B.C. Hydro are promoting is the residential in- clining block funding or block tariff. I'm wondering if the minister could articulate, for the House and for those pay- ing attention at home concerned about where their hydro rates are going to go over the next number of months or years, whether the residential inclining block tariff would fit under the demand-side measure definition. I would think it would be under

section (a), but I'm not clear. Hon. R. Neufeld: I apologize for that. I went to the second (a), (

b) and (c). The first one that you're talking about is "to con- serve energy or promote energy efficiency." That was your first question. "To reduce the energy demand a public utility must serve, or to shift the use of energy to periods of lower demand." The last one obviously is that if you can shift energy demand from peak times to off-peak times, you need to build less generation or have less electricity at hand at any given time.

I think that's better for any utility or better for the ratepayer at the end of the day, because w e h a v e t o b u i l d t o a c e r t a i n p e r c e n t a g e o v e r a n d above what the peak demand is. If we can actually move some of that peak off of peak into another time frame, that makes good sense. That's something that B.C. Hydro, I know, has been doing for the last couple of years with some of the test runs they've been doing. Then "(

b) to reduce the energy demand a public utility must serve." Again, that's through conservation, the things that we have to do. The member asked the ques tion about the inclining block. Yes, that's a part of it. The inclining block, although we call it stepped rates in the industrial world, has been in place with industry now for two years. They can use a certain amount of electricity that's relatively cheap from the heritage assets, and there comes a time when they have to step up and pay a higher rate for new energy consumed. J. Horgan: I thank the minister for that.

I am a fan of the stepped rates in the industrial tariff. That makes a lot of sense to me. When you've got large users who have an ability, through managing their shifts and de- pending on whether their output is high at certain times of the year, that makes complete sense. Some of the people that have been talking to me…. I know that the inclining block application is before the commis- sion or will be shortly, if it's not there already. I guess we'll hear if it is there or not, thanks to the able staff beside the minister.

As a demand-side management measure, it makes sense if you use electricity for cooking, turning on the dishwasher, that sort of th ing. But many, many British Columbians — and the minister will know this — in the 1980s and 1990s were encouraged to get rid of fossil fuel heat sources, whether it be natural gas or home heating oil, and convert to electric baseboard heating, to electric floor heating. Their electricity consumption increased, but their greenhouse gas contributions decreased. We encouraged people, not just this government but the government across the way and all govern- ments since the 1980s….

We encouraged citizens to stop doing one activity and promoted another. Now, 20 years on, we've decided that even though, as the minis- ter knows, 90 percent of our electricity is clean, green electricity…. We're saying to consumers of that, who may not have the same opportunities as the industrial tariff sector, that they should pay more at certain times of the day because their usage is larger than their neighbour's. I'm wondering if the minister could help me ex- plain to my constituents an d others who have been writing to me.

Maybe, even, he could advise me on how he's responding to people who say: "That's really not demand-side management. We did our bit in the '80s or '90s, and now we're being penalized for it." [1520] Hon. R. Neufeld: Actually, at the time, 20 years ago in the '80s, the issues ab out greenhouse gases and the effect they was having on the environment were not topical on the public's mind — in fact, probably weren't spoken much other than maybe in some circles, but not commonly.

The process that was used in the 1980s to get peo- ple to change over to electricity is because we had a huge amount of electricity that was in excess to what the province needed at the ti me. That's the only reason I can give for that. I don't think it's wrong in today's world, 20 years later, to change attitudes a bit, to quit thinking that we have a huge amount of electricity that we can just use all we want at any given time. I know it will be a bit more difficult for those that heat their homes, but what we want to do is actually change habits a little bit.

I think that with an inclining block, we can start to do that. I'm sure we'll get to another

section here that the member will want to talk about at length, which is smart meters, which has something to do with the in- clining block. I'm going to be careful how I choose my words about the inclining block, because it is before the B.C. Utilities Commission as we speak.

10972 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES M ONDAY, APRIL 7, 2008 J. Horgan: I thank the minister for reminding me that it's already before the commission. That's good to know, but I am pleased that I had an opportunity to raise the issue. I don't disagree with the minister. We were awash in electricity. It made good sense to market that elec- tricity by encouraging citizens to use more of it. Now we're in a different environment, and I appreciate that. I want the minister to know that I'm not so obtuse that I don't get that.

The irony for these people is that they were really trendsetters on the climate change front inas- m u c h a s t h e y w e r e f o r g o i n g b u r n i n g t h e i r w o o d i n their heat stove, or they got rid of their oil burner and started warming their water with electricity. It's not lost on them that they were groundbreakers even though, as the minister quite rightly says, it w a s n ' t o n t h e t o p o f e v e r y o n e ' s m i n d i n t h e 1 9 8 0 s when these transitions were being made.

We were awash in energy, so it made good sense for our C r o w n t o m a r k e t i t a s a g g r e s s i v e l y a s t h e y c o u l d , and that's what they did. With respect to

section 1, I'll just ask a couple of more questions, and that would be

section 1(f). It reads as follows: "to encourage public utilities to take pre- scribed actions in support of any other goals prescribed by regulation." I appreciate that we don't have all the regulations here, but I'm wondering if the minister could tell us what's contemplated in that section. Hon. R. Neufeld: This is not uncommon to have in a piece of legislation maybe not the exact wording but something similar.

What it does is give flexibility for a government to actually make regulations as things change, as the world changes around us, as it has over the last while — changed dramatically in some areas — and for governments to be able to adapt to those changes by regulation. J. Horgan: Well, the Minister of Finance and I were having a discussion about the need to manage Hydro's debt cap a week and a half ago, and I asked when the last time…. The issue was that we don't want to keep changing the cap all of the time. The last time it was changed was 1984.

I appreciate that government needs flexibility and the Crown needs flexibility, but it is a little bit open- ended. I just want the record to show that prescribed actions in support of prescribed goals some time later is not something that we can discuss here with any confidence that we're capturing all of the possibilities that may be contemplated here. I just think it's important that we be on the record saying that the government hasn't completed its work here. They've got some other work to do.

That'll come forward in the regulations, and if that's not good enough for particular issues as they come forward, then we're going to see this

section enacted to ensure that those goals are met. That's my

interpretation of it anyway. [1525] Hon. R. Neufeld: As we move forward — and the member is correct — things will change. The debt cap that Hydro has is not in here any place, but I could maybe use that as a bit of an example. The last large facility that was built by B.C. Hydro was Revelstoke. That would have been in the '80s. Very little was built after that, so debt caps were able to be maintained. The member is right in his assertion. As time changes, as we move forward, a government will be able to move forward and make those changes by regu- lation, depending on the magnitude of them.

I think any government would look at those kinds of things and be careful about what th ey put in regulation and what they don't. I know the member would probably agree with me that that's probably what a prudent government would do in the future. Sections 1 and 2 approved. On

section 3. J. Horgan: This section,

section 3, speaks to direc- tions from the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. For those who don't have a copy of the bill and those who don't know what that is, that's basically the cabinet. The existing Utilities Commission Act has a "Com- mission subject to direction" section,

section 3. There are amendments, as I'm looking at the two acts, and I'm wondering…. It seems the significant changes in

section 3(2), "The commission must comply with a direction issued under subsection (1), despite (

a) any other pro- vision of (

i) this Act," and so on…. That doesn't appear to be…. Oh, that's an addition here. Could the minister explain to me where the changes are between

section 3 in the existing act and

section 3 of Bill 15? Hon. R. Neufeld: Subsection (2) is the question that the member has. It makes it clear that this power is despite any other provision in the act, any regulation under the act or any previous decision. This ensures that where there could be a conflict between a govern- ment regulation and a requirement under the act or a previous decision of the commission, it is clear that the government direction prevails. J. Horgan: That's consistent with the previous powers of Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council with respect to the Utilities Commission? Hon. R. Neufeld: No, it's different. J.

Horgan: That begs the question, Minister: how is it different? [1530] Hon. R. Neufeld: I'll attempt to expand on it a little bit.

Section 3 allows the government to specify factors, criteria and guidelines a commission must use in regu- lating and setting rates for B.C. Hydro and B.C. Trans-

MONDAY, APRIL 7, 2008 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 10973 mission Corporation. These powers are despite any other provisions of the act and despite any previous order of the commission. J. Horgan: Then these are new powers to the minis- ter and to cabinet to direct the commission subject to acts or policies that may come after this bill has passed. Hon. R. Neufeld: Yes. It enhances and clarifies. There was some discussion amongst the legal world that some of the powers that a minister had prior to the changes maybe wouldn't take effect , and so what you wanted to do was to enhance it so it was relatively clear.

I think that all we're trying to d o i s m a k e i t r e l a t i v e l y clear that when a direction is made, it's a direction. [K. Whittred in the chair.] J. Horgan: I know that a government never takes lightly a special direction, ei ther in the '80s, '90s or now. I don't want to appear to be fearmongering, but there are those who are concerned whenever cabinet or the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council or the minister — all being the same, I think, when it comes to this act — is given more power than they had before. This speaks to…. I was in a briefing this morning with staff from the minist ry.

I know that the Queen takes our responsibility very seriously to shine light upon those things that chan ge on our watch. I just want it to be clear, and the minister's done that by de- claring that there are new powers granted to the minis- ter as a result of this amendment in

section 3. Hon. R. Neufeld: It enhances the power and clari- fies it, and it's a power not to the minister but to cabi- net. How the cabinet minister at his or her peril can…say something and just go ahead and do it — may get in a fair amount of trouble with his or her col- leagues in cabinet later on, if it were something that were a little bit out there…. I agree with the member. I know that every gov- ernment has used directions. It's not that one govern- ment has and another government hasn't. For specific reasons, they do that, and they do it with trepidation, I can tell you.

I know, from our government, they do it with trepidation, and I'm sure that the last government and the government before also did it with trepidation. We needed to actually clarify it and make sure what it actually was. It's not conferring any new powers. It's enhancing what's there and clarifying it.

Section 3 approved. On

section 4. J. Horgan: With respect to this

section and the existing act, we're now dealing with …. "Commission's duties" is the heading for

section 5, and we're amending that section. We are now explicitly saying: "In this section, 'minister' means the minister responsible for the ad- ministration of the Hydro and Power Authority Act." Now, I appreciate that the Minister of Energy is responsible for B.C. Hydro at this present time, and ministers are responsible so me days for one thing and other days for others, depending on the Premier's wanting to saddle them with a lot of stuff or not. But as I understand it, the Utilities Commission Act is the responsibility today of the Attorney General.

I'm curious if the minister could explain to me why now the minister responsible for B.C. Hydro is named in the Utilities Commission Act. If it's nothing nefarious, that's grand, but I'm curious as to why it's there now. [1535] Hon. R. Neufeld: Nothing nefarious. This actually just leaves with the Attorney General…. The reason it went to the Attorney General was because the Utilities Commission now regulates more than just utilities. ICBC, for instance, is now regulated by the Utilities Commission. That's why it was moved from the Ministry of Energy, Mines to start with.

But this has to deal with energy, and we thought that the minister responsibl e for energy should be the minister responsible for the electricity part of it. That's why it's named in there that way. J. Horgan: I know I'm going to be jumping ahead here, but this may save us at the end of the debate. There are consequential amendments at the back of the bill, sections 18 and 19, to deal with ICBC and the Water Utility Act. Coming back to

section 4, where the minister's name, the minister responsible for B.C. Hydro…. The minister is not named on those other sections. Again, I know we're out of sequential order here, but is there any reason why that's left hanging, or is that because the Attorney General's responsible for those sections? Hon. R. Neufeld: I don't have any problem with going forward. But would you ask that question again, please? We're just having a little bit of trouble trying to understand what the question is. J. Horgan: Sure. I thank the minister for that.

As we get to the back of the bill — and we'll be able to fly through these sections at that time — sections 18 and 19 make consequential amendments to the Insurance Corporation Act and the Water Utility Act. The minister just said, in his response to why the Minister of Energy is now named in the act, that it's because the commis- sion now has other, broader responsibilities, so that it was felt important to name the Minister of Energy on these sections. I'm wonderin g why it wasn't important to do those sections. Hon. R. Neufeld: Under

section 19, at least what I'm told by the staff, it's to make sure that the issues that we're dealing with that deal with the utilities that are covered under this do not apply to the Water Util- ity Act. So it's just the reverse — okay?

10974 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES M ONDAY, APRIL 7, 2008 J. Horgan: I thank the minister and his staff for that. That'll be one less question to ask at the end. Still within

section 4, again, under the heading of what is in the act,

section 5, "Commission's duties," we now have

section 4(c), sections 4, 5, 6 and 7 through 9. I'm wondering if the minister could comment. "The commission, in accordance with subsection (5) must conduct an inquiry to make determinations with respect to British Columbia's infrastructure and capacity needs for electricity transmission for the period ending 20 years after the day the inquiry begins." I'm wondering what that means. [1540] Hon. R. Neufeld: Prior to this anticipated change — and it still has to be approved by the House — there was no requirement for B.C. Transmission to look for- ward 20 years, as there is now for B.C.

Hydro to look forward 20 years in generation capability. Transmission didn't have that responsibility, and we thought it was prudent that…. Let's say an inquiry started, for the purposes of this, a month from now. They have to look, from that period, 20 years out as to what would possibly be required so that planning for the future 20 years in transmission can be made, not in a per-project process but more long-term planning for the greater good of the utility. J. Horgan: That's useful for

section 4(5). If we go to the following page, subsection (7) says: "The minister may declare, by regulation, that the commission may not, during the period specified in the regulation, re- consider, vary or rescind a determination made under subsection (4)." I'm wondering if we're looking…. Again, I think everyone would applaud strategic planning and forward planning for our transmission and generation needs — even our distribution needs, I suppose. But then, when we tu rn the page, as it were — literally, with the bill — we find that….

Should, over the course of conducting investigation, new information come to light, I seem to think, as I read subsection (7), that that can't be brought forward to the commission for reconsideration. Is that an incorrect

interpretation? Hon. R. Neufeld: In my earlier response, I said BCTC didn't have to, and I was incorrect in that. They did, but they did in a very broad way, and they didn't do it in conjunction with other utilities, that being Fortis — right? So now they have to take that larger look, the 20 years out, incorporating….

We have another large utility in the province of British Columbia called Fortis, s o w e n e e d t o a c t u a l l y m a k e s u r e t h a t t h e y ' r e p a r t o f the long-term planning proc ess too, because there are some difficulties that are happening in that part of the world in regards to transmission. As I understand, it's to fi x the need for a period of time so that you don't constantly go back and keep reviewing transmission. Transmission is a lot of people. In fact, I often thought tran smission was probably the easier part to build, but it's apparently not.

I've experi- enced a few of those things in the last number of years with transmission. I'm sure the member is aware of it. So it takes a lot longer to get some of those things hap- p e n i n g . W e j u s t d i d n ' t w a n t i t t o b e s o m e t h i n g t h a t they constantly replan and replan and replan — that we actually look out 20 years and get on with doing it. [1545] J. Horgan: Of course, Fortis is the other large utility. I'm wondering, though. Just while we're on this, then, with respect to transmission, would this contemplate hooking up smaller generators?

Would that be part of a long-range plan, or will hooking up smaller generators still be on an as-needed basis, in terms of planning? Hon. R. Neufeld: Actually, although there will probably be some of that happening individually, it's to try to get away from that. You know, Hydro and Fortis and BCTC need to get together and actually get this plan figured out.

I think Hydro has a good idea of where the energy is generally going to come from — not always exactly where all of it's going to come from, but generally has a bit of an idea — so that we can actually build transmis- sion to those areas where generation will probably come from in the long term, so that when you build a line, you get the right-of-way and get the line built. You build it a bit for the future, instead of just building for the past. I think probably if we look at a lot of things that we have done in the province, and it's of no fault of any- one's….

But looking forward at some of these things, such as transmission, that take a long time to build and cost a lot of money…. We should be thinking out 20 years to make sure we build that so it at least facilitates the upgrading of something so that we can actually get more energy as we move forward and the province grows, even though we're going to try to get as much from conservation as possible. There's no doubt the province is going to continue to grow. It's a great place to live. People are coming here by the thousands, and they're going to continue to need electricity.

Probably, when you think about indus- try and those kinds of opportunities that take place and will take place in the province of British Columbia…. We need to be able to serve their needs. J. Horgan: Well, one of the areas that the minister, I know, is very interested in — as am I and certainly the members for North Coast and Skeena and the member from Bulkley Valley — is the electrification of Highway 37. I'm hopeful that when one thinks of providing large blocks of energy to industrial users…. I know that this isn't the right time.

I am planning a whole bunch of time on this in estimates with both the ministers responsible. But just as an example so we can close this section…. In the 20-year planning, would it be contemplating potential industrial activity, and would BCTC be directed to bring forward plans that contemplate industrial activi ty that's not yet on the ground — just based on what we would all hope might happen, subject to commodity prices being right and

MONDAY, APRIL 7, 2008 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 10975 capital for expansion and various corporate entities b e i n g r i g h t ? I s t h a t s o r t o f w h a t w e ' r e t a l k i n g a b o u t here? Hon. R. Neufeld: I think probably, in a nutshell…. And I'm sure that we will go through that at length in estimates about northwest tr ansmission line. But it's maybe, in a nutshell, to look at where the demand is, where the generation is and where the transmission has to be located to get that to where the major demand is. There would be all kinds of, which come out of that….

But we need to actu ally start looking at how that's done in a rational way and meets the ratepayers' best interests. That's the other part the commission has to be careful about — t h a t w e m a i n t a i n s o m e o f t h e lowest rates in North America moving forward. J. Horgan: J u s t a l a s t q u e s t i o n o n t h i s s e c t i o n , a n d that would be it. We were talking about BCTC, B.C. Hydro and Fortis. We could probably add Columbia Power, which was also kind of located in the southwest corner and needing transmission upgrades on the Fortis system to hook up with the BCTC system.

I gu ess my question would be burrowing down a little deeper to independent power producers who would require transmission hookups to the grid, to the BCTC system. [1550] I'm assuming that those hookups are not contem- plated in this section. Rather, that's part and parcel of a power purchase agreement and a commercial arrange- ment between the provider and B.C. Hydro. Hon. R. Neufeld: It looks at the major transmission and not the interconnections. That would be done in a separate process.

Section 4 approved. On

section 5. J. Horgan: In

section 5…. Again, for many people it's difficult to follow these debates, because people don't have access to statutes readily, even with the Internet. I try and find statutes through the very capable Legisla- tive Assembly webpage, and it takes me forever and ever. I'm very grateful to have a big pile of them right behind me here in my unique corner where I can grab them and refer to them. We're dealing now with persons generating elec- tricity for own use —

section 22, where we're repealing that

section and substituting the following with respect to exemptions. I'm wondering if the minister, again, who is named now in this section, could clarify for me what changes from

section 22 in the current act are now contemplated in

section 5's amendments. Hon. R. Neufeld: Actually, changing the minister responsible is pretty straightforward — to the minister responsible for energy. The on ly real change, as I un- derstand it, is adding transmission and distribution that can be exempted if, in fact, a cabinet deems that in the best interest. Also subsection (3) of the old act says "(

b) authorize the commission to make an order under subsection (2)." There's another

section coming further that will deal with that issue. J. Horgan: I thank the minister for that answer. Again, with some apprehension on my part with respect to eligible persons…. In

section (a), it says "generates, produces, trans- mits, distributes or sells." And as the minister just said, we added "distributes." Where did "sells" come from, and who can sell electricity in British Columbia right now? Hon. R. Neufeld: I f y o u g o b a c k t o t h e o l d a c t , " s e l l s " w a s t h e r e . I t ' s j u s t i n a d i f f e r e n t p a r t o f w h a t we're dealing with. So that's nothing new. J.

Horgan: Would an eligible person be someone who is perhaps in a net metering situation or someone who has a large number of solar panels to meet their own needs at their residenc e but yet has additional power that they can sell ba ck to the grid? Would they be contemplated in this

section — people like that? [1555] Hon. R. Neufeld: I am told that the net metering or the small ones may be under that or under the tariff that's already there with the Utilities Commission. So no, it doesn't mean that; it means the larger ones. Interjection. Hon. R. Neufeld: It means larger generators.

Section 5 approved. On

section 6. J. Horgan: As I read

section 6, it's amending

section 43 of the existing act. It is just about being compelled to respond to commission questions, and it tightens up the requirements for annual reports. Is that correct? Hon. R. Neufeld: Yes.

Section 6 approved. On

section 7. J. Horgan: In

section 7, in the explanatory notes — this is referring again to sections 44.1 and 44.2 in the existing act — it says as follows: that this now "requires public utilities to submit long-term resource plans to the commission and authorizes them to submit expendi- ture schedules to the commission." Could the minister explain what those expendit ure schedules would look like, or are they as they are today? Hon. R. Neufeld: What it is, is that you can get approval from the commission for your demand-side

10976 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES M ONDAY, APRIL 7, 2008 management, whatever form that may take. You'd have to get approval from the commission to do that. Or smaller capital projects, you could do it there, or electricity supply contracts. Those are just a few of the examples that expenditures would be related to that they could bring forward to the commission. Instead of doing each one individually, you could do a number of them at one time. J. Horgan: So "Long-term resource and conservation planning" is the subheading for this new section. It fits in with the duty to keep records, or it's under that

section of the new act. This is a new subsection, and it's quite extensive. It runs a number of pages in the new bill. I'm loath to let that go by, just because the Queen likes us to shine light on these things. Again, the intent, as I understand it, of the first sections, as the minister has explained, is to encourage demand-side manage- ment or find that as part of the requirement for utilities to ensure that they are regularly reporting on what measures they have in place.

We're going to get to smart meters in a second, but again, I'm giving the minister licence here to stand and tell me in great detail why we have eight subsections now, where there used to be none. Hon. R. Neufeld: Actually, it's not that there doesn't have to be any. It's to clarify it, put it out relatively straightforward so that the commission understands, and so do the utilities that are actually going before the commission. It's to make sure that they bring all the relative information forward so that the commission can make informed decisions as they move forward. [1600] Sections 7 and 8 approved. On

section 9. J. Horgan: In

section 9, we are now amending

section 46 of the Utilities Commission Act, and this is the pro- cedure on application. Again, I'm wondering at what point, if there is any in this section, interveners should be concerned. The "governm ent's energy objectives" could be a movable target, I think. One of the concerns that people have with this

section — who have talked to me, at any rate, and there may be others out there that are concerned as well — i s t h a t i t ' s f a i r l y b r o a d . A g a i n , t h e r e f o r e , i t ' s subject to potential abuse — not, certainly, by this minis- ter but by potential ministers in the future — as to what the government's energy objectives might be. Maybe a clarification of that now would be a good idea. Hon. R. Neufeld: I get the member's question. Really, and the member knows this, it's explained ear- lier. It's a

section to deal with the commission — that they must take into account a government's energy objectives. I would assume there are people who don't always like the energy objectives of any government. That's pretty understandable. That happened, I know, during the '90s. It has happened now. No one is immune to those kinds of things. This is just to actually inform the commission that t h e y m u s t l o o k a t t h e objectives of an energy plan put forward by a govern- ment and apply that energy plan.

I'm hopeful — and I'm always hopeful, Member — that regardless of whose government it is, people actually think through these things , and think through them well, before they bring them forward as policy. At least in our administration,

Document details

Collection	British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	H0407pm 09
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	H0407pm 09
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	00cc511b713a744092735b0c2edb059445139097

Source file is stored in the law ingest library (pdf).